THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

I have a vague recollection of reading that Aussies voted to keep paying dues to the Queen and don't really understand what they get out of it. I thought they might get to vote for a party of the House of Commons for instance? Sorry, if I sound ignorant on the subject, that’s just because I am.

Quote:

The majority of Australians favour a republic.

The leadership of the current conservative (Liberal) government does not.

The matter went to referendum - however, the conservatives put up a very unpopular model for the new republic, and, engineered it that, if you voted yes to becoming a republic, this meant you were also voting for the very unpopular model - that is they tied the two together.

Most of us considered this unethical - but it was a good tactic to obtain the result they wanted.

This tactic meant that the referendum was lost.

We do not, however, pay anything to to the queen - we do maintain figurehead governors.

We hope to win the next referendum - but it will be awhile - it is an expensive exercise.

engineered it that, if you voted yes to becoming a republic, this meant you were also voting for the very unpopular model -

As for my first question:
A. Do you think the Labor Party win again?
B. Is it likely that someone other than Blair will lead it?

The BBC's Andrew Marr later described Mr Blair's announcement of his intention to serve a third term as "quite extraordinary".

"Nothing like this has actually been said during Britain's political history as a democracy...

"Of course a lot of things can go wrong. He doesn't know what kind of majority, if any, he's going to get at the general election. He doesn't know what's going to happen politically, what's going to happen to Iraq and so on.

"But it sends a very, very clear message to all his critics in the party, including to those people called Brownites, that he intends to be there for a very long time."

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Britain no longer rules the waves, or anything much else.

Britain waives the rules. The international rule of law.

we don't care as much - Britain no longer rules the waves, or anything much else.

Australian republic back on agenda
Wed September 29, 2004 10:46 PM ET

By Michelle Nichols
MILDURA, Australia (Reuters) - Australia's head of state commands the nation's defence force and has the power to overturn laws and sack the government -- yet she lives in Britain, 10,500 miles away.

Australia remains a constitutional monarchy 216 years after British settlers first arrived, with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and represented by a governor-general.

Opinion polls show Australia's 20 million people want independence, but are unable to agree on how the country should take the historic step of cutting its formal ties to Britain.

The issue has simmered since a vote in 1999 narrowly rejected a republic because many Australians want a popularly elected president, not one appointed by parliament as proposed in the national vote.

But with an October 9 election looming, the republic issue is back on the agenda after opposition Labour leader Mark Latham pledged to allow another vote as soon as 2007 if he wins office from conservative monarchist Prime Minister John Howard.

"We like to think of ourselves as an independent country. I see no reason why we shouldn't become a republic," said Penny Hand, a mother-of-three and wine grape grower in Mildura, a remote rural town 625 miles southwest of Sydney.

"I think it's inevitable that it will happen one day. It's a bit of an insult to be dictated to by someone who doesn't even live here," she said.

WASTE OF FOCUS

Opinion polls show that more than half of Australians are in favour of becoming a republic and want another referendum.

But Anne Mansell, a citrus farmer in Mildura with three children, does not believe Australia should become a republic and said the next generation should be left to decide.

"My view is, 'Why change something that's been working perfectly well?'. I think we need to leave it for another generation before it is looked at again -- it will be up to my children to decide," Mansell said.

Howard, whose eight-year-old government has edged ahead of centre-left Labour in opinion polls, also does not want to revisit the issue yet. Many blame him for manipulating the 1999 vote by wording the question to include how a president would be elected.

"It's a waste of focus so soon after the last referendum. If people want to revisit it they can but we won't be revisiting it in this coming election. We're more focused on things of direct relevance to people's lives," Howard said this year.

A parliamentary inquiry into an Australian republic recommended last month that the first step should be a vote asking simply whether the country should become a republic with an Australian head of state.

If the outcome was in favour of a republic then the inquiry said a second separate vote should be held to determine its form.

ROYAL SCANDALS

Queen Elizabeth is currently represented by Governor-General Michael Jeffery, appointed on the advice of the prime minister, and a representative for each of the country's six states.

The push for a republic gained some momentum during the past two years after former Governor-General Peter Hollingworth and Richard Butler, governor of the island state of Tasmania, both stepped down amid separate scandals.

Hollingworth was forced to leave the nation's top unelected job in May 2003 amid public anger over his protection of a paedophile priest when he was an Anglican archbishop in the 1990s and over a 40-year-old unproven rape case that was dismissed.

Hollingworth's departure was the biggest scandal to hit the 102-year-old office since 1975, when incumbent Sir John Kerr sacked a Labour government to end a parliamentary deadlock. Kerr was the only governor-general to dismiss an elected government.

Butler resigned after three senior staff walked out just 10 months after he was appointed Tasmanian governor and amid controversy that a republican who wants to loosen ties with London should have taken the job.

Voters are keen to resolve the issue, said John Warhurst, chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.

"It's not people's highest priority, people are concerned about the economy and security. But when asked to look at other issues the public opinion polls show that not only do a majority want a republic, they want it resolved in five years," he said.

Although Howard is an avowed monarchist, his anointed heir, Treasurer Peter Costello, is a republican who recently said he was confident Australia would eventually cut ties with the queen.

But Costello does not think Australia should have a president elected by the people.

"The President in my view would have a wider mandate (than the prime minister), and -- depending on who won that election -- would very actively want to be involved in policy and determination, that is what worries me," Costello said.

Latham has outlined a process to establish a republic similar to that recommended by the parliamentary panel, which would allow voters to decide how a president should be elected.

"I think (becoming a republic) is an emotion about Australian pride, identity, what we are going to be in the future, what sort of country they're growing into. For that reason alone it's an issue we can't ignore," Latham said this year.

Holy cow! ....which theme... 25 words or less?
I have always said 'what are we going to do when the Iraqis tell us to shove our democracy' so I will answer you in regard to freedom:
You can lead a horse to drink but you cannot make him water.

-I do what I do because I am a professional soldier. For me it's been simple:protect the innocent, punish the deserving, accomplish my mission and bringmy men home, period. As Sting said "Poets, Priests, and Politicians havewords to thank for their positions." For a soldier it is black and white:deeds not words. If you need words to better illustrate, the Latin mottos oftwo Infantry Regiments I have served in will suffice: "Sua Sponte" and "NeDesit Virtus": Of their own accord and Let Valor not fail. Or in true cowboy fashion: Saddle your own horse, cull your own herd, and bury yourown dead.

Maybe you should read it again if all you got was freedom ...... do your lips move when you read?

For example, in September 2001 Bush said that he was determined to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."[2] Six months later Bush said, "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."

In April of this year, Bush said that we could win the war on terrorism.[4] Then, on August 30, he said "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]."[5] The next day, he said "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]."[6]

Can't you just hear it now? ...

Foxy
Yes why go after Osama and his minions when it was Saddam that attacked us. You heard that from the lips of General Bush in last nights debate. Talk about out of touch.

Au, um, that was pure sarcasm. It is intended to illustrate that George Bush could not have done ANYTHING that would have been satisfactory to some of you no matter what it was he did.