|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
The yanks had it 20 years ago, Aussies 10, we have it here now. That about fits the trend.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Varkk posted:It takes a real effort to seize the moral low ground in an argument with a minister from the current government but this guy certainly achieved that. John Lehmann has been a class act for a while now. He used to run a group called the Government Accountability League and advocated, if not coined "Dob-a-wog week" encouraging people to turn in non-white overstayers
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
He's also a former National spin-doctor apparently per NRT. http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/03/wicked-campers-and-freedom-of-speech.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Dunne dunne DUUUUUUUNNNNNE Let's vote again in 2020 says Peter Dunne - on a Republic http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11610659 Seems to stem from some wittering on his blog: http://honpfd.blogspot.co.nz/
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
I feel like we have to wait until Charles becomes King before we vote to become a republic. Lizzy is too popular and lots of kiwis feel a connection to her, but Charles is a weird old English dude and I wouldn't be surprised for that to be the trigger for us to become a republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Lancelot posted:I feel like we have to wait until Charles becomes King before we vote to become a republic. Lizzy is too popular and lots of kiwis feel a connection to her, but Charles is a weird old English dude and I wouldn't be surprised for that to be the trigger for us to become a republic. Plot Twist: Lizzy outlives him and he never becomes king, William becomes the next monarch and people tend to like him. I'd bet  on that happening, Charles looks like poo poo these days, the Queen looks pretty healthy still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Is there any advantage to becoming a republic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
None. Functionally nothing changes internally, but now we need a new flag because we aren't part of the commonwealth anymore so we can waste another 30-100 million. Basically an excuse to stir up the flag BS again in a couple of years instead of pulling it off for another 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Well for one the governer general would no longer exist and therefore no longer have the power to literally tell the entire government to gently caress off they're fired, as the Australian one did in the 70s. We would be actually self-governing instead of nominally self-governing, as currently whether or not the governer-general can outright veto any laws we pass is yet to be tested in constitutional court. The governer-general actually has a good amount of power but does not exercise any of it purely on the understanding that if they did and it was unpopular then it would basically be the first step to us declaring ourselves a republic anyway. Also it would make room for John Key to be on our money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Also it would make room for John Key to be on our money. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:We would be actually self-governing instead of nominally self-governing I'd argue we are actually self-governing and that the Queen and by extension the Governor-General only nominally have any power. Technically yeah the Gov-Gen could refuse to give royal assent to legislation passed by our democratically elected government but it's hard to imagine such a thing actually happening unless the government abused Parliamentary supremacy to do something incredibly undemocratic like give themselves an indefinite term. The Gov-Gen is really only a traditional/ceremonial position and maaaaybe could function as a check on the power of Parliament since our courts can't overturn legislation as unconstitutional like in the States. But as you say any interference would likely lead to the abolition of the position anyway. Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
In what sense would you argue that? The governor-general's powers are not nominal in any sense. They factually and concretely exist within our constitution, whether they have been exercised recently or not. Our government literally convenes and dissolves at the say-so of the representative of a foreign power. Just because they've historically always said yes whenever we've asked doesn't mean we're self-governing. It's not a technicality just because abuse of it would lead to democratic crisis. It's the legal framework of our loving nationhood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Basically it is an "in case of emergency break government" kind of a thing and is likely to be one shot and gone. Most who get the position probably want to coast it perform some ceremonial duties then retire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
The treaty of waitangi also becomes invalid because the crown no longer has authority in NZ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
The Governor General may have more than nominal power but the constitutional convention that the GG ever using those powers independently or not accepting the advice of Ministers would be cause for New Zealand becoming a Republic is much more than nominal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:In what sense would you argue that? In the sense that day to day we literally self govern and the Gov Gen does what Parliament says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Regarding the issue of requiring royal assent to pass laws I am also pretty confident in the event of the Governor General refusing to give assent that New Zealand would promptly and pragmatically recognize a new Governor General kind of like a historical antipope to get the job done. Later on legislation and co-operation from the new compliant 'legit' Governor General would remedy any technical legal problems fong posted:The treaty of waitangi also becomes invalid because the crown no longer has authority in NZ. Anywhere that the Treaty is incorporated in current legislation would not be at issue - I know there are quite a few Masters and PhDs out there about how it could affect treaty settlement negotiations Jacobin fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
I imagine there's a whole bunch of legislation that mentions "The Crown" so any move to be a republic would just involve an act that says "Any instance of "The Crown" gets replaced with "The New Zealand Government"" and that'll be the end of it. In saying that, there's a Maori guy on my facebook friends list who's a die hard monarchist, anti-republican, and National party supporter, who cites the Treaty being an agreement with the crown as one of the main reasons he's a monarchist. Weird guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Pretty sure back when we changed from being a dominion to a country the obligations for the treaty were shifted from the English monarchy to the NZ Govt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Cast your guesses now for the referendum result. I'm going with no change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:Cast your guesses now for the referendum result. I'm going with "No change, and John never wanted to change, but New Zealand wanted to have the discussion and he is the one who facilitated that"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
My avatar stays, as do those of 5 random people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Pretty stoked my voting papers only arrived yesterday. Democracy in action!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:In the sense that day to day we literally self govern and the Gov Gen does what Parliament says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/2016_flag_referendum2/ So we're keeping the old flag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Will be interesting to compare how electorates voted with how high their National party vote was in the last election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Firstscion posted:http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/2016_flag_referendum2/ Wow Who could Have guessed
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
The "For change" vote was bigger than I thought it would be (and the polls were suggesting)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Red_Museum posted:The "For change" vote was bigger than I thought it would be (and the polls were suggesting) The retards of this country voted John "sexual assault" Key into power more than once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Thank goodness. The Lockwood design was so tacky. I was expecting there to be less votes for it, though. At a glance through the info, the electorate with the biggest support for the Lockwood design was Tamaki, at 51.9%, and the lowest support for it was from Te Tai Tokerau at 21.1%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Suck it, scrub losers
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Red_Museum posted:The "For change" vote was bigger than I thought it would be (and the polls were suggesting) Ton of Nat voters jumped on board because John said so, but non-Nat pro-change people stayed pro-change
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
He liked his own status. National party social media incompetence makes me unreasonably angry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
My failed vanity project was in fact a clever ploy to get kiwis to love the old flag
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Can we hang this traitor yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:He liked his own status. National party social media incompetence makes me unreasonably angry. Apparently his 'speech' about the flag result was extended periods of "Is the mic live yet?" "No it isn't live" the mic was live.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Van Dine posted:At a glance through the info, the electorate with the biggest support for the Lockwood design was Tamaki, at 51.9%, and the lowest support for it was from Te Tai Tokerau at 21.1%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
cptn_dr posted:I'm going with "No change, and John never wanted to change, but New Zealand wanted to have the discussion and he is the one who facilitated that"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Infotainment! posted:He liked his own status. National party social media incompetence makes me unreasonably angry. I want to believe he used one of the other newfangled reactions. The crying one, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:54
|
|
