Hard News: Any excuse for a party
196 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I can see the argument there, but I'd rather do without a head of state who has to meet a religious qualification -- imposed by a foreign Parliament three hundred years ago -- that would not only be unjust but illegal to impose on our government.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Far better to have a parliamentary democracy in which ministers, including the prime minister, have to answer for their actions to the people's representatives on a daily basis.
That's not the opposite of a republic. Changing the nominal head of state doesn't have to mean going the US route. We could - and should - create something that reflects this nation's people and ways and histories.
-
Anyone else think that Key going on about his 'greenstone suit' sounded like he was shilling for a client?
then there's this
-
Adzze, in reply to
To the kitsch I add this work of genius.
Bahaha - and I particularly enjoyed the ornate detailing.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Far better to have a parliamentary democracy in which ministers, including the prime minister, have to answer for their actions to the people's representatives on a daily basis.
We'd be a Parliamentary republic with a mostly ceremonial head of state, like Ireland is.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
There is no reason why an NZ republic should separate a powerful executive (president/governor and cabinet) from the legislature
In fact, only a minority of republics (such as the USA and France) do this.
Most republics have a titular president with limited powers, with the head of government being the parliamentary majority leader (Ireland, Germany, India, etc) or combine the roles of PM and head of state (South Africa).
-
Lea, Russell's answered the question as I would have. The US republic is a particular arrangement and separates the legislature from the executive in a unique way. We'd not have to, or want to, follow their approach... which is federalist too. My preference for a republic is to simply replace the Governor General with a domestically appointed head of state with largely the same, ceremonial powers (I'll leave others to talk about the "reserve powers" if they so wish).
There is an issue of how they are appointed of course. Debate over this - appointed by all of parliament or by through a separate election - was partly what derailed the 1999 Australia referendum
-
I rarely agree with Nick Cohen but this time I'll go along with him:
When the 18th century English dissenter Richard Price, friend of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, warned that fawning before royalty produced "idolatry as gross and stupid as that of the ancient heathens," he aptly titled his denunciation "A Discourse on the Love of Our Country."....
........The trouble with monarchy, however, is that, by definition, no one can stop the Prince from becoming King Charles III, because the British are not allowed to vote for their head of state. Charles Windsor constantly interferes in politics and promotes every variety of reactionary superstition and new-age quackery. He sounded like the leader of a messianic cult when he announced in a recent book, "I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to ... indicate possible ways we can heal the world." Yet whatever his personal failings, he will be King because he was born to the right mother.
-
I believe New Zealand’s future can only be as a republic.
….thereby nullifying the Treaty of Waitangi. Bridge burning equipment on standby.
As for NZ becoming a republic, Russell–try living in one for a decade and you’ll soon change your mind…..Give me a hereditary monarch with extremely limited powers any day over an elected one with real power and no-one to answer to. Even if the chief executive is voted out after four years, they can do a lot of damage in the meantime.
Ditto. That kiss(es) was a beautiful scene. I think social/ political investment in that moment benefits us as people and as a nation.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I already explained why it did't affect the Treaty upthread at:
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic/3006/?p=211115#post211115Or see the Republican Movement's explanation here.
-
chris, in reply to
Make no mistake, it affects the Treaty Rich of Obsevationz. Currently the original signatory (the British) still have a stake in the agreement, removing them entirely will certainly alter the dynamic of the relationship between the parties.
Why would you fire your Guardian Angel?
-
Islander, in reply to
I love the way you think you know better than other people here chris – and I’m saying that as patron of the (A)NZ Republican Movement.
Just go check out the Statute of Westminister eh?
Or, possibly, give some sites/references that might support your view?Especially the part that 'the British' still 'have a stake in the agreement'?
-
Chris, becoming a republic doesn't necessarily disrupt any obligations under the Treaty, it might transfer them but the reality is that the UK offers no real contribution beyond access to higher courts... oh hang on...
-
chris, in reply to
I don’t think I know better than anyone here Islander. Perhaps I’m wrong, I simply worry that over 37% of New Zealanders want the treaty removed from New Zealand law, that if this number were to increase significantly, then the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.
Perhaps it’s naive of me, but I see Britain as a last line of insurance against gross mismanagement of New Zealand for the price of minimal political interference. As evidenced rightly or wrongly in the case of David Bain.
is that the UK offers no real contribution beyond access to higher courts… oh hang on…
You’re speaking my language Paul.
-
Islander, in reply to
That is an interesting take (word meant in both languages) on the subject chris-
one of the things that Kai Tahu have found over the past decade is that - education works. Working in the general community (of the South Island mainly, but also north)- works. Making our huiatau/annual meeting open to everyone - works. There is waaay less racism/anti-Maori feeling now, than when I was growing up - indeed, for much of my adult life. There may have been a poll that showed "over 37% of New Zealanders want the Treaty removed from New Zealand law"- but I'd really like some details on that figure e.g: number of participants? Wording of question? Area/s participants came from? -
Islander, in reply to
David Bain? Retried in an ANZ court - and what a fiasco that was.
I emphatically do not think our court system perfect: the case of Peter Ellis remains as a kind of suppurating judicial sore... -
Paul Williams, in reply to
I’m unfamiliar with that poll Chris. Fortunately, neither a poll nor even for that matter a majority of electors of even MPs is sufficient to excuse the crown’s responsibilities under the Treaty. It is a matter for the courts, international courts if necessary as it was a Treaty between two sovereign parties. Any process toward republicanism would necessarily involve an agreement transferring any responsibilities owed by Elizabeth R to the NZ government. Anyone advocating for republicanism on any other basis is either wrong or foolish.
-
As the link says Islander; 2700 participants, but like any survey, it’s never going to give you a particularly clear indication of the feeling of the greater population, but it’s a high enough figure to cause some concern.
David Bain? Retried in an ANZ court – and what a fiasco that was.
Via the Privy Council.
-
Islander, in reply to
2008? Mmhmm – and not a lot of other info-
and what precisely makes you think that ‘the British’ would be coming to the aid of Maori if the Treaty was ditched? Even if intervention was to 'their' possible advantage?
Paul Williams - +1
-
chris, in reply to
and what precisely makes you think that ‘the British’ would be coming to the aid of Maori if the Treaty was ditched?
Simply that the maintenance of the British/New Zealand relationship leaves other legal avenues open for New Zealanders.
Were New Zealand already a republic, for better or for worse such an avenue wouldn’t have been available to Bain.
Can there be such a thing as too much justice? Looking at this case, arguably perhaps, but the odds are that the next person in need of this instrument may be more deserving.
-
Islander, in reply to
"other legal avenues"?
Urm, which ones precisely?
Our relationship - currently- is that of sovereign nation states who - regrettably, currently - happen to share the same head of State.You're possibly talking about an appeal to Elizabeth Windsor in person?
-
the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.
The G-G can be fired by the Prime Minister at any time, without cause.
The British have zero input, except as one of 192 members of the UN. Even when the Privy Council was the highest court of NZ (that changed for cases after 2004) it acted as a hired adjudicator to interpret *NZ* law.
-
Islander, in reply to
That avenue hasnt been available to Peter Ellis , chris- and I think it would make buggerall difference to his especial circumstances.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I don’t think I know better than anyone here Islander. Perhaps I’m wrong, I simply worry that over 37% of New Zealanders want the treaty removed from New Zealand law, that if this number were to increase significantly, then the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.
You are wrong, as we don't have any recourse to a British system any more. Which renders all of your points rather pointless.
-
chris, in reply to
“other legal avenues”?
Urm, which ones precisely?
the one I just mentioned.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.