It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The republic of Australia.

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: ClandestineKid

The spiders aren't too bad, where I live it's the snakes that are more of a worry.

You have to be careful and look for them underneath anything EVERY TIME you go in the backyard.

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 11:18 PM

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown
reply to: ClandestineKid

Of course, all are welcome here!

Except those that aren't and are sent to Manus Island - Australia has some seriously tough immigration policies...

They have gotten even tougher, which is a good thing.
Now they intercept boats, put them on different boats and send them back towards Indonesia. The original boats are set on fire at sea. This was happening long before it became common knowledge through the media.

They should get even tougher. Start making them dissapear.
Illegal boat arrivals? What boats? What people? Mwahaha

Funny though how when it became a problem in South East Asia, they were all crying out for Australia to help them.
Yet when the flow of people is coming only to Australia, they do nothing to stop it. Now they want our help.
Stiff s*** I say, let them deal with the problem that they ignored for years while we dealt with it.
Boats sinking a few miles from Indonesian territorial response from Indonesia..but the Australian navy responds. Yep, says it all.

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:07 AM
a reply to: Krusty the Klown

indigenous population of 460,000

The 2011 census shows that figure is 606.000.

Australia would become a haven for every pirate, fugitive, terrorist organisation, drug cartel, organised crime syndicate and would be warlord

Exactly what happened when The British began to arrive in 1788. So nothing new there then.

And I'm sure England would welcome these 23 million homeless people back with open arms.

Where do you get the figure of 23 million? Only 32% of Australia's population have British ethnicity. That makes a total of around 7 million. Why would you expect Britain to take those with Indian, Chinese , Greek , German Italian etc ethnicity?

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 06:00 PM
a reply to: alldaylong

Because its a former British colony established by the British. Remember the British Flag on the Australian Flag?

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:20 PM

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown
a reply to: alldaylong

Because its a former British colony established by the British. Remember the British Flag on the Australian Flag?

Yes, but many of the people who live here now and call Australia home, and many who are born here, have no connection to Britain.
The Anglo-Saxon Australians do. Because their descendants were British convicts. Except those who settled in South Australia, that was the only free colony settled by free people.

There were some convicts who were not British/Anglo-Saxon however.
At least one was of Greek origin. In fact I think there was a handful who were. Perhaps Greek from Cyprus.
One of those men, his descendants have traced their roots all the way back to him. They didn't know their original ancestor who came here was Greek, because the surnames were changed, etc.

So the original question by the other guy of why Britain should take all these other people who are not the descendants of those shipped here by the British still stands and is valid.

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:11 PM
a reply to: mortex

That whole suggestion is completely ridiculous to begin with!

I still don't get why some non-Australians are against a Republic - they have nothing to gain or lose from it either way and its really none of their business.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:26 AM
OK so I couldn't be bothered reading through nine pages of drivel, but thought i would add my two bob.

My father is from Cornwall England, that's where most of my aunts uncles and cousins still live, my mother is an aboriginal Australian of the Wiradjuri people, now whether that makes me an 'English Aboriginal Australian' or an 'Aboriginal English Australian' I dont know and I dont really care, for I think of myself simply as Australian.
I voted as a fresh 18 year old to reject Independence and my reasoning was, not if I cant personally vote for any future President of Australia. Being a bit older now, if it came up again I would still vote against it, and especially against it while Australia has preferential voting. If my votes don't go for the candidates I want to, why would I want the guy or gal no one meant to vote for choosing my president.
As for, recognizing my people in the constitution, who does it benefit? and for what end? As an Aboriginal, I know my place in Australia and I know my peoples place, if a politician really wanted to talk seriously about closing the gap, they would remove all benefits of being an Aboriginal. We cant talk about closing the gap and then continue to divide the people with things like abstudy and constitutional recognition. And while I'm here, how about when Kevin Rudd said sorry we had a elder stand up and say sorry as well, I mean as far as racism goes you white fellas get it bad, we have aboriginal identified jobs, indigenous athletics comps, imagine the crap that would go down for a Caucasian only rugby league competition or a Caucasian identified position.
And as for flags, when you can go back in time and change what flag our soldiers have fought with on their sleeves, what flag has been draped over their coffins when we get them back home, then we can talk about changing the flag.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:19 AM
a reply to: hellobruce

Your ignorance is showing again -

Sounds like you're the ignorant didnt know that the Gov General could sack the Australian Government? I see you're from New Zealand. maybe brush up on some Australian political history, circa 1975.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:24 AM

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Sounds like you're the ignorant didnt know that the Gov General could sack the Australian Government?

What are you on about? Of course I knew the GG could sack a incompetent government - He sacked the Whitlam government as they could not pass supply, and the voters agreed with him as labor lost the election by a landslide!

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:38 AM
a reply to: MegaSpace

Last referendum was for parliament to select & vote for the president, this was rejected by the people as clearly so undemocratic and rightly so.

Its was set up so as to fail, by the incumbents! This explains it nicely

The one sticking point was the republic model. Polls showed that 80 per cent of voters wanted the president to be directly elected by the people. Unfortunately, most politicians wanted the president to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament. Politicians argued that a direct-election model would lead to a "populist" president. In other words, politicians were concerned about having less ability to control the population if power was diversified. They didn't want to be chained to the democratic process.
"The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a two-question referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament following a bi-partisan appointment model which had been approved by a half-elected, half-appointed Constitutional Convention held in Canberra in February 1998....
For some years opinion polls had suggested that a majority of the electorate favoured a republic.[3] Nonetheless, the republic referendum was comfortably defeated due to sustained opposition from monarchist groups and to division among republicans on the method proposed for selection of the president."

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:44 AM
a reply to: hellobruce

We already are a independent country

How so when our politicans bow down to the Queen and still receive honours from a foreign power?

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: akushla99

a proud once warrior nation that does not lick anyones ring

What you mean Kiwis? Like the French got away with blowing up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland in 1985...and the 2 agents convicted of manslaughter but..

As part of a plea bargain, the two agents pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years in prison, but in fact spent just over two years confined to the French island of Hao before being freed by their government in breach of its treaty obligation.[2]

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

You mean New Zealand will always be mistaken for Australia.

Nah, Australia will be mistaken for NZ, as most of them deserted their country and are living on the best place on Earth. Try walking down any Aussie street and not hearing a Kiwi accent!

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:09 AM
a reply to: gort51

6..Assassinate the President if we dont like him. (we use sophisticated things like VOTING!!

Nah we let the CIA drown them...remember Prime Minister Holt who made waves about Aust sovereignty at Pine Gap? (1967)
or we let an unelected Gillard bump off Rudd.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: Azureblue

I think that makes us a privately owned country of the Federal Reserve

No, that would be to the Rothschilds - not the Fed Reserve. Funny how we are numbered from birth, got to keep paying that compounding interest on money created out of thin air.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:20 AM
a reply to: hellobruce

Care to show us exactly where that was done?

Technically you are right, but if you think the Govt has your best interests at heart when they sign the Trans-Pacific partnership without public debate , then you are delusional. Who needs a constitution when you can ignore it through "foreign treaties"

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a global corporate noose around U.S. local, state, and national sovereignty – narrowly passed a major procedural hurdle in the Congress by gaining “fast track” status. … “fast track” is a euphemism for your members of Congress … handcuffing themselves, so as to prevent any amendments or adequate debate before the final vote … TPP is another euphemism that is used to avoid the word “treaty”, which would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate.

The corporate-indentured politicians keep calling this gigantic treaty with thirty chapters, of which only five relate to traditional trade issues…. The other twenty-five chapters, if passed as they are, will have serious impacts on your livelihoods as workers and consumers, as well as your air, water, food, and medicines.

Only corporations … are entitled to sue the U.S. government for any alleged harm to their profits from health, safety or other regulations in secret tribunals that operate as offshore kangaroo courts, not in open courts. – Ralph Nader

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: alldaylong

want everyone else to just go away and let them have their country back" ?

Where are you from? Some rare place that hasn't invaded another country, or killed its indigenous people?

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:28 AM
a reply to: alldaylong

Stolen property doesn't make it " yours "

Yawn... We're paying them for it out of this generations Taxes (Native Title claims) . The profits have long disappeared in England.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: zazzafrazz

with an Australian head of state.

You mean Tony Abbott born in UK, Rhodes Scholar Freemason and Catholic? He doesnt have much in common with the Aussie in the street.

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:39 AM
a reply to: alldaylong

I don't have to be an Australian to know about what wrongs where carried out. Is this issue " whitewashed " in your education system?

No its not whitewashed...Again maybe you should research before mouthing off. The Mabo decision recognized that the land was not Terra Nullius

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in