Australia and the Queen

[Jeremy Festa]

i agree with a lot but not all of what you say.

i find it becomes a lot more important for me when i am overseas. at home, life ticks along and one rarely thinks of it. overseas, you often find yourself trying to explain why our head of state is actually from another country. insanity. the sooner it is over, the better.

it will cost money but it will be money well spent. worth ten times whatever it costs. for me, the best way to do it is simply to replace all references to the queen/king with aussie head of state and then have the election via parliament as suggested above (i simply do not trust the population to make clever decisions on this - it will become a popularity contest and it must be a situation where politics is out of the mix - hence the need for a 75 or 80% majority).

as for the flag, i have no great issue with keeping the union jack in the corner - it recognises so much of our history - but an amendment to recognise aboriginal australia should be added. otherwise, the southern cross is fine (not certain you can designate a constellation as "stupid").

but i am not sure i agree with some of what you say.

while i think it important, vital if you like, and the sooner the better that this happen, i don't buy that it will make any difference to whether young people "assist the economy" or not. do you really think someone is going to disadvantage themselves because of our current situation with the head of state? they'll do the same whatever the position.

i have no problem at all in recognising the history of this country, though there is a real danger of the subjective in that, but i think the concept of "stolen" and returned" is a load of crap. but this is subjective in the extreme.

i don't follow the issue you have with people being unhappy when other australians on the sporting field, act in a manner which reflects poorly on us as a nation. you make clear you do not have the same pride in australia that many of us do - and that is fine and entirely up to you - but why would it bother you that we have that pride and want our country to do as well as possible and to do it with dignity and class?

Let's change this up a bit Ken, and try to whet Mika's appetite for controversy.

Let's look at this through a religious analogy. People want to believe in something and belong to something. At present, as self elected representative of Australia's voting youth, we feel, we do not truly believe or belong. This is due to a number of things. Two of which are:-

1.) We haven't really fought for anything.

2.) Multi-media, iPhones, and iPads and all that ****, look forward, and not back. i.e. there is no real focus on history, at present.

While the Southern Cross as a constellation is certainly not stupid. Denoting it on a flag is. Because now it is a tattoo. Which is the youth's way of creating some sort of belonging to their country. I would go so far to say that anyone with the southern cross tattoo is, at the very least, slightly racist. But that is simply my extremely accurate opinion.

As for the sporting stuff. The youth don't complain about those tennis players, because the majority of the youth firstly aren't watching tennis. They are watching MMA and whatever. But also, the ideals of dignity and class aren't really something they relate to anyway. Plus they are watching the football codes where worse behaviour is performed as a team, and not an individual.

Good chat this.

[HarveyBoulevard]

Here's an American's viewpoint on Australians... First, you surely know that Americans as a whole really do have a deep admiration and fascination with Aussies. In our eyes, you are rugged, durable individuals that look to be fiercely independent. You also seem to take no **** from anyone. I remember my father talking about Aussies they flew with in WWII. We view Australia as it's own country. Period. MNSHO!

From an outsider looking in...^^^^^^^^^^

[Ken Gargett]

Let's change this up a bit Ken, and try to whet Mika's appetite for controversy.

Let's look at this through a religious analogy. People want to believe in something and belong to something. At present, as self elected representative of Australia's voting youth, we feel, we do not truly believe or belong. This is due to a number of things. Two of which are:-

1.) We haven't really fought for anything.

2.) Multi-media, iPhones, and iPads and all that ****, look forward, and not back. i.e. there is no real focus on history, at present.

While the Southern Cross as a constellation is certainly not stupid. Denoting it on a flag is. Because now it is a tattoo. Which is the youth's way of creating some sort of belonging to their country. I would go so far to say that anyone with the southern cross tattoo is, at the very least, slightly racist. But that is simply my extremely accurate opinion.

As for the sporting stuff. The youth don't complain about those tennis players, because the majority of the youth firstly aren't watching tennis. They are watching MMA and whatever. But also, the ideals of dignity and class aren't really something they relate to anyway. Plus they are watching the football codes where worse behaviour is performed as a team, and not an individual.

Good chat this.

understand (most of) what you say.

i would never equate it with religion but i can see others might. for me, a very different thing. to assist whet mika's appetite, i would argue that pride in your country is not imaginary.

the southern cross by itself, is surely seen far more as a symbol of the eureka stockade etc etc. it would never occur to me that it is in any way racist - i might have missed something. as for it being on a flag, not that i would ever want to impune your usually extremely accurate opinion, but it is not just us. it is found on numerous flags - us, nz, samoa, i think some other pacific islands, PNG, brazil and numerous south american provinces. i think for most, it is merely a connection with location. but do people really get wound up about what is on their flag? surely, it is more about that it is their flag, whatever it might look like.

i would argue that the ideals of class and dignity are far from lost on all our youth. some yes, but also plenty of not so young.

[planetary]

As a dumb American, I've always found all this England stuff quite confusing. But this video is pretty good.

[MIKA27]

Let's change this up a bit Ken, and try to whet Mika's appetite for controversy.

Not after controversy mate, I simply want this thread and everyone's opinions to remain here without being closed so that ken, yourself and others can post your views.

No offence, but often threads of similar nature but aimed at other countries are closed rather quickly and I am yet to see anyone here being offended and this is how it should be.

I really enjoy peoples viewpoints and reading both Ken's and your opinions is great.

[Jeremy Festa]

understand (most of) what you say.

i would never equate it with religion but i can see others might. for me, a very different thing. to assist whet mika's appetite, i would argue that pride in your country is not imaginary.

the southern cross by itself, is surely seen far more as a symbol of the eureka stockade etc etc. it would never occur to me that it is in any way racist - i might have missed something. as for it being on a flag, not that i would ever want to impune your usually extremely accurate opinion, but it is not just us. it is found on numerous flags - us, nz, samoa, i think some other pacific islands, PNG, brazil and numerous south american provinces. i think for most, it is merely a connection with location. but do people really get wound up about what is on their flag? surely, it is more about that it is their flag, whatever it might look like.

i would argue that the ideals of class and dignity are far from lost on all our youth. some yes, but also plenty of not so young.

Cheers Ken. And same to you.

Just using the religion as an example of belonging and believing. Your imaginary comment, is, simply put, accurate and amusing.

The Eureka stockade and southern cross! Absolutely! But, for the youth, absolutely not. The majority would not even know about the Eureka Stockade. I know, because of one paragraph, in one history book in Grade 9, which I read 22 years ago. Over the next few weeks, just take a look at who is sporting a southern cross tattoo, or even a sticker on their car. And get back to me. As for the Southern Cross' use to denote location. Well, *** sigh ***

Class and dignity are certainly not lost on all our youth. Just a great deal of them.

I called out this 14/15 year old kids the other day, walking along and just dropped his empty McDonald's paper bag, and chips pouch thing and then drop kicked the end of his drink, with all the ice and straw tumbling out everywhere. I said "excuse me mate, I think you should pick that up, that is really not cool!" He said "**** Off Mate!" I was going to say something more. I even considered physically hurting him. But I thought, that child is 14 or 15 years too far gone. And whatever course our small verbal transaction would have taken, I was not going to teach him dignity or class. So I picked up his rubbish and put it in the bin.

[Jeremy Festa]

Not after controversy mate, I simply want this thread and everyone's opinions to remain here without being closed so that ken, yourself and others can post your views.

No offence, but often threads of similar nature but aimed at other countries are closed rather quickly and I am yet to see anyone here being offended and this is how it should be.

I really enjoy peoples viewpoints and reading both Ken's and your opinions is great.

I was just teasing Mika. You big muppet. I feel the same.

[Ken Gargett]

Class and dignity are certainly not lost on all our youth. Just a great deal of them.

I called out this 14/15 year old kids the other day, walking along and just dropped his empty McDonald's paper bag, and chips pouch thing and then drop kicked the end of his drink, with all the ice and straw tumbling out everywhere. I said "excuse me mate, I think you should pick that up, that is really not cool!" He said "**** Off Mate!" I was going to say something more. I even considered physically hurting him. But I thought, that child is 14 or 15 years too far gone. And whatever course our small verbal transaction would have taken, I was not going to teach him dignity or class. So I picked up his rubbish and put it in the bin.

the answer is, of course, simply to kill anyone under 50 (unless they are a sports person with dignity and class - so pretty much anyone under 50).

[Jeremy Festa]

the answer is, of course, simply to kill anyone under 50 (unless they are a sports person with dignity and class - so pretty much anyone under 50).

And remain a constitutional monarchy?

[Overproof]

I have no problem at all in recognising the history of this country, though there is a real danger of the subjective in that, but i think the concept of "stolen" and returned" is a load of crap.

If you don't have a problem in recognizing the history of it, then why do you see the stolen and returned 'concept' as you call it a load of crap? Please clarify the context your talking

[Drguano]

Whatever you do, keep funding campaigns for public office free of big money, limit campaigning to a couple of months prior to elections and equal time for each candidate. No mention of religion. All candidates should wear the same cheap suit (orange jump suits?) and have the same barber or stylist. Maybe they campaign in the nude so they have nothing to hide. The idea is they should campaign on ideas and real plans so the people can decide who is most suited to govern. Or you could wind up with the American form of elections, more circus that republic. Rant complete.

[Jeremy Festa]

If you don't have a problem in recognizing the history of it, then why do you see the stolen and returned 'concept' as you call it a load of crap? Please clarify the context your talking

***swallows nervously***

[Ken Gargett]

And remain a constitutional monarchy?

definitely not.

[Ken Gargett]

If you don't have a problem in recognizing the history of it, then why do you see the stolen and returned 'concept' as you call it a load of crap? Please clarify the context your talking

you have twisted what i said, whether deliberately for debate or simply innocently, i have no idea.

you have suggested i said i recognise the history of the stolen and returned concept. if you bother to read what i actually wrote, it was not that. i said i recognise the history of this country. i did not say i recognised specifically that concept. you are going to have a little trouble shoehorning "returned" into the history of this country given it has not happened, except in a rather modest way with mabo and what has followed - one can argue that is far too little of an acknowledge, or not if one prefers, and also the legal aspects of mabo as it pertains to 'returned' but i have no intention of going down that track. constitutional law was never my favourite subject. that aspect is of course part of our history but i believe falls well short of the "returned" as it was originally raised here.

as for the "stolen", here we encounter the 'danger of the subjective' as i originally posted. stolen, invaded, occupied, settled, arrived. take whatever concept you like. i prefer not to take the concept of stolen. others may disagree.

not sure if that answers your question. happy to try and clarify further if you like.

[Fuzz AI]

I still have no idea what the Royal family does for us and I suppose I will keep wondering.

All I see is that we pay for them to come out here every couple of years and pat some animals and wave to everyone

"President Lim" could maybe lead us in the right direction...you have my vote Chris

Woohoo! I have my first vote! Now who do I choose as my running mate?.

[Jeremy Festa]

you have twisted what i said, whether deliberately for debate or simply innocently, i have no idea.

you have suggested i said i recognise the history of the stolen and returned concept. if you bother to read what i actually wrote, it was not that. i said i recognise the history of this country. i did not say i recognised specifically that concept. you are going to have a little trouble shoehorning "returned" into the history of this country given it has not happened, except in a rather modest way with mabo and what has followed - one can argue that is far too little of an acknowledge, or not if one prefers, and also the legal aspects of mabo as it pertains to 'returned' but i have no intention of going down that track. constitutional law was never my favourite subject. that aspect is of course part of our history but i believe falls well short of the "returned" as it was originally raised here.

as for the "stolen", here we encounter the 'danger of the subjective' as i originally posted. stolen, invaded, occupied, settled, arrived. take whatever concept you like. i prefer not to take the concept of stolen. others may disagree.

not sure if that answers your question. happy to try and clarify further if you like.

*** begins to sweat profusely ***

[Jeremy Festa]

So, before anything kicks off right about now.

Just thought I would ease myself into the middle of this virtual pub circle of discussion and say, "who's round is it? I would like a cold frothy ale please."

[Overproof]

you have twisted what i said, whether deliberately for debate or simply innocently, i have no idea.

you have suggested i said i recognise the history of the stolen and returned concept. if you bother to read what i actually wrote, it was not that. i said i recognise the history of this country. i did not say i recognised specifically that concept. you are going to have a little trouble shoehorning "returned" into the history of this country given it has not happened, except in a rather modest way with mabo and what has followed - one can argue that is far too little of an acknowledge, or not if one prefers, and also the legal aspects of mabo as it pertains to 'returned' but i have no intention of going down that track. constitutional law was never my favourite subject. that aspect is of course part of our history but i believe falls well short of the "returned" as it was originally raised here.

as for the "stolen", here we encounter the 'danger of the subjective' as i originally posted. stolen, invaded, occupied, settled, arrived. take whatever concept you like. i prefer not to take the concept of stolen. others may disagree.

not sure if that answers your question. happy to try and clarify further if you like.

You prefer not to see or take the concept as stolen. I see it differently. I'll leave it at that.

[Ken Gargett]

You prefer not to see or take the concept as stolen. I see it differently. I'll leave it at that.

i have no problem with that. i'm not out to offend anyone but happy to leave it that we see this aspect of history differently.

[Jeremy Festa]

Well played gents.

My round it is.

[Dimmers]

Well. A day ago we were talking about truly important things (ie the imminent return of the Brisbane Bullets), but now I see we have regressed . For shame!

[Fuzz AI]

You prefer not to see or take the concept as stolen. I see it differently. I'll leave it at that.

i have no problem with that. i'm not out to offend anyone but happy to leave it that we see this aspect of history differently.

Well played gents.

My round it is.

Agreed. Well played.

Unexpected, Ken. We can now add "Monarchy vs Republic" to the short list of topics you are allowed to talk about.

[Ken Gargett]

Agreed. Well played.

Unexpected, Ken. We can now add "Monarchy vs Republic" to the short list of topics you are allowed to talk about.

nice fuzz. you go from sedition to this in the same thread.

all i need is a god-bothering king who loves to hunt and i can go to town. actually, that is what we'll get soon.

that said, i have met Charles and i had a long chat with him (there were 3 or 4 of us - it was not solo) a while back. absolutely delightful bloke. could hardly have been more impressive.

have long thought he'd make an exemplary king. of britain.

[ayepatz]

A very interesting debate, and fair-play awards all round!

As a Scot, I was forced to move away from my home to pursue my career, there not being many opportunities for me in Scotland.

The South of England has been my base for nearly half my life now, but I spend most of my time working abroad.

The course my life has taken means that I am against Scottish Independence. Not the idea of it, but the practicality. The notion of being a sovereign nation separate from England is one that I think appeals romantically to most Scots. I understand that many of my countrymen are sick of being governed from Westminster, and feel that Scotland would be better off being completely self-governed, but I am sceptical about the abilities of those who seek to govern. I feel that passion trumps reality far too often where our Scottish politicians are concerned.

That being said, if independence becomes a reality, I'm not sure a constitutional monarchy would be the right way to go.

It seems like a contradiction - independence, but retaining the monarchy.

[JackFNQ]

Here's an American's viewpoint on Australians... First, you surely know that Americans as a whole really do have a deep admiration and fascination with Aussies. In our eyes, you are rugged, durable individuals that look to be fiercely independent. You also seem to take no **** from anyone. I remember my father talking about Aussies they flew with in WWII. We view Australia as it's own country. Period. MNSHO!

The republic is about redefining Australia.

I'd say that prior to 1975 we were a monocultural society, think OT Ruth (foreigner different race) coming to Israel whereby 'your people will be my people...' and being accepted regardless of race, and you could also note her ancestry to Jesus in generations to come, her husband Boaz in the genealogy.

A monoculture - the acceptance of any race into one national culture. Vlad Putin has said some very interesting things about this topic, and Europe. Bit too sensible for the monopoly which is our media to report. Just as a house divided against itself cannot stand, a nation of many mini-nations cannot abide in peace. Europe is turning into the next Gaza Strip.

Today we have multiculturalism/globalism where everyone is living apart for themselves, gutting any sense of national identity and thereby community, sending money back home where ever that may be, and moving on when it is beneficial to do so. (Now I don't call alienating each other into little social hobby groups a community.) Such a nation is indefensible in a WW. Ironically it was the nationalism of England that gave the platform to conquer the Nazi's, yet nationalism is hissed at from every side. Like putting a hand on a woman's shoulder and rape is cried, merely talking about nationalism invokes cries of racism, and the far right.

Today Anzac's and sporting heroes sadly go hand in hand, politically to somehow create some kind of identity. The people of the Anzac era would be disgusted at what Australia has become, the national interest and inheritance being thrown to the wind. I mean the loss of national interest and sense of working together for the commom good. Donald Trump says he wants to bring Apple back to manufacture within the USA. There is something that is a national interest that goes against corporate interest and globalism, like paying tax in the country where profit is earned. Presently national interest is subjugated to the benefit of the few, at the expense of the community within the commonwealth. For me community and working together for our commonwealth go hand in hand, the inheritance of which is not for strangers, but only for we a monoculture of many races working for the benefit of our children, the generations to come. That is an Anzac (era) ideal. Charity being another issue.

The day Australia becomes a republic AND our flag is replaced is the day descendants of the Anzac era have nothing left to defend. There is no longer a nation worth fighting for. The CommonWealth of the people is dead and buried, the monoculture defeated. The globalism/corporate model will NEVER make a nation great. The only present world leader who speaks on these issues is Putin of all people. Anzacs defend their commonwealth community, the idea of defending a corporate multicultural globalism is repugnant to an Anzac.

The republic is about redefining Australia, after the corporate globalism multicultural model. Which is all just about complete. The Queen is dead, long live the Malcolm Turnbull (insert President's name) Goldman Sacks boy!

Just imo.