Prince William

[Elysium]

Well he's here at last and not surprisingly this brings up the debate about becomming a republc.

Now I aint a full on Royal fan but I don't mind the way the system is now. I'm not an expert in politics but I can't quite figure out how becomming another republic in the world benifits us in terms of trade, money etc...

Now I have a lot of respect for the guy, I mean he put his arse on the line in Iraq unlike the coward politicians who started the war and sat at home wasting tax payers money on things like porn, a moat, furniture for their posh houses. Can't say our own polticians behave any better.

But of course this is my opinion on the matter. What do you guys think?

[Fatt Max]

At the end of the day, Willy is a brit abroad at the expense of the British taxpayer (gawd bless 'em).

As long as he scores some coke, gets a good hard root off a heap of clean hookers, shoots some animals, smokes some weed and and gets a good hard root off a heap of clean hookers, he will be as happy as a pisshead in a curry house.

My opinion, fuck the lot of them. As a pommie myslef, I couldnt give two shits about the monarchy and all their hangers on. IMHO they are a bunch of over privaledged cunts, but that is MOI.

As for this Kate Middleton bird old Willy is throwing his willy into, I wouldnt touch ot with Carvers.......though I do have it on VERY good authority that she talkes it up the rusty.......see, money and position doesnt stop you from being an arse fucker........

The Queen is cunt as well.......imagine marrying a fucking Greek, they invented it....no wonder she always has her handbag with her, full of pile relief cream I'll wager....

[Skyryder]

Republic. Just another name for an 'Upper House.' Gonna cost heaps and for what??


Skyryder

[Pussy]

At the end of the day, Willy is a brit abroad at the expense of the British taxpayer (gawd bless 'em).

As long as he scores some coke, gets a good hard root off a heap of clean hookers, shoots some animals, smokes some weed and and gets a good hard root off a heap of clean hookers, he will be as happy as a pisshead in a curry house.

My opinion, fuck the lot of them. As a pommie myslef, I couldnt give two shits about the monarchy and all their hangers on. IMHO they are a bunch of over privaledged cunts, but that is MOI.

As for this Kate Middleton bird old Willy is throwing his willy into, I wouldnt touch ot with Carvers.......though I do have it on VERY good authority that she talkes it up the rusty.......see, money and position doesnt stop you from being an arse fucker........

The Queen is cunt as well.......imagine marrying a fucking Greek, they invented it....no wonder she always has her handbag with her, full of pile relief cream I'll wager....
But I'd like to know what you REALLY think of them!.....

[Trudes]

I don't know, but I'm going to go and see if I can lick Wills hand tomorrow. :bleh:

[wbks]

Well he's here at last and not surprisingly this brings up the debate about becomming a republc.

Now I aint a full on Royal fan but I don't mind the way the system is now. I'm not an expert in politics but I can't quite figure out how becomming another republic in the world benifits us in terms of trade, money etc...

Now I have a lot of respect for the guy, I mean he put his arse on the line in Iraq unlike the coward politicians who started the war and sat at home wasting tax payers money on things like porn, a moat, furniture for their posh houses. Can't say our own polticians behave any better.

But of course this is my opinion on the matter. What do you guys think?I think that it will be a lot of work and money and time for something that is ultimately a symbolic gesture to replace a symbolic figurehead. We gain absolutely nothing from it and risk actually creating turmoil in NZ by making a constitution that creates more problems than it solves... And I don't see how it would solve any problems, actually. The only people who would be any better off from it are the stupid, overly idealistic republicans who can sleep a little better being "proud, independent kiwis". Like someone on here said about another subject, "look at the proud little kiwi fluffing up its feathers". They're under an illusion if they think that becoming a republic would make us any less bound to work with/for the British/US, which according to a republican party supporter/member, is what they think they avoid by ceasing to swear "allegiance to the queen". Basically, it's a cosmetic deal which risks causing real problems, while solving none

[Foxzee]

I don't know, but I'm going to go and see if I can lick Wills hand tomorrow. :bleh:

LOL....let me know what he tastes like eh????:rolleyes:

[wbks]

Isn't Carver close to the Libertarian party some how? Where is he? I assume they are pro republic?

[Skyryder]

I think that it will be a lot of work and money and time for something that is ultimately a symbolic gesture to replace a symbolic figurehead. We gain absolutely nothing from it and risk actually creating turmoil in NZ by making a constitution that creates more problems than it solves... And I don't see how it would solve any problems, actually. The only people who would be any better off from it are the stupid, overly idealistic republicans who can sleep a little better being "proud, independent kiwis". Like someone on here said about another subject, "look at the proud little kiwi fluffing up its feathers". They're under an illusion if they think that becoming a republic would make us any less bound to work with/for the British/US, which according to a republican party supporter/member, is what they think they avoid by ceasing to swear "allegiance to the queen". Basically, it's a cosmetic deal which risks causing real problems

Keith Lock.............. the ultimate MP protester is for it. That makes it dodgy on it's own.

The republican thing is tied up with an Upper House to replace the powers of the Crown. No ones mentions this due to the cost. Another name is a retirement home for MP's where they can sit on their arses in the belief that that are still serving thie country feeding from even a bigger trough than the one they have just left.


Skyryder

[wbks]

Keith Lock.............. the ultimate MP protester is for it. That makes it dodgy on it's own.

The republican thing is tied up with an Upper House to replace the powers of the Crown. No ones mentions this due to the cost. Another name is a retirement home for MP's where they can sit on their arses in the belief that that are still serving thie country feeding from even a bigger trough than the one they have just left.


Skyryder
My main concern is the creation of another governing document that we are supposed to live our lives by for the next couple hundred years. How many people in NZ politics would you trust to have such a responsibility? But yes, people who think that replacing the monarchy would leave an empty void are somewhat like the communist party members in NZ over the years who think that (contrary to countless real world examples) communism creates a better standard of life for its people and is more "morally conscious". To be honest, if there was more mainstream, 6pm news kind of promotion of republicanism in NZ, most people in NZ would vote for the ideals of it, putting little thought into the realities. Of course, they'd all turn backwards crying when they see the problems and cost of it like you mentioned

[wbks]

Seems I'm wrong on the constitution business, according to the republican movement of NZ website, it wouldn't involve a change of the flag (strange considering the whole thing is symbolic and the union jack is symbolic on the flag... Must be picking their battles, huh), commonwealth membership (knew that already) and the treaty of Waitangi... So besides the official head of state being elected by US, what does it change?
http://www.republic.org.nz

[Hitcher]

Anybody who thinks that republicanism is a simple choice between a "royal family" or some sort of harmless elected figurehead as our head of state is disturbingly naive.

Much of our legislation, including such things as the Treaty of Waitangi, are contracts with the Crown. Remove the Crown and all of those contracts will require some sort of negotiation. Add to that the fact that New Zealand has no formal Constitution or proper Bill of Rights, and some reality about the amount of legislative effort required to set up a republic should be starting to dawn.

Add to that New Zealanders' predilection for titular honours, institutions prefaced by the descriptor "Royal" and fawning over visiting Princes, it's not hard to imagine a nation that remains a constitutional monarchy long after Pomgolia becomes a republic.

[nosebleed]

I thought it was a colloquialism for an 'adventurous' piercing

[wbks]

Anybody who thinks that republicanism is a simple choice between a "royal family" or some sort of harmless elected figurehead as our head of state is disturbingly naive.See, that is the main argument people seem to be promoting it for (and of course there are more meaningful points), but that is also what people criticise it for!

Their reasons for change are these:
# bringing our head of state home, to our place;
# signalling our independence and maturity to the world;
# emphasising that power should come from the people;
# clarifying the role and powers of our head of state; and
# erasing the archaic succession rules of the monarchy.
These are all idealistic changes, and seem nothing more than cosmetic, yes? They recognize that this is mostly symbolic, and state that symbolism is incredibly important, but I really don't see how? I personally don't need to be symbolically free of the "old country" to feel proud to be a NZer.

[Hitcher]

Don't forget that Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of New Zealand. The fact that she is also the Poms' Queen is nothing more than an accident of history. Even better is that our Queen is normally non-resident and largely not a drain on the long-suffering Kiwi taxpayer.

[Pussy]

I thought it was a colloquialism for an 'adventurous' piercing
You're thinking of one of William's great great uncles.... Albert

You're welcome! :)

[wbks]

Don't forget that Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of New Zealand. The fact that she is also the Poms' Queen is nothing more than an accident of history. Even better is that our Queen is normally non-resident and largely not a drain on the long-suffering Kiwi taxpayer.So you agree that she is marely a figurehead with no negative consequence on NZ?

[Hitcher]

So you agree that she is marely a figurehead with no negative consequence on NZ?

Yes. And I also think that you need to beware of the zealots from the Scottish Thread, given your recent claims of excellence. Marely indeed...

[Ixion]

So you agree that she is marely a figurehead with no negative consequence on NZ?
Not quite. She is a figure head who stops OTHER people NOT being figureheads. F'instance, the army are NOT , ultimately, accountable to the Prime Minister. They are under the command of the Queen (through her GG). Thus keeping final control of the armed forces out of political hands. For an example of what can happen when that is not the case , see Fiji. Ditto police.


Seems I'm wrong on the constitution business, according to the republican movement of NZ website, it wouldn't involve a change of the flag (strange considering the whole thing is symbolic and the union jack is symbolic on the flag... Must be picking their battles, huh), commonwealth membership (knew that already) and the treaty of Waitangi... So besides the official head of state being elected by US, what does it change?
http://www.republic.org.nz

The argument that "there will be no change" is disingenuous in the extreme.

It is a long standing constitutional convention that the Queen is above party politics. But it is impossible to imagine a Presidential position in NZ NOT being a party political one. So that is a VERY major change.You can't just elect someone and say he (she) takes the place of the Queen. Immediately, instead of a figurehead (in which reposes the reserve powers ) , you have a politician. One reason for the 'figurehead' position is that there are some powers that are to great and too tempting to be trusted to any politician.

I defy any republican to suggest a name that would take the job, that would do it adequately, and that would be satisfactory to a majority of the country . How many people want President Helen Clark? But she would be the most likely present contender for the role.

And if the President is political, then you have a major issue with conflict between the President and the Prime Minister . Even if from the same party there'll be conflict , if from opposing parties, major conflict. There's a reason that the USA has no prime minister. So if you want a NZ president, you have to reckon on maybe getting rid of the role of prime minister. Or else a prime minister-president with power colossally greater than at present .

No changes ? Yeah, right. Me, I'd rather have Queen Liz than President Helen. (Of course, I'd rather have the rightful monarch, King Francis, than either of them)

[wbks]

Yes. And I also think that you need to beware of the zealots from the Scottish Thread, given your recent claims of excellence. Marely indeed...
Like I said if you were following closely enough: Spelling doesn't matter in NZQA, just understanding of concepts within the English language. And seeing as I obviously spell well enough for you to understand, and the markers each year, that doesn't come into the equation. Are certain people really so left for dead in that thread that they can only pick apart my spelling?

[wbks]

Not quite. She is a figure head who stops OTHER people NOT being figureheads. F'instance, the army are NOT , ultimately, accountable to the Prime Minister. They are under the command of the Queen (through her GG). Thus keeping final control of the armed forces out of political hands. For an example of what can happen when that is not the case , see Fiji. Ditto police.



The argument that "there will be no change" is disingenuous in the extreme.

It is a long standing constitutional convention that the Queen is above party politics. But it is impossible to imagine a Presidential position in NZ NOT being a party political one. So that is a VERY major change.You can't just elect someone and say he (she) takes the place of the Queen. Immediately, instead of a figurehead (in which reposes the reserve powers ) , you have a politician. One reason for the 'figurehead' position is that there are some powers that are to great and too tempting to be trusted to any politician.

I defy any republican to suggest a name that would take the job, that would do it adequately, and that would be satisfactory to a majority of the country . How many people want President Helen Clark? But she would be the most likely present contender for the role.

And if the President is political, then you have a major issue with conflict between the President and the Prime Minister . Even if from the same party there'll be conflict , if from opposing parties, major conflict. There's a reason that the USA has no prime minister. So if you want a NZ president, you have to reckon on maybe getting rid of the role of prime minister. Or else a prime minister-president with power colossally greater than at present .

No changes ? Yeah, right. Me, I'd rather have Queen Liz than President Helen. (Of course, I'd rather have the rightful monarch, King Francis, than either of them)Thanks for this post, I'm getting a better understanding of the whole subject, I'll be the first to admit that I have a very basic understanding of it, just what little I do know leaves me in favor of the "status quo". One of the reasons I thought that change would be minimal, is how would the prime minister and president operate together, like you mentioned. I can't help but think that scrapping a prime minister all together is pretty major. I wonder how Russia operates with a PM and President?... Maybe I know way too little about her seeing as I was younger and not at all interested in politics when she "reigned", but what little I do know actually makes me think she may be, ultimately, a good leader for New Zealand. I could say why but you probably disagree.

[Hitcher]

Are certain people really so left for dead in that thread that they can only pick apart my spelling?

Let's just say that you overestimate yourself at your peril in that particular thread and leave it at that. This conversation should also be had there rather than here. That's more than a mare detail...

[wbks]

Let's just say that you overestimate yourself at your peril in that particular thread and leave it at that. This conversation should also be had there rather than here. That's more than a mare detail...

Lol I'll say that I'm not particularly ashamed to be out of the loop regarding that 1300 or so pages, and leave it at that

[Elysium]

Funny enough if we ever do become a republic we'll just end up being part of Australia not long after.

[wbks]

Funny enough if we ever do become a republic we'll just end up being part of Australia not long after.
I know you're probably saying this tongue in cheek, but...
Um... Why?

[Elysium]

I know you're probably saying this tongue in cheek, but...
Um... Why?

You do realise how dependant we are on them right?

[Skyryder]

Yes. And I also think that you need to beware of the zealots from the Scottish Thread, given your recent claims of excellence. Marely indeed...

It is a mistake to see the Queen as a figure head. She is the embodiement of he Crown and t without her authority (Gov Gen) nothing becomes law and Parliment is not ursurpped. The Queen weilds the big stick (the military by command of the Gov Gen.) to ensure that the laws of this land are promulgated lawfully.

Shit we can not even agree on how to hold our elections and some want to change from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic.


Skyryder

[Winston001]

The interesting reaction to republicanism is that the citizens create a de facto royalty to replace what is gone. Just look at the USA adoration of movie stars. Daily they get more crowds and pizzazz than the British royalty ever get. One of the English reporters following William pointed that out today. For some reason we like to put someone up on a pedestal.

Our constitutional monarchy is benign and serves us well.

[Skyryder]

Thanks for this post, I'm getting a better understanding of the whole subject, I'll be the first to admit that I have a very basic understanding of it, just what little I do know leaves me in favor of the "status quo". One of the reasons I thought that change would be minimal, is how would the prime minister and president operate together, like you mentioned. I can't help but think that scrapping a prime minister all together is pretty major. I wonder how Russia operates with a PM and President?... Maybe I know way too little about her seeing as I was younger and not at all interested in politics when she "reigned", but what little I do know actually makes me think she may be, ultimately, a good leader for New Zealand. I could say why but you probably disagree.


The President and PM would not operate together. Their powers would be seperate. The President would fullfill the functions of the Gov Gen. Head of the Military. Then again there my not be a PM. Just a President. The Powers of the Gove Gen could go to an Upper House as it is with Congress. like I said in another post we can not even agree on how to hold our elections without someone advoacting change. NZ a republic??...............I don't see a fish in the land any more.............but with a bit of imagination...........we could look like a bannanna.

skyryder

[oldrider]

Isn't Carver close to the Libertarian party some how? Where is he? I assume they are pro republic?

Good question!

You may be right, I think Carver would direct such inquiries here: www.libertarianz.org.nz Principals/objectives! :shifty:

[James Deuce]

Not quite. She is a figure head who stops OTHER people NOT being figureheads. F'instance, the army are NOT , ultimately, accountable to the Prime Minister. They are under the command of the Queen (through her GG). Thus keeping final control of the armed forces out of political hands. For an example of what can happen when that is not the case , see Fiji. Ditto police.





The Army is the only branch of the NZ Armed Forces that doesn't have a royal warrant. The Air Force and Navy are under command of the Queen. The Army is not.

[James Deuce]

Our constitutional monarchy is benign and serves us well.

It's not constitutional monarchy if you don't have a constitution.

[Mully]

Meh.

If it's working(ish), why mess with it?

NZ has much bigger problems we should be focussing on before we look at the looxury of messing with the Status Quo.

And Skyrider's right - if we can't agree on how to elect the clowns that we have now, how can we be trusted with any more.

[Skyryder]

It's not constitutional monarchy if you don't have a constitution.

We do have a constitution in case law and we are a Constitutinal Monarchy. Our style of democracy or if you will another name is the Westminster System.

Skyryder

[James Deuce]

Which most emphatically does not provide for individual constitutional rights.

[Skyryder]

The Army is the only branch of the NZ Armed Forces that doesn't have a royal warrant. The Air Force and Navy are under command of the Queen. The Army is not.

Without openly disagreeing with the above the full title of the Gov. Gen suggests otherwise.

The full title of the role is that of "Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over New Zealand".


Others on here with a military service might know more. I only come from a military family.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Which most emphatically does not provide for individual constitutional rights.


Well if the courts don't provide for indavidual rights and this is where case law is derived from and with it our constitution whose rights does the courts protect?


Skyryder

[oldrider]

Well if the courts don't provide for indavidual rights and this is where case law is derived from and with it our constitution whose rights does the courts protect?
Skyryder

I have always "assumed" it was the protection of the rights of the "Crown"!

[Ixion]

Our consititution is largely unwritten, though there are specific documents that underpin it (Eg Bill of Rights, the real one not Geoff Palmers; Act of Succession - lying bit of propaganda though it is ).

Case law is not specifically related to the constitution, though , since the constitution is not embodied by statute, any challenge will probably be decided by case law. Case law is the embodiment of the common law, the corpus of understood law that has existed from Time Immemorial ,a legal term , usually meaning before 1199. In effect , a lot of our law and constituion is so old that there is no original document - it got lost 1000 years ago if it ever existed. It's stuff that every body has always agreed is so, and courts over the centuries have handed down decisions based on it - the "cases". So modern courts look at what previous courts said to determine "what" was previously reckoned to "have always been agreed".

[Skyryder]

I have always "assumed" it was the protection of the rights of the "Crown"!

In a crimnal court the Crown is the prosecuting party. The Judge adjudicates on behalf of both the defendant and the crown. Well that's the theory but in the case of my sig it never happened for the defendant.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Our consititution is largely unwritten, though there are specific documents that underpin it (Eg Bill of Rights, the real one not Geoff Palmers; Act of Succession - lying bit of propaganda though it is ).

Case law is not specifically related to the constitution, though , since the constitution is not embodied by statute, any challenge will probably be decided by case law. Case law is the embodiment of the common law, the corpus of understood law that has existed from Time Immemorial ,a legal term , usually meaning before 1199. In effect , a lot of our law and constituion is so old that there is no original document - it got lost 1000 years ago if it ever existed. It's stuff that every body has always agreed is so, and courts over the centuries have handed down decisions based on it - the "cases". So modern courts look at what previous courts said to determine "what" was previously reckoned to "have always been agreed".

You said it better than I could. For simplicity I was referring to 'our' constitution in the manner that you have described. We have what is euphemistically called an 'unwritten constitution' an oxymoran if there ever was one.


Skyryder

[Elysium]

We've done well without an Constitution so far so do we really need one? I mean America has one but look how many admenments their govenment breaks.

[crazyhorse]

Its good to see him back visiting the land where he took his first steps .......
http://www.elliottautographs.com/autographs/pictures/princessdiana.jpg

[Trudes]

Its good to see him back visiting the land where he took his first steps .......


Funny how he still looks like that eh, just taller and balder. (I'm a fan of Harry, I like cheeky little boys... even if he's a ginga)

[crazyhorse]

:devil2:
Funny how he still looks like that eh, just taller and balder. (I'm a fan of Harry, I like cheeky little boys... even if he's a ginga)

I actually thought the same when I found the pic..... Harry, well, yes, he is a trouble making dare devil....

[Winston001]

We've done well without an Constitution so far so do we really need one? I mean America has one but look how many admenments their govenment breaks.

Quite right. The American experience illustrates what a drag on society a written constitution can be. Nice idea certainly but concepts from the 18th century do not translate well to the 21st eg. the right to bear arms.

IMHO we'd be much better discussing how we can ever catch up with Australia economically than worrying about problems which don't exist.

[rapid van cleef]

despite what the rest of the world thinks. very few of us brits actually give a shit about the royal family. the history of the royal family brings a lot of cash into the uk........tourist places, memorabilia etc................its all tacky shite n bollocks even the crown jewels on display are fake the real ones are locked away.....all of those tourists are getting ripped off standing in line..............i did it when i was a kid with a school trip. i felt robbed .............fuck em all............ i didnt vote for them and dont know a single person that did!

and the palace is dirty!

castles are cool though!

[Mikkel]

Now I have a lot of respect for the guy, I mean he put his arse on the line in Iraq unlike the coward politicians who started the war and sat at home wasting tax payers money on things like porn, a moat, furniture for their posh houses.

Yes, I really adore upper-society kids that insist on going out to play war. Anyone who believe that the prince partook in the war on the same level as your average grunt are more than slightly naive I should think. That said, I wasn't there... however, I shall still retain my cynicism on the matter.


Much of our legislation, including such things as the Treaty of Waitangi, are contracts with the Crown. Remove the Crown and all of those contracts will require some sort of negotiation. Add to that the fact that New Zealand has no formal Constitution or proper Bill of Rights, and some reality about the amount of legislative effort required to set up a republic should be starting to dawn.

Add to that New Zealanders' predilection for titular honours, institutions prefaced by the descriptor "Royal" and fawning over visiting Princes, it's not hard to imagine a nation that remains a constitutional monarchy long after Pomgolia becomes a republic.

You make that sound like that would somehow be a bad thing...

NZ could really benefit of not having the ghost of the Waitangi treaty hanging around the closet. After all, having a treaty between a colonial power based on the other side of the planet and indigenous tribes does seem to be somewhat outdated in anno domino 2010.

No, I am not fooling myself that it would be an easy or quick change - but not doing it because it's difficult, would take time and cost money are the wrong reasons. Or is the kiwi short-sightedness that ingrown? Should this country not strive to move forwards and upwards instead of just going with the "she'll be right mate" mentality?

[wbks]

Yes, I really adore upper-society kids that insist on going out to play war. Anyone who believe that the prince partook in the war on the same level as your average grunt are more than slightly naive I should think. That said, I wasn't there... however, I shall still retain my cynicism on the matter.Though, like you admit, you don't really have much room to judge, being that you've probably never been to Iraq, especially in a state of war



You make that sound like that would somehow be a bad thing...

NZ could really benefit of not having the ghost of the Waitangi treaty hanging around the closet.The main Republican proponants propose no change to the treaty After all, having a treaty between a colonial power based on the other side of the planet and indigenous tribes does seem to be somewhat outdated in anno domino 2010.

No, I am not fooling myself that it would be an easy or quick change - but not doing it because it's difficult, would take time and cost money are the wrong reasons. Or is the kiwi short-sightedness that ingrown?Short sightedness? Personally, the pro's of turning NZ into a republic seem pretty short sighted, IMO. Should this country not strive to move forwards and upwards instead of just going with the "she'll be right mate" mentality?Just my 10 cents

[Mikkel]

Just my 10 cents

Yeah, not a whole dollar that's for sure... Sloppy quotation too.

1) So you believe for yourself that the prince partook in front-line duty at exactly the same terms as the average soldier? Seriously? My reason for noting I had not been to Iraq was as much to point out that neither has the majority of the people, you included I would dare guess, who might have an opinion on the matter. Just gobbling down what's being reported in te News "as is" without critical review is naive. Then you add "especially in a state of war" to the end of it - how is that relevant. The only way you'd have any knowledge would have been if you'd been serving next to the fella...

2) I never said I was one of the "main Republican proponants", whatever you mean by that. (It's proponents btw.) Nor that I agreed with all of their ideas. Monarchy, IMHO, is an ancient - and rather fucked-up, institution relying on the idea that one specific family has special rights in regards to the land and its use. But hey, we haven't got rid of religion either - and they actually aren't that different. Not settling the matter of that treaty if you had to review various legal constructions would be pretty damn silly.

3) Which pros of turning NZ into a republic (or whatever - for the record I am merely suggesting getting rid of monarchy, not saying that it should be a republic) are short-sighted in your opinion? Easy to say you have an opinion, now please substantiate that. Or are you merely of the opinion that everything is just dandy, no improvements possible and that the institution that is the royal family is a wonderful representation for the country?

[wbks]

Yeah, not a whole dollar that's for sure... Sloppy quotation too.

1) So you believe for yourself that the prince partook in front-line duty at exactly the same terms as the average soldier? Seriously? My reason for noting I had not been to Iraq was as much to point out that neither has the majority of the people, you included I would dare guess, who might have an opinion on the matter. Just gobbling down what's being reported in te News "as is" without critical review is naive. Then you add "especially in a state of war" to the end of it - how is that relevant. The only way you'd have any knowledge would have been if you'd been serving next to the fella...You know I didn't say he served like the average foot soldier, you know that. I just said that front line or not, someone who has been there has more room to talk than either of us, whether they are a "pampered rich kid" or not.

2) I never said I was one of the "main Republican proponants", whatever you mean by that. (It's proponents btw.) Nor that I agreed with all of their ideas. Monarchy, IMHO, is an ancient - and rather fucked-up, institution relying on the idea that one specific family has special rights in regards to the land and its use. But hey, we haven't got rid of religion either - and they actually aren't that different. Not settling the matter of that treaty if you had to review various legal constructions would be pretty damn silly.No, you didn't say that you were a main republican proponant, I just said that there is no chance in hell of there being a constitution being written up, anyway

3) Which pros of turning NZ into a republic (or whatever - for the record I am merely suggesting getting rid of monarchy, not saying that it should be a republic) are short-sighted in your opinion? Easy to say you have an opinion, now please substantiate that. Or are you merely of the opinion that everything is just dandy, no improvements possible and that the institution that is the royal family is a wonderful representation for the country?.The "pros" that are put forward are all symbolic, and assume that NZ will some how be in its own eyes, and the eyes of the world, a proud independent sovereign country. Isn't that rather short sighted to say when you look at it more precisely? I mean, sure, there is the chance for huge issues to arise from it, and there is virtually nothing to be gained apart from fairly transparent and weak ideology
I'd like to tell you to go fuck yourself because you've so arrogantly misunderstood everything I said in that thread, but here are my answers

[Mikkel]

.The "pros" that are put forward are all symbolic, and assume that NZ will some how be in its own eyes, and the eyes of the world, a proud independent sovereign country. Isn't that rather short sighted to say when you look at it more precisely? I mean, sure, there is the chance for huge issues to arise from it, and there is virtually nothing to be gained apart from fairly transparent and weak ideology

Maybe sorting this stuff out could provide a better sense of national identity - "the eyes of the world" are irrelevant - the benefits of that would be short-sighted how? Or would you prefer to keep on playing a perpetual game of cowboys, indians and gold diggers (or Colonials, Maori and Asians in this case)?
Chance for huge issues to arise? What issues are these? And when you say chance I have to expect you to believe these would be positive.
Or is it because you think that the United Kingdom is a great country to emulate? In that case I'd have to disagree.


I'd like to tell you to go fuck yourself because you've so arrogantly misunderstood everything I said in that thread, but here are my answers

I think you actually just did, albeit in a rather round about way.

First, let's clarify something. You didn't say anything, you wrote something.
Second, I read your replies as written, if they left room for misinterpretation then the fault lies solely with you, expressing yourself in an ambiguous manner. If you genuinely believe I have misunderstood anything you wrote, by all means feel free to point it out, if not please don't insinuate it.
Third, learn to break up quotes - it is not that difficult.

[wbks]

Maybe sorting this stuff out could provide a better sense of national identity - "the eyes of the world" are irrelevant - the benefits of that would be short-sighted how? Or would you prefer to keep on playing a perpetual game of cowboys, indians and gold diggers (or Colonials, Maori and Asians in this case)?
Chance for huge issues to arise? What issues are these? And when you say chance I have to expect you to believe these would be positive.
Or is it because you think that the United Kingdom is a great country to emulate? In that case I'd have to disagree.



I think you actually just did, albeit in a rather round about way.

First, let's clarify something. You didn't say anything, you wrote something.
Second, I read your replies as written, if they left room for misinterpretation then the fault lies solely with you, expressing yourself in an ambiguous manner. If you genuinely believe I have misunderstood anything you wrote, by all means feel free to point it out, if not please don't insinuate it.
Third, learn to break up quotes - it is not that difficult.I know how to, it's just easier to write in them.
Look, I don't know F all about the UK, nor care about it, to be honest. I just think that such a large transformation uses (as you admit) vast resources from money to human hours spent on something that doesn't change a thing about the place, not to mention fucking up the next 200 years with a poorly made constitution, because you (and others) somehow trust this batch of politicians to make such a thing. Do you really think that most NZers think about themselves as in a country with some kind of "gold diggers and maoris" world like you describe? Heres my take on NZ's status Re: forming an identity for ourselves: Absolutely nothing about what makes me proud to be a kiwi changes if it becomes a republic. Sure, we can say we are finally truely independant... But do you really believe that it would make us more independant than we are now? As other people pointed out here, NZ relies heavily on other countries and because of this we would still be viewed and interacted with by other countries exactly the same. Don't get snippy because I'm making a broad statement here, but do you think that we wouldn't be "obliged" to "assist" America in Afghanistan and any future wars if we were a republic, or have any less distance from "the queen"'s influence?

[Tink]

At the end of the day, Willy is a brit abroad at the expense of the British taxpayer (gawd bless 'em)....

I am sure I heard on the news, NZ is putting up some money, hence 3 days here, and Oz nothing hence 24 hrs or something...

[Skyryder]

I am sure I heard on the news, NZ is putting up some money, hence 3 days here, and Oz nothing hence 24 hrs or something...

If we invite the Royals we pay.

Skyryder

[oldrider]

If we invite the Royals we pay.

Skyryder

Yes, we pay when the Royals visit but we don't pay for the rest of their time (while they are on standby for us) the Brits pay for that!

We do of course have to pay for the cost of their representative in NZ...The Governor General....Value for money?

It's not a bad deal really, we get all of the benefits of a Rolls Royce royal family on an Austin seven budget, why do we keep looking a gift horse in the mouth?

Becoming a Republic may not be the Panacea that the proponents claim it is, it will very likely cost us more than it does now for no real benefit!

President "Helen Clark" god forbid but it could happen.....better the devil you know like the status quo perhaps!

Personally I am not really convinced either way, bit of a fence sitter on this one!

[crazyhorse]

I thought it was funny to hear about the bloke who jumped the fence with his bbq pack of sausages....... well, he tried to join them for dinner.......... spoil sports wouldn't let him stay , :rofl:

[MisterD]

....better the devil you know like the status quo perhaps!

President Rick Parfitt? I like your thinking.

[Big Dave]

The only constant is that whatever system is suggested - about half the populace don't like it.

At least The Royals give the old dears something to be interested in.

[Oscar]

Not quite. She is a figure head who stops OTHER people NOT being figureheads. F'instance, the army are NOT , ultimately, accountable to the Prime Minister. They are under the command of the Queen (through her GG). Thus keeping final control of the armed forces out of political hands. For an example of what can happen when that is not the case , see Fiji. Ditto police.



The argument that "there will be no change" is disingenuous in the extreme.

It is a long standing constitutional convention that the Queen is above party politics. But it is impossible to imagine a Presidential position in NZ NOT being a party political one. So that is a VERY major change.You can't just elect someone and say he (she) takes the place of the Queen. Immediately, instead of a figurehead (in which reposes the reserve powers ) , you have a politician. One reason for the 'figurehead' position is that there are some powers that are to great and too tempting to be trusted to any politician.

I defy any republican to suggest a name that would take the job, that would do it adequately, and that would be satisfactory to a majority of the country . How many people want President Helen Clark? But she would be the most likely present contender for the role.

And if the President is political, then you have a major issue with conflict between the President and the Prime Minister . Even if from the same party there'll be conflict , if from opposing parties, major conflict. There's a reason that the USA has no prime minister. So if you want a NZ president, you have to reckon on maybe getting rid of the role of prime minister. Or else a prime minister-president with power colossally greater than at present .

No changes ? Yeah, right. Me, I'd rather have Queen Liz than President Helen. (Of course, I'd rather have the rightful monarch, King Francis, than either of them)

You seem to miss the fact that the Governor General is a de facto Government Appointment.
The Government of the day 'recommends" the appointment to the Crown - even in the case of a controversial appointment (Keith Holyoake) the Crown has never argued.

If New Zealand became a parliamentary constitutional republic the office could be changed from Governor General to President with little or no change to the appointment system with the exception of Royal approval - this could be substituted by a 2/3s majority in Parliament or the like.

Alternatively we could adopt the Irish system, where the President (with very similar powers to the Governor General here in NZ) is elected by popular vote.

This also gets rid of the bogey of having a US-style President.
This is a rather disingenuous argument which was used to great effect in Australian referendum.
It ignores (as do you) the fact that there are many countries with both a PM and a President, and that most Presidents in Democracies have limited political power. Ireland (as mentioned above) is a good example, as is India, Italy, Iceland, Germany, Austria and Greece.

[Oscar]

Which most emphatically does not provide for individual constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights is your friend...

[Mikkel]

I know how to, it's just easier to write in them.

May be, but it makes it very difficult to respond to your statements since quotes aren't included in quotes.


Look, I don't know F all about the UK, nor care about it, to be honest. I just think that such a large transformation uses (as you admit) vast resources from money to human hours spent on something that doesn't change a thing about the place, not to mention fucking up the next 200 years with a poorly made constitution, because you (and others) somehow trust this batch of politicians to make such a thing.

Dare I suggest that it would be appropriate to take some interest in the history of the UK? Not only has it had a significant impact upon your country, but also upon global politics and technological and ideological evolution - besides it's a very interesting story filled with action, intrigue and greed, you will be entertained I promise.

You assume that a new constitution would have to be poorly made - how about some good old kiwi ingenuity? (Although the No.8 wire won't cut it this time I am afraid.) Fucking up 200 years? Well, we've managed to make do with a sub-standard one for 160 years now... perhaps it would make sense to address the issue? Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that we throw it all out and start from scratch - but a revision might be in order.

Social change can happen progressively over time - but sometimes it is necessary to take significant discrete steps in order to set things right. Any legal document written more than 50 years ago would have been written in quite a different reality from what we are living in today.


Do you really think that most NZers think about themselves as in a country with some kind of "gold diggers and maoris" world like you describe?

Not most - but there's a lot more of nasty shit like that than most people are happy to admit. At least it isn't as bad as where I am coming from...


Heres my take on NZ's status Re: forming an identity for ourselves: Absolutely nothing about what makes me proud to be a kiwi changes if it becomes a republic. Sure, we can say we are finally truely independant... But do you really believe that it would make us more independant than we are now? As other people pointed out here, NZ relies heavily on other countries and because of this we would still be viewed and interacted with by other countries exactly the same. Don't get snippy because I'm making a broad statement here, but do you think that we wouldn't be "obliged" to "assist" America in Afghanistan and any future wars if we were a republic, or have any less distance from "the queen"'s influence?

Being a kiwi is nothing to be proud of - you've done nothing to achieve that status and it doesn't make you better than anyone else. So let's cut out the nationalistic nonsense.
All countries depend upon other countries - always have always will. And I am not just talking about military alliances.
And you keep on saying "if it becomes a republic" I must repeat, I am not saying it should become a republic. It's not a black and white world of monarchy versus republic. And no, I am no statesman and I have no real suggestions. But the current configuration does seem more than a bit odd really. And with the direction that the UK is headed these days cutting all constitutional ties with them would seem to prudent decision.


At least The Royals give the old dears something to be interested in.

Doesn't mean they stop complaining though...

[Oscar]

Being a kiwi is nothing to be proud of - you've done nothing to achieve that status and it doesn't make you better than anyone else. So let's cut out the nationalistic nonsense.






That's the most sense anyone's made in the joint for a long time.

[wbks]

May be, but it makes it very difficult to respond to your statements since quotes aren't included in quotes. Happy?





You assume that a new constitution would have to be poorly made - how about some good old kiwi ingenuity? (Although the No.8 wire won't cut it this time I am afraid.) Fucking up 200 years? Well, we've managed to make do with a sub-standard one for 160 years now... perhaps it would make sense to address the issue? Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that we throw it all out and start from scratch - but a revision might be in order. Like you said later in this post, social change can happen progressively over time, and I believe that most of the problems in NZ are better sorted via that path than (what you keep saying you don't advocate), republicanism.


Any legal document written more than 50 years ago would have been written in quite a different reality from what we are living in today. That's a good point. But such important legal documents can't just change after someone deems that there has been a significant stage of change in the world legally, can they? If they could there would be no point in it, it wouldn't be a governing document, just a document that changes to suit your behavior.




Not most - but there's a lot more of nasty shit like that than most people are happy to admit. At least it isn't as bad as where I am coming from...I don't know where you're from, but though there is a lot more nasty shit than people like to admit, NZ seems to rate pretty highly among people who live here, regardless of "nationalistic nonsense", many of whom are either from another part of the world or have experience living outside of NZ for comparison.




Being a kiwi is nothing to be proud of - you've done nothing to achieve that status and it doesn't make you better than anyone else. So let's cut out the nationalistic nonsense.Maybe we're thinking along different lines here... I'm not claiming it makes me better than anyone else, but many people have done something to achieve that status, no matter how small it is. So if you were thinking of some kind of blind patriotism, you're misguided by thinking that of me. I have my reasons, and they are real examples from my short time here, it's not just naive support like angry football fans cheering for their team regardless of what happens, which I admit seems to be what much patriotism is.

[Big Dave]

President Rick Parfitt? I like your thinking.

The Party Ain't Over Yet