Prince William

[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 ,

[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.