A NZ Republic and the Treaty

**wtf?** · 8th June 2012, 08:56

Following on the from the Queen's Jubilee and the shit stirrers threads...

What happens to the legitimacy of all the Treaty bullshit NZ'ers have been subjected to (and paid for) over the years when we finally become a Republic?

After all, if the general NZ populace get rid of the Crown then who is it exactly that the Maori activists should have their treaty arguments with? And don't say "The People", USA style. "The People" didn't sign the treaty.

Flame me out with an intelligent argument for either way.

**oldrider** · 8th June 2012, 09:34

Wishart has a new publication on this subject ... has anybody read it yet?

Supposed to be controversial! ... I haven't seen it on sale anywhere though!

**iYRe** · 8th June 2012, 10:22

We will never become a republic, unless the poms do away with the monarchy. And at that time, we'd have to become part of Australia, because we're too small to look after ourselves.

My family settled in NZ in 1838, and we are proud of our heritage and history. I will be the first one to fight any change to the our political status. It just doesnt make sense.. there is no benefit to being a republic, and a lot to lose.

**GrayWolf** · 8th June 2012, 10:23

Originally Posted by wtf?

Following on the from the Queen's Jubilee and the shit stirrers threads...

What happens to the legitimacy of all the Treaty bullshit NZ'ers have been subjected to (and paid for) over the years when we finally become a Republic?

After all, if the general NZ populace get rid of the Crown then who is it exactly that the Maori activists should have their treaty arguments with? And don't say "The People", USA style. "The People" didn't sign the treaty.

Flame me out with an intelligent argument for either way.

I think you'll find in the legal sense the treaty is a 'living document', not unlike the American Constitution, he is reputed to have based it on. So if that is the case the treaty will 'change' with the times so to speak. I dont know if the 'treaty claims' will be affected, but I am going to guess the 'much argued' Sovereign rights, will not alter with a change to a Republic.

**Headbanger** · 8th June 2012, 10:57

Write a new "founding" document, burn the treaty.

Rename the country and declare everyone present on (insert new name here) soil at this time to be (insert clever name for the people here) and as such everyone is to have the same rights.

The race based policies and divisionary monetary policies have to end, the only way to do that is to remove race from the equation.

**Winston001** · 8th June 2012, 11:29

All our laws would be adopted by the new Republic and references to "the Crown" would be deemed "the State". Easy.

**Flip** · 8th June 2012, 12:24

NZ will become a republic over my rotting corpse.

**wharekura** · 8th June 2012, 12:32

Treaty is the least of your redneck worries - "give me back my flag" Green Party Norman may have a point - maybe we'll have our currency with a translucent mao tse tung on it soon?

**wharekura** · 8th June 2012, 13:03

Here you go, feed on this - line up and please, no pushing in
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times...ats-on-council
(I have made a new thread to keep things on topic)

**Akzle** · 8th June 2012, 14:26

Originally Posted by Headbanger

Write a new "founding" document, burn the treaty.

Rename the country and declare everyone present on (insert new name here) soil at this time to be (insert clever name for the people here) and as such everyone is to have the same rights.

The race based policies and divisionary monetary policies have to end, the only way to do that is to remove race from the equation.

+1.

but i don't know why they bother arguing with the government/"crown", if they claim to be sovereign then they dont recognise the legitimacy (rightly so) of the government.

what you describe would be a constitution, and so long as the next "leaders" were actually REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and respecting the constitution, they would be lawful.

what i don't get is that everyone goes and gives these people (the politicians) the idea that they want them to make decisions for them. the only way they actually have legitimacy is a) force (their gang enforcers wear blue and carry guns) and b) consent....
why do people do it??

NZ doesn't need to suck australian teet, there is no reason we should be playing on a failing "world economy" anyway.
the thing about playing games where others make the rules (rather than being affected by, say, fairness or nature) is: they usually make rules so they win.
my dollar is worth .73 of that dollar, your national debt is 40 thou per person (NZ), this barrel of oil. that bar of gold.
WTF?

Originally Posted by Winston001

All our laws would be adopted by the new Republic and references to "the Crown" would be deemed "the State". Easy.

pretty much

(but ~~laws~~ -> legislation)