New Zealand and Australian Goverments are talking

[PacMaan]

tbh, i thought it was already.... lol

[Iminicus]

My only concern is how Maori and Polynesian 'politics' would fit into Australia. Sure, there's a number and a half of them over there on the West Island, but they don't share the same status as they do in New Zealand (e.g. the Treaty of Waitangi and the Maori's subsequent land claims).

 

Economically though, it'd benefit New Zealand. With all the Kiwis crossing the ditch leaving the country to be run by transsexual women , a unified economy could be a cheap way to get the 'goodies' back.

 

But meh, I couldn't care less.

Well, Australia, NZ and those pesky f*cking islands would all united under a common constitution and thus become a Republic. This means leaving the Commonwealth and being truly independent of British Rule.

 

All the treaties would be void since they are treaties between The Crown and the Natives of each country. In effect, the Treaty of Waitangi would cease to exist and the land claims would be finished.

 

Australia won't seen any benefit to begin with, while NZ and others will. One, NZ will have a stable competitive currency which will kick ass. Plus, NZD's are ugly useless worthless pieces of sh*t. You get more with a peso than a NZD.

 

The reason NZ won't do anything like this or even become a republic is that no one has the balls to stand up and tell the Maoris to shut up. It is simply local politics. Maori feel wronged they seek reimbursement. Labour Party agrees so they pay out. National Party needs votes so they continue it. Act is dead so f*ck Hide. NZ First is coming back and will most likely push for a New Zealand Republic.

 

It cracks me up how everyone bitches about British Rule from 100 years ago and how they want a new flag, yet, they won't even consider becoming a Republic and writing a constitution and then getting a new flag.

 

NZ is f*cked in more ways than Zimbabwe.

 

Anyway, Aussie; I'm coming over one day!

[Kora]

 

Well, Australia, NZ and those pesky f*cking islands would all united under a common constitution and thus become a Republic. This means leaving the Commonwealth and being truly independent of British Rule.

 

All the treaties would be void since they are treaties between The Crown and the Natives of each country. In effect, the Treaty of Waitangi would cease to exist and the land claims would be finished.

 

Australia won't seen any benefit to begin with, while NZ and others will. One, NZ will have a stable competitive currency which will kick ass. Plus, NZD's are ugly useless worthless pieces of sh*t. You get more with a peso than a NZD.

 

The reason NZ won't do anything like this or even become a republic is that no one has the balls to stand up and tell the Maoris to shut up. It is simply local politics. Maori feel wronged they seek reimbursement. Labour Party agrees so they pay out. National Party needs votes so they continue it. Act is dead so f*ck Hide. NZ First is coming back and will most likely push for a New Zealand Republic.

 

It cracks me up how everyone bitches about British Rule from 100 years ago and how they want a new flag, yet, they won't even consider becoming a Republic and writing a constitution and then getting a new flag.

 

NZ is f*cked in more ways than Zimbabwe.

 

Anyway, Aussie; I'm coming over one day!

The Crown itself doesn't play any part in the Land Claims, so even if New Zealand broke away from the monarchy, the Office of Treaty Settlements - a New Zealand government-run body - would still apply. The Maori will fight for their Land whoever the name. So at the end of the day, if you don't like it, leave. Most of us Pakeha Kiwis do anyway .

 

I do agree with becoming a republic. It's not helping our inferiority complex, we have a larger empire than most!

 

Rock on Tokelau!

[Typhus]

A republic? Republics are vulgar little places ran with the same level of common sense as the average high school.

Ruling because of popularity is pure foolishness. Especially when people - in general - are not fit to run their own lives.

[Svip]

A republic? Republics are vulgar little places ran with the same level of common sense as the average high school.

Ruling because of popularity is pure foolishness. Especially when people - in general - are not fit to run their own lives.

Really? And your head of government isn't elected?

[makeshyft]

A republic? Republics are vulgar little places ran with the same level of common sense as the average high school.

Ruling because of popularity is pure foolishness. Especially when people - in general - are not fit to run their own lives.

Really? And your head of government isn't elected?

Technically, his country's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. So, no.

[Svip]

A republic? Republics are vulgar little places ran with the same level of common sense as the average high school.

Ruling because of popularity is pure foolishness. Especially when people - in general - are not fit to run their own lives.

Really? And your head of government isn't elected?

Technically, his country's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. So, no.

Technically, I said head of government not of sate, so learn to read.

[Mike Tequeli]

A republic? Republics are vulgar little places ran with the same level of common sense as the average high school.

Ruling because of popularity is pure foolishness. Especially when people - in general - are not fit to run their own lives.

The monarchy has no power, what difference does it make? How is power in the hands of few more logical then it in the hands of many? If people in general are retarded, then why would a select few retards be more wise in their decisions. In the entire history of empires there have been long reigns on the behalf of complete lunatics. The statement about people being unable to run their lives is flat out ridiculous.

[makeshyft]

A republic? Republics are vulgar little places ran with the same level of common sense as the average high school.

Ruling because of popularity is pure foolishness. Especially when people - in general - are not fit to run their own lives.

Really? And your head of government isn't elected?

Technically, his country's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. So, no.

Technically, I said head of government not of sate, so learn to read.

Take it easy, jerkoff. If I had known you'd get your y-fronts in a twist over my little joke at the uselessness of a parliamentary monarchy, and Typhus' unswerving devotion to said system, I wouldn't have bothered. You're such a f*cking wet blanket it makes me sick. Lighten up or off yourself -- that's the only advice I can give you.

[Typhus]

The statement about people being unable to run their lives is flat out ridiculous.

No, it's actually completely true. Just look at all the people who have it all and still voluntarily persue a life of ignorance. They have a nice family, a good home, a proper education. Yet they give in to drink, decadent merriment and the lure of meaningless sex.

They become slaves to their addictions and all they can do is blame other people for their own weakness.

Republics put power in the hands of these people - the weak, inferior, pathetic masses who only want instant gratification.

They instinctively distrust politicians and the intelligentsia and then wonder why their governments get nothing done.

To rule by the will of the people is to step on eggshells your entire life and be at the mercy of a fickle, amoral rabble only looking for a good time.

These people don't deserve representation, they don't deserve freedom, not until they learn to safeguard that freedom from their vices.

You know I'm telling the truth.

[Chorup]

Seems the process is already starting. Isn't it funny how there is a NZ (Wellington) soccer team in the A-League (Australian soccer league)? This is one thing i don't understand, but i guess NZ doesn't have the fan base for their own league.

[Ari Gold]

Seems the process is already starting. Isn't it funny how there is a NZ (Wellington) soccer team in the A-League (Australian soccer league)? This is one thing i don't understand, but i guess NZ doesn't have the fan base for their own league.

Well, that and the fact that the Phoenix will ass-rape anyone in their league and win every year if they were to play in their own league.

 

They're better than 7 other Australian professional football/soccer teams, and there are only 9 professional football/soccer teams in Australia.

[Chorup]

In reality all Australian and New Zealand soccer teams are sh*t, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't watch it, it's the best we've got. Hopefully the Melbourne Hearts next year will spice things up a bit, create some rivalry in Melbourne. Preston Makedonia was the best in the days, but won't see them around much anymore. Anyways this isn't a sports topic so I'll stop.

[Jay]

You know I'm telling the truth.

Yeah, but it's not the type of thing you spout out in public. People don't like being made aware of this

 

Who is it that said the best case against democracy is to spend time with a regular voter? Or something like that?

 

The Chaser Decides had this wonderful little bookend segment where they'd have ignorant people say sh*t on the streets, and then they'd remind the viewer that this person is legally allowed (and obliged to) vote. It was disconcerting.

 

 

[Svip]

Take it easy, jerkoff. If I had known you'd get your y-fronts in a twist over my little joke at the uselessness of a parliamentary monarchy, and Typhus' unswerving devotion to said system, I wouldn't have bothered. You're such a f*cking wet blanket it makes me sick. Lighten up or off yourself -- that's the only advice I can give you.

Your joke may not fall as flat as it did if it had actually been directed at me. Typhus is not going to read a post that is not a response to one of his posts.

 

 

The statement about people being unable to run their lives is flat out ridiculous.

No, it's actually completely true. Just look at all the people who have it all and still voluntarily persue a life of ignorance. They have a nice family, a good home, a proper education. Yet they give in to drink, decadent merriment and the lure of meaningless sex.

They become slaves to their addictions and all they can do is blame other people for their own weakness.

Republics put power in the hands of these people - the weak, inferior, pathetic masses who only want instant gratification.

They instinctively distrust politicians and the intelligentsia and then wonder why their governments get nothing done.

To rule by the will of the people is to step on eggshells your entire life and be at the mercy of a fickle, amoral rabble only looking for a good time.

These people don't deserve representation, they don't deserve freedom, not until they learn to safeguard that freedom from their vices.

You know I'm telling the truth.

 

You are full of bullsh*t is what. Republics does not give that kind of power. Democracies do. That's your first mistake. Who cares if the guy is a president or a king? At the end of the day, the governing lies with the prime minister or whatever equivalent they have for head of government.

 

As unsure as the truth is, under a monarchy, the very people you don't want to have any power are the only people who have the power. And I am talking an actual monarchy, not those 'fancy dress parties' that they basically are today.

 

Your complete misunderstanding of forms of government is saddening, in addition, it is also troubling that you do not realise the truth about actual monarchies. Look up some history, mate, and not the romantic stuff, real history.

[macorules94]

Take it easy, jerkoff. If I had known you'd get your y-fronts in a twist over my little joke at the uselessness of a parliamentary monarchy, and Typhus' unswerving devotion to said system, I wouldn't have bothered. You're such a f*cking wet blanket it makes me sick. Lighten up or off yourself -- that's the only advice I can give you.

Your joke may not fall as flat as it did if it had actually been directed at me. Typhus is not going to read a post that is not a response to one of his posts.

 

 

The statement about people being unable to run their lives is flat out ridiculous.

No, it's actually completely true. Just look at all the people who have it all and still voluntarily persue a life of ignorance. They have a nice family, a good home, a proper education. Yet they give in to drink, decadent merriment and the lure of meaningless sex.

They become slaves to their addictions and all they can do is blame other people for their own weakness.

Republics put power in the hands of these people - the weak, inferior, pathetic masses who only want instant gratification.

They instinctively distrust politicians and the intelligentsia and then wonder why their governments get nothing done.

To rule by the will of the people is to step on eggshells your entire life and be at the mercy of a fickle, amoral rabble only looking for a good time.

These people don't deserve representation, they don't deserve freedom, not until they learn to safeguard that freedom from their vices.

You know I'm telling the truth.

 

You are full of bullsh*t is what. Republics does not give that kind of power. Democracies do. That's your first mistake. Who cares if the guy is a president or a king? At the end of the day, the governing lies with the prime minister or whatever equivalent they have for head of government.

 

As unsure as the truth is, under a monarchy, the very people you don't want to have any power are the only people who have the power. And I am talking an actual monarchy, not those 'fancy dress parties' that they basically are today.

 

Your complete misunderstanding of forms of government is saddening, in addition, it is also troubling that you do not realise the truth about actual monarchies. Look up some history, mate, and not the romantic stuff, real history.

 

 

I think some people could run their own lives, but not all.

 

Doesn't the Queen rule the world anyway

[Svip]

I think some people could run their own lives, but not all.

 

Doesn't the Queen rule the world anyway

What world? The British Empire during the 19th century? She doesn't rule much today.

[Typhus]

 

Your complete misunderstanding of forms of government is saddening, in addition, it is also troubling that you do not realise the truth about actual monarchies.  Look up some history, mate, and not the romantic stuff, real history.

And what is 'real history', according to you?

I study a lot of history and would like to know what knowledge I can just throw out of my brain - because you deem it unworthy. So, do tell.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Typhus

[Svip]

Your complete misunderstanding of forms of government is saddening, in addition, it is also troubling that you do not realise the truth about actual monarchies.  Look up some history, mate, and not the romantic stuff, real history.

And what is 'real history', according to you?

I study a lot of history and would like to know what knowledge I can just throw out of my brain - because you deem it unworthy. So, do tell.

I won't dismiss off hand that there have been decent, if not brilliant monarchs, and they are often those we highlight today, but in between them, there have been plenty of terrible terrible monarchs.

 

Generally in republics, you can get rid of these leaders every four or more years, but you will have to wait till they die during a monarchy. So how is a monarchy better than a republic?

[Typhus]

Honestly mate, I think what makes a Monarchy superior is the air of regality and tradition. A king can oversee politics and trends but is above them. Acting as a symbol of the nations past and still wielding enough power to protect the future.

I didn't mean to be rude before, sorry about that. But I truly feel that a Monarchy is superior in every way. I think it keeps people level headed. So no matter how far a politician goes, there will always be that level of power that is out of reach.

 

However, I must say that a Republic can emulate this same impressive spectacle. But usually this only occurs when it has been forged by a revolution and the people are bonded by shared, bloody memories. Just look at the French, their Republic ended up emulating many traits of an absolute monarchy. Because great spectacles keep the little people in line.

It has got to the point, that if my country were to abolish its Monarchy I would be of the impression that our country no longer really existed.

Kings are above apathy, corruption and disorder. What happens behind closed doors is another matter, but what they represent is far more important than their human failings.

 

Again, sorry for getting too heated, I didn't mean to

[Svip]

 

Honestly mate, I think what makes a Monarchy superior is the air of regality and tradition.

 

I won't dismiss the actuality of tradition and regality when talking about a monarchy, no doubt, but I do not regard either as superior to the alternatives. There are plenty of dumb traditions.

 

 

A king can oversee politics and trends but is above them.

 

In some republics, so is the president. I know he doesn't always feel that way, but he can do pretty much what he wants; of course, it will have consequences.

 

 

Acting as a symbol of the nations past and still wielding enough power to protect the future.

 

I do admire history, I often dwell into it on every occasion I get. Perhaps too often, if you catch my drift. However, I fail to fall victim to be proud and smile at a nation's glorious past. For why isn't it glorious now? Isn't that more important?

 

As for a king protecting the future, eh. Depends on the king. A lot. And depends on the threats, no doubt.

 

 

I didn't mean to be rude before, sorry about that.

 

You weren't. Perhaps I was more rude, if anything.

 

 

But I truly feel that a Monarchy is superior in every way. I think it keeps people level headed.

 

How?

 

 

So no matter how far a politician goes, there will always be that level of power that is out of reach.

 

And what if that level of power goes too far? Then what? Are we doomed to scrub under an insane king who wants us all to scrub?

 

 

However, I must say that a Republic can emulate this same impressive spectacle. But usually this only occurs when it has been forged by a revolution and the people are bonded by shared, bloody memories. Just look at the French, their Republic ended up emulating many traits of an absolute monarchy.

 

Perhaps because it sort of turned back into an absolute monarchy? You do realise what happened after the French Revolution? It happened, sh*t happened, Napoleon happened, everything collapsed, so they went back to a Kingdom, then an Empire, then a Republic and then a Republic and then... I think once more a Republic. It's currently the Fifth French Republic.

 

The question is; do they emulate traits of an absolute monarchy now?

 

 

Because great spectacles keep the little people in line.

 

Is that required?

 

 

It has got to the point, that if my country were to abolish its Monarchy I would be of the impression that our country no longer really existed.

 

But isn't your monarchy just paid by the tax payers, and they don't really seem to perform any meaningful tasks? Sure, they are a symbol. But could you not idealise the very essence of being British in something different than the British Throne? Or is a house filled with Germans the only thing that does it for you?

 

 

Kings are above apathy, corruption and disorder.

 

Hmmm... no. Kings are human and can fall victim to all those three negative attributes. And history have shown they can often fall victim to these. Especially popes!

 

 

What happens behind closed doors is another matter, but what they represent is far more important than their human failings.

 

So we are not talking actual power? But 'symbolic' power? You have noticed that even with the monarchy in place in Britain, it certainly isn't doing much of a different politically or socially. In fact, most Brits I talk to tend to ignore it. And they are quire decent people, I'd say. Well, not all of them, but most of those I speak to.

 

What good does it actually serve other than a brilliant tourist attraction?

 

 

Again, sorry for getting too heated, I didn't mean to 

 

Well, I guess the reason I am against monarchies personally is because my own monarchy have been tremendously pathetic. The last time Denmark had a decent monarch was in 1397. Even since then, they have just become stupider and dumber. It's been loathsome to watch your national history because of idiotic kings too fed up with themselves.

 

What troubles me the most is the glorification of King Christian IV in Denmark, he was probably the worst monarch.

 

Incidentally, Denmark has however not been all bad, but we regained some of our strength after we got an actual Parliament elected by the people.

 

Denmark got most of out of both world wars compared to our size and our situation.

 

During the first world war, we made good trade connections with both sides of the war, and made the most money out of that war than any other nation.

 

And in the second world war, we were the only nation under Germany's sphere of influence, that actually traded with Germany.

 

Why? Because our politicians made some excellent decisions at the right moments. They may seem immoral or 'bad' in retrospect, but in fact, in retrospect, I think they were the right decisions. And I doubt any monarch would have made a better choice.