McKinnon says NZ republic is inevitable

April 7th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

It is “inevitable” that New Zealand will ditch the monarchy and become a republic, Sir says.

Speaking on the eve of the royal visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the former deputy prime minister said the country has been moving towards “for a long time”.

“I’m quite certain the royal family understands that completely,” Sir Don said.

”[There are] 54 countries in the Commonwealth, only 16 are realms, and I can tell you now that one Caribbean publicly, and three Caribbean, privately are probably going to give up that relationship with the monarchy when the Queen dies. So it is a diminishing group of countries, and the important thing is for us to openly and candidly debate the issue.”

This is significant coming from the former Commonwealth Secretary-General. Especially that four of the remaining 16 countries are planning to become republics when the Queen dies. Arguably that is a sensible time for NZ to do the same. A plus – no King Charles :-)

Tags: ,

239 Responses to “McKinnon says NZ republic is inevitable”

  1. ChardonnayGuy (1,184 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, WindsorCorp is currently wageing a charm offensive, with Prince William TM, Princess Kate TM and Baby Prince George TM deployed to shore up their publicity ratings and make us forget Chas and the dowdy Duchess are actually next in line as our unelected hereditary heads of state otherwise.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Duxton (595 comments) says:

    A minus: Helen Clark as President……

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. iMP (2,344 comments) says:

    I think McKinnon is wrong. As the world gets more scary, I think nations like ours will strengthen traditional cultural ties not move further from them.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. EAD (825 comments) says:

    Why is becoming a republic inevitable?

    Globalisation, gay “marriage”, multiculturalism, prisoners rights, changing flags are not inevitable nor do they necessarily represent progress. In fact, they represent a regression IMHO as they are against the social contract between the citizenry and the government that is supposed to be empowered yet restrained by the citizenry.

    Moves to become a republic are not the result of a big ground swell of opinion from the general populace, but rather change forced down from above by Politicians with no mandate from those they are supposed to serve.

    Mainstream media and people like DPF are the “useful idiots” that parrot these ideas to make this unrequired and uncalled for change “inevitable” by echoing these opinions and dressing the argument up in emotional language.

    This Media is dominated by statists, who all sign up to a carbon copy set of beliefs especially post-modernist identity politics, the neo-Marxist belief that people are defined by their race and sex. Their line of questioning and thought is always “what more can the government do” to change the country rather than allowing for a natural social order to evolve.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    Felix Marwick expresses common views on the visit and the monarchy: The Soap Box: Royal tour a complete waste

    A colossal waste of time, energy, and money.

    I’m sorry, as a Republican, I just can’t develop any enthusiasm or regard for the Royal Visit that kicks off in Wellington today and will run until the middle next week.

    Their Royal Highnesses, better known to the tabloid savvy as Wills and Kate along with their son Prince George, will be dominating the news agenda for the next 10 days as their rather mundane trip around the country will be breathlessly reported on 24 seven.

    Forgive me if I’m not terribly enthusiastic about any of this.

    But the thought of having to follow the scions of aristocratic privilege around the country as they partake in such earth shattering events as riding in jet boats, visiting a police college, and yachting on Auckland harbour, bores me to tears.

    The only reason any of this has any consequence whatsoever is because of who they are. Descendants of a royal lineage whose relevance to New Zealand lessens with every passing year.

    What do we really get out of this trip other than a hefty expenses bill that’ll no doubt run into the millions of dollars?

    Not a lot. Rich people look at stuff. And by the way they have a baby. There’s your headline.

    Look, I’m sure the royal couple are lovely people. And I have a certain sympathy for their life in a gilded cage, always under the microscope, and never being able to say anything controversial. Thought the trappings of wealth and aristocracy probably aren’t a bad compensation.

    But what, in the quantum of human affairs do they contribute to New Zealand other than represent a vestigial tie to our colonial past. Bar symbolism this visit is an expensive waste of time, has limited news value, and does little, if anything, for the country.

    My ancestors, and I know I’m not alone in this, came to New Zealand to get away from Britain’s oppressive class system. To escape the poverty trap that constrained those who were not of the right social class. So why are we celebrating and endorsing the royals when they represent the very system our great great grand parents escaped from?

    I’ve got nothing personal against the royals but they’re an expensive irrelevance and we really should be looking forwards, not backwards.

    If they want to visit, that’s fine. But let them carry the tab. I’m almost positive they can afford it.

    It’s not a waste of time for those that enjoy obsessions with celebrity but it’s about as relevant to modern New Zealand as a visit by Tiger Woods, Mick Jagger or Angelina Jolie.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MT_Tinman (3,044 comments) says:

    King Charlie is a far more palatable prospect than President Clarkula, President Spud, President Wussel, President Hatfield etc.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tvb (4,254 comments) says:

    I doubt we will he ready in time when the Queen dies. Prince William and the Duchess may delay things

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ Duxton (539 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 9:09 am

    IMO, there is not one current New Zealander that has shown themselves to be capable or likeable enough to warrant holding the position of President. Until such time as we start to produce such beings, then leave it as it is. It isn’t broken, so why fix it?

    It appears to me, as has been pointed out, the cry for this isn’t coming from the people but almost solely from politicians and their ‘friends’.

    It’s like changing the flag – never any mention of it until the PM decides he wants to, and nekminute the New York Times announces NZ is changing its flag. Really? In this day and age with our debt increasing at rapid levels, we are going to waste millions on this exercise to achieve something that there is certainly no immediate need for?

    Like most of this sort of thing, some politician has a thought and suddenly we are told its what we want – when we are told it enough times we start to believe it.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Maybe, maybe not, I dont believe in inevitability. But if the flag issue is anything to go by, the people of this country will never be allowed to initiate such a move, let alone approve or disapprove such a move. I am quite certain that we would end up with a politicians republic, after being presented by a fait accompli that suits those who already wield far too much power and influence, and want no possibility of check or balance on that power and influence such as we currently have.
    A true republic, governance of the people, by the people, for the people, is never on the minds of those who seek power or hold it.

    I would only tolerate a republic when politicians can be removed by their electorate between elections as well as the government, bills can be struck down by the public and above all that budgets must be passed by the public, after all its our money, not politicians.

    If the so called republicans, who cheer for a politicians republic without any show of critical thinking, want their republic, please show a better system than the one we currently have.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Do you think there are any NZers suitable for the office of Governor-General then, Judith? How do you think the position of President would be different from that of G-G?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (7,945 comments) says:

    The “sensible time “will be when a significant majority of the New Zealand electorate decide it’s time,if ever.Not when yet another member of the elitist,permanent political class decides.

    And it’s got nothing to do with the personality of the incumbent…….it’s the office that counts.

    The Queen is dead,long live the King!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (8,420 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 9:37 am

    The GG is the Queen’s representative in this country and not an autonomous position.

    There are plenty of intelligent New Zealanders that can wear a badge, be a good role model and act in a manner becoming to that of a ‘celebrity with a sword’, but I cannot think of one that has the ability to wield the power that is afforded in the role of President. Strange thing is, when I ask others for their suggestions, they can’t actually name one that everyone agrees with either.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    So you’d be happy with a change endorsed by a referendum then kowtow?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tas (596 comments) says:

    The question that needs to be answered is: What do we replace the monarchy with? The monarch fulfills an important constitutional role, and there needs to be a replacement.

    It’s useless to have various people campaign for becoming a republic if they can’t answer that question.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    I really don’t have a great liking for a system that is based on inherited power. But I have a greater dislike for a system that has sought power as its basis.

    The only reason to change the status quo is if there is actually something wrong with the current system. And there is nothing wrong with this one except that a tiny little bit of it is based on inherited power. That power is not abused, and will not be abused to the extent that a President Clark or President Palmer would almost certainly abuse it.

    It’s not broken at the moment, so there is no need to change it. Even Australia voted not to change to a republic. Wait until there is a real problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (7,945 comments) says:

    One other thing.This is just another piece of media spin drummed up deliberately to accompany the visit.

    The British media are calling this and a baby seat nonsense a “row”.

    What row? Again the media creating their own shit agenda items.Fuck off and let us and the Royals enjoy the tour!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Judith
    The G-G for most intents and purposes is our head of state and exercises the powers that we would probably give to an elected president. It seems to me that the kinds of people who have been G-G would be eminently suited to be an elected president. What is unknown is the extent to which an electoral process would throw up other personalities. Overt politicisation of the presidential office might not be the best option.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    The idea of a written constitution that enshrines the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” as supreme law scares the shit out of me.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (8,422 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 9:44 am

    we would probably

    Until it is defined – until we can actually say for certain just how much power we would give such a person, then it is pointless discussing who would be suitable for such a role , isn’t it?

    The G-G is defined and acts according to instructions from the Queen (who yes, admittedly very seldom extends beyond anything the government requests) however, he is not (meant) to be instructed by the government.

    But that in itself raises questions – why have a President, if they are solely controlled by the PM of the day?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ gazzmaniac (2,265 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 9:47 am

    I agree, and I do not believe NZ is prepared enough to have this discussion until such times as our ethnic relations are sorted in such a manner that our historical struggles will not be allowed to dominate the process. At this stage they will.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    I don’t think they’ve made any preparations but I’ve noticed Canadians (in polls and political speeches) have often vouched the opinion that Elizabeth’s passing would be appropriate timing for Republicanism.

    But if the flag issue is anything to go by, the people of this country will never be allowed to initiate such a move, let alone approve or disapprove such a move.

    I am consistently baffled by people writing on this subject about what, who would allow what or which.

    If New Zealanders ever got exercised enough and rose up in agitation with a demand for some new constitutional arrangement then like everywhere that mass movement compels change it would happen here as much as anywhere else.

    But we (as in New Zealanders as a mass) don’t really care much, do we? We aren’t in a constitutional crisis, Iwi would be wary of a new constitution that puts arrangements with “the crown” into the background and in general if we want to address a problem as a nation we’ve got a lot more pressing matters to deal with.

    We will become a Republic one day, there just isn’t any particular reason for it to happen now.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    [re: head of State] until we can actually say for certain just how much power we would give such a person…

    Why have one at all? I don’t understand why people seem to automatically assume a person as head of state is a requirement.

    It seems a relic of feudalism to me and completely unnecessary in a modern nation where oaths of duty should be sworn to Constitutions rather than as oaths of loyalty to people (whether an embodiment of an ideal or not).

    If people find it ever so necessary to have someone dedicated to ceremony while minsters get on with their jobs then have an often rotated ceremonial position, a sort of national toast master of ceremonies in place of all the poet laureate this and royal that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    This is scarey…agreeing with Judith for the second time in a week…

    I see no upside in us changing our core constitutional arrangements, and heaps of downside. As others have pointed out, can anyone think of a greater horror than President Clark having the power to dissolve parliament? How would the President be chosen? If it is by appoinment then for all intents and purposes absolutely nothing would change from how things are now. Although nominally the GG is “the Queen’s representative”, for all intents and purposes he or she IS the Head of State.

    If the President is elected, how would that work? How do you manage the interface between party politics and the impartiality we would expect of a HoS? I dont think anyone is arguing for a US style President – a party political position – are they?

    It aint broke…no need to try and fix it.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. DJP6-25 (1,310 comments) says:

    EAD 9.16. You’re right. A proper republic with a written constitution is not what these people would give us. It’d be a banana republic.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I’d be happy to have a president chosen by Parliament. Perhaps nominated by the PM but subject to a 75% approval threshold. That would probably ensure that career politicians would be out and someone of the calibre of current G-Gs would be elected.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Reid (16,111 comments) says:

    No-one has ever made a rational argument for ditching the monarchy. At the end of the day all their arguments boil down to emotion. The monarchical system that we run here, as distinct from any of the others round the world and who cares about those, this is ours we are talking about and only ours, is not broken, in any way whatsoever. It doesn’t interfere with our freedom to do any damn thing we like, in any way.

    A plus – no King Charles :-)

    This is a typical disingenuous Republican comment for it’s not the person we are discussing it’s the institution. The incumbent is neither here nor there and is a strawman only for useful idiots to focus on.

    If we ditch the institution then we have to pay for setting up an entire new branch of executive government. With all the immense costs that entails. Plus what do we gain? Same as what we gained by ditching the Privy Council with its free access to the best legal minds in the entire world – vastly superior to the US Supreme Court. And what have we gained in that move? Nothing, right? I just told you what we lost.

    Unless and until republicans can bring a rational argument to this debate, their entire argument remains nothing but emotive vapour which will cost us a heck of a lot and gain us nothing. Same as the anti-nuke disaster and same as the Privy Council disaster.

    Edit: snap, David.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “This is scarey…agreeing with Judith for the second time in a week…”

    it’s the third time for me. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Paulus (2,562 comments) says:

    Perhaps it will happen very shortly as I understand Helen Clark is back in New Zealand, or very shortly.
    Perhaps a Cunliffe coup.
    However a Republican decision is very much within New Zealand.
    The Queen has always said it is up to New Zealand to decide.
    But the Republicans may lose in a referendum, as in Australia where it increasingly went against Republicanism.
    Here a Government may unilaterally decide like the decision to move away from the valued Privy Council.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Telling that republicans never seem, as far as I know, to talk about a referendum. Gee, I wonder why?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Becoming a republic will bankrupt us then we’ll have to give over our sovereignty

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “That would probably ensure that career politicians would be out ”

    I have a feeling there’s a lot of vested interest in career politicians from Kiwibloggers

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    This ain’t news. The old flake McKinnon has been a republican for yonks. He spent too much time among banana republics.

    The republicans are trotting this out yet again in a laughable attempt to divert the support for our nominally monarchical state that will surge among the young because of Prince William, Kate, and George’s visit.

    We are de facto republic with the economic and populist advantages of extremely low overhead cost but with royalty for faces on coins and for royal tours. McKinnon’s too thick to see that.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    DPF’s republican heart beats faster when he dreams of NZ as a republic.
    Enough said. Lets ignore the opinion of McKinnon, Bolger’s mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    And Davids crazy one man campaign to make Clark president marches on. My promise to nut punch you id=f she ever becomes president has no expiry David. The day she is sworn in…..
    Have fun in the Himalayas.
    Say hi to Ra’s Al Ghul if you find the blue flower.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. JMS (314 comments) says:

    It aint broke…no need to try and fix it.

    Certainly, our constitution is not broken, it works perfectly satisfactorily.

    So does my neighbour’s pink Toyota Vitz.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    The Monarchy Is Cosmetic, Constitutional Reform Is An Urgent Need.

    “Whether or not New Zealand becomes a republic is a cosmetic issue at best. What we have is a widely respected and understood system that works well. It allows us a level freedom and political stability that most people at most times and places in history could only dream of. What’s more, it costs next to nothing, less than cents-on-the-dollar compared to the overall costs of government.”

    http://www.act.org.nz/?q=posts/the-monarchy-is-cosmetic-constitutional-reform-is-an-urgent-need

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. backster (2,123 comments) says:

    I have as much time for Sir McKinnons opinion as I have for Sir Palmer………but incidentally how much has the standard of living in the new republic improved.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    My promise to nut punch you if she ever becomes president has no expiry David. The day she is sworn in…

    @Barnsley Bill: I’ll lend you a heavy hammer. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Gulag1917 (807 comments) says:

    The system works, why would NZ want to become a boring republic?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Newbie (39 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me how would a republic work in NZ? I don’t really understand how American republicism works. Also, if it’s anywhere like the election rah-rah hype they have, I don’t want to see that sort of thing here in NZ. It looks silly.

    Will being a replublic improve our lives?

    I’m no fan of the royal family, but I feel that the Westminister style of governance is fine as it is. But I’m prepared to learn the pros and cons of both this system and the republic system.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “I don’t want to see that sort of thing here in NZ.”

    Too late, NZ already has it, and has done for some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Sam Buchanan (502 comments) says:

    “It’s not a waste of time for those that enjoy obsessions with celebrity but it’s about as relevant to modern New Zealand as a visit by Tiger Woods, Mick Jagger or Angelina Jolie.”

    The difference is that those three could probably pull a crowd, even without a huge media campaign to boost their popularity. It’s true that NZ’s monarchy isn’t broke. It is unplugged though. It sits in the corner and nobody much gives it a second thought, let alone tries to turn it on.

    Most NZers are happy to have a monarchy providing a head of state, so long as they agree never to do anything except provide material for celeb gossip mags. Funny way to run a country.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    How would the President be chosen?

    Don’t have one, if it scares you so. If having someone with authority to dissolve parliament is frightening for thought of who might be President (and oddly not caring about who might by Governor General or Monarch) then ask for a constitution without anyone having such authority.

    Why have them? I don’t understand a wish to put someone above Parliament – it seems like a an unending quest for one more authority on top of another. Let’s just stop at the authority we elect and write a constitution that governs how and when parliament is elected, no exceptions.

    If we choose a new constitution then we can have what ever one we like, addressing whatever issues we find important. Personally I’d want a fixed election date (i.e first Saturday in October every third year) – never changes, Parliamentary rules that ensures Parliament and not a cabinet or executive is ultimately in charge of the treasury and all state armed forces (Police included) and no ‘head of state’. The constitution would be the embodiment of the state, not any person, not even in any temporary position.

    As for the Treaty Of Waitangi, I’d like to see it recast as the forbear in spirit of guarantees in our constitution to all citizens to the rights of respect and protection for their person, property and free expression.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. stephieboy (2,536 comments) says:

    It’s interesting to browse this thread and see the hysteria whipped up by by the fossil and paranoid monarchists brigade.
    Hilarious.!

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=franz+due+ferdinand+austrai&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=YulBU9u6Es28iAe4h4GgBw&ved=0CAgQ_AUo

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    Most NZers are happy to have a monarchy providing a head of state, so long as they agree never to do anything except provide material for celeb gossip mags. Funny way to run a country.

    I have a friend who thinks it’s just grand – leave the culture of celebrity and personality off to the side where it can harmlessly fawn on the Windsors and leave our politics to wallow in policies like it should.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    I’m no fan of the royal family, but I feel that the Westminister style of governance is fine as it is. But I’m prepared to learn the pros and cons of both this system and the republic system.

    There is no Republican system to show you – if New Zealand adopts one it is one we have yet to chose or create. Your responsibility as a potential citizen of this new Republic is not to sit and wait on others to deliver it unto you – it’s to speak up and make clear what you think is important and right or wrong about what others argue you should authorise for your future governance.

    Such constitutional changes are important and everyone’s responsibility. Even if it never happens in our lives that New Zealand changes we still have a duty to contribute to what is promoted because maybe it will be adopted and you don’t want to be left out, unconsidered for lack of participation, when it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    A proper republic with a written constitution is not what these people would give us. It’d be a banana republic.

    Don’t be so pessimistic. Much of what good we have in our laws and unwritten constitution was forced on feudal authority by active people asserting philosophies of freedom, individual responsibility and conscience.

    Go on, give it a go yourself when the time comes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RRM (9,661 comments) says:

    You can only throw away your heritage once, then it’s gone.

    I can’t see president Richie McCaw and Vice President Gareth Morgan offering any “added value” whatsoever over the Monarchy…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (9,661 comments) says:

    And I see Prince William and Duchess Kate think Prince George is going to let them go on the Shotover Jet… LOL, we’ll see how that works out for them :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    And while a breathless nation awaits, the royal couple has landed in Wellington despite very cloudy weather.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    What gives the monarchy value to NZ is that it provides the country with a sense of tradition, with a connection to something old, older than the modern world. This is why it offends Liberals on both the Left and the Right. Liberals, being stuck in a permanent state of mindless adolescent rebellion, hate tradition.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Perhaps we should revoke the Statute of Westminster and go back to being a colony.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    Liberals, being stuck in a permanent state of mindless adolescent rebellion, hate tradition.

    Unlike the sclerotic conservative incapable of accepting the individual responsibility personal governance involves, that demand for privilege often hides behind?

    Claims on tradition are pretty shallow and ineffective when every evil was once someone’s tradition. Conservatives need to find better merits to argue on to be convincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Steve Wrathall (261 comments) says:

    Don’t blame DPF for fleeing to Nepal to escape the next week’s assaults on his Republican sensibilities

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “Unlike the sclerotic conservative incapable of accepting the individual responsibility personal governance involves”

    Individual responsibility involves self-governance, which I’m fine with thanks. Big government democracy is the enemy of individual responsibility and personal governance.

    Tradition is what grounds us in history, connects us to our ancestors, and provides wisdom for living.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Because of his determined republican leanings, I suspect DPF would choose any president, say the loathsome comrade Clark or Geoffrey Palmer, over a monarch.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    Put the republicans together with the new-flaggers and climate change (if the activists are accurate) and we have a new flag for NZ. Either:

    A yellow banana on black background; or

    A corner containing a yellow banana on blue blackground, and in the other quarters of the flag, the Southern Cross.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    I suspect DPF would choose any president,

    Apart from the absurdity of sugesting choices for someone else it wouldn’t be for DPF to choose. We have a democracy so I’m fairly sure some sort of democratic process would be involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. stephieboy (2,536 comments) says:

    manolo, I didn’t realize Birthers like you were Monarchists,?
    BTW are William and Kate like minded.?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    Individual responsibility involves self-governance, which I’m fine with thanks. Big government democracy is the enemy of individual responsibility and personal governance.

    MY meaning was that as individual electors in charge of granting authority to govern we each have a duty to exercise our personal responsibility to governance – which is denied to us where others are granted inherited privilege over us.

    The nature government takes, big or small, as we elect it is a entirely different matter to the constitutional authority under which it governs.

    Tradition is what grounds us in history, connects us to our ancestors, and provides wisdom for living.

    I recognize a tradition of free thought and ongoing elimination of personal privilege in favour of better and increasingly direct authority over government in my history. So arguing for blind tradition is as much in support of changing constitutions as it is keeping them or keeping on doing anything.

    It is not a convincing argument against improving our situation. While not as cynical and self serving as the argument of necessity it still sails close to that creed of slaves (as William Pitt, the younger, put it).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    Sam posted at 11.34:

    Funny way to run a country.

    Not as funny as adding another tier of government with some old political hack, preferably a Maori or Asian transexual, as president. Another tier of bureaucracy. Another swarm of advisers, aides, bodyguards, drivers, cooks, PR’s.

    One of the few political advantages of these remote islands is the few layers of government, compared even with other nominally monarchical states.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    PG: How can you be “fairly sure” of anything regarding the putative Republic of New Zealand? My Pocket Oxford defines “Republic” as “a state in which supreme power…is held by elected or nominated president, and not a monarch”.

    The word “Republic” means no more than that: how the President is nominated or elected is for each state to decide for itself. Thus the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea has somewhat different consitutional and electoral arrangements as the US, which was the first Republic. We could choose from literally hundreds of different systems along a spectrum from those two extremes.

    About the only thing you could be certain of is that in any Republic of New Zealand Maori would have a disproportionate influence on how Presidents are elected or appointed.

    Jack5: To be fair, we have a swarm of advisors cooks and drivers now…they serve the Governor General. Not really any cogent argument there.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    If we don’t ditch our outdated ties with the monarchy Manolo or Jack5 might become the next Governor General!

    To avoid any chance of that we have to become a republic.

    (DG – republic is not the only option for us other than trying to retain past glories that weren’t even ours).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Fentex:I am consistently baffled by people writing on this subject about what, who would allow what or which
    ……,…………..

    Is it not obvious? Those with power, or influence, don’t want to lose it. Those who have it are already in a position to use power and influence to shape things as they want it, and our current systems do not allow for the governed to govern themselves. A politicians republic is not a good thing, when we can remove those with power at a time of our choice and approve the budget then a politicians republic or monarchy becomes irrelevant. Power, accountability and democracy are the issues here, not monarchy or republic and the starry eyed sheep like DPF need to realise it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Maybe consideration of a republic would prompt re-examination of a few other things: like the extreme centralisation of political power in NZ. How’s that constitutional review going, by the way?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    PG: How on earth does “ditching ties with the monarchy” ensure that the next GG is not manolo, Jack5 or you? Just as any of those persons could theoretically end up as GG, so they could end up as President.

    I think you need to bone up on the meaning of “Republic”…May I immodestly suggest my 1.37 is a good start…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    DG – I was being as ridiculous as those who say we can’t be a republic in case ‘xyz’ becomes president.

    If we change to have an alternative to the Governor General as figurehead of state then we need a sound process for selecting. If William Bell is chosen as the people’s choice then the people should get what they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “The nature government takes, big or small, as we elect it is a entirely different matter to the constitutional authority under which it governs.”

    It is directly related to it. An elected President enlarges an already grossly over sized state.

    “I recognize a tradition of free thought and ongoing elimination of personal privilege in favour of better and increasingly direct authority over government in my history.”

    Liberalism is an ideology, not a tradition. As for direct authority over government, how did that work out when a vast majority of Kiwis rejected the anti-smacking law change? Or any other Liberal policy that was opposed by the majority at the time?

    Democracy does not grant direct authority over the state in any real sense.

    “So arguing for blind tradition”

    Tradition is not blind. It is, rightly understood, the collective wisdom of our ancestors.

    “It is not a convincing argument against improving our situation.”

    Ditching the monarchy will not improve anything, quite the opposite. Our current system of constitutional monarchy does not need improving. It’s fine the way it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Change the constoenex:Your responsibility as a potential citizen of this new Republic is not to sit and wait on others to deliver it unto you – it’s to speak up and make clear what you think is important and right or wrong about what others argue you should authorise for your future governance.
    ………………….

    This would be relevant if any persons view carried legal weight. As things stand, you can say nothing or something and it will mean pretty much nothing, as that’s how the law is. Only politicians have the ability to change the constitution and will only do so if it improves their collective position. Your vote and mine will only be for a selection of predetermined options over which you had no say in, and that is a travesty. Such change should only occur when the public can initiate that change without political interferance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    Is it not obvious? Those with power, or influence, don’t want to lose it.

    It is exactly because it is obvious that I am baffled by people stating the obvious. Yes, privilege enjoys being exercised and those with a will to power will seek it. If we are aggrieved by it we will do what we will to seek redress (assuming we are not distracted by bread and circuses).

    But right now I’m interested in discussing the form a Republic should take, whether or not one looms on the horizon. Some people wish to dismiss the idea, but that’s mostly irrelevant to discussion of what form one should take if it did happen, as is observation that power seeks to protect itself (outside of consideration of how we ought seek to restrict it’s opportunities in a possible Republic).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    Re Pete George at 1.50:

    Thank you for nominating me for the post of Governor-General. I must respectfully decline. Manolo may accept. I’m a minority of only one. I will be in the queue only after one of the three or four Icelanders in NZ have a go at the job. Or what about Possum Pete Dunne? He must be tired of being a party leader. No need for William Bell to officiate from his cell, if that’s the William Bell you are talking about, Pete.

    Re in David Garrett’s 1.37 post:

    …we have a swarm of advisors cooks and drivers now…they serve the Governor General…

    I think, David, a President would bring a much larger mob on his coat-tails. And the pontificating speeches! No-one expects a Governor-General to have an opinion, but a President and his PR’s would be voluble.

    I like the present political set-up, a low-overhead, streamlined state without tiers of politicians and bureaucrats. It’s pragmatic and can be quick moving. It was even better before Palmer fucked around with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    By the way, Pete George, I think in a debate about NZ’s relationship with the monarchy, you ought to declare whether or not you are of the Hanoverian Georges.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. David Garrett (6,774 comments) says:

    Jack5: I also am quite happy with our present arrangements…But you raise an excellent point: What KIND of republic would we be? One like Samoa, where the appointed HoS is a figurehead who is not expected to have, much less express, political opinions. Or a republic like the US where the President has real power and is a party political figure? There appears to be a conspicuous absence of detail provided by those who urge that we become a republic. In some cases at least, I suspect that is because they know very little about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. JMS (314 comments) says:

    President would bring a much larger mob on his coat-tails. And the pontificating speeches! No-one expects a Governor-General to have an opinion, but a President and his PR’s would be voluble.

    That would especially be the case if we had a popularly elected President. Probably the worst possible outcome.

    But we could have a ‘republican’ Governor General, instead of representing the HoS, he/she would simply be the HoS. Maintaining that traditional title would reduce the chances of any delusions of grandeur.
    ‘New’ GG could also be chosen in a similar way.

    or we could have no HoS, as Fentex suggests as a possibility.

    I’m guessing that the Prime Minister would then be HoS (whatever that would then actually mean) by default.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    There’s not much impetus, let alone political interest, in a move to a republic at this stage. I would suggest that the likely nature of a republican proposal would emerge over time. The simplest option would be to have a president in much the same role as now occupied by the governor-general. Other options may emerge as the basic acceptance of the principle of a republic grows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    If we must have a President then we need to ensure it is one that will be a ton of humour.

    I nominate either Bob Jones (who would hold the title for life) or Dime.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    “The nature government takes, big or small, as we elect it is a entirely different matter to the constitutional authority under which it governs.”

    It is directly related to it. An elected President enlarges an already grossly over sized state.

    Do you not agree then, if you think we’ve a problem with too big a government, that we ought improve our constitutional basis for it? This appears an argument for change to me (presuming you are someone who argues our government is too big and intrusive). And though not an argument for Republicanism it seems an argument against stifling change in favour of extant tradition.

    “I recognize a tradition of free thought and ongoing elimination of personal privilege in favour of better and increasingly direct authority over government in my history.”

    Liberalism is an ideology, not a tradition. As for direct authority over government, how did that work out when a vast majority of Kiwis rejected the anti-smacking law change? Or any other Liberal policy that was opposed by the majority at the time?

    Traditions do not restrict themselves to such narrow matters, they apply where ever a person proclaims their place. You may not arbitrarily pick and choose what fits in tradition. That is an attempt to move goal posts. If you think there’s something more to an argument of tradition, make that argument. Don’t try and redefine my traditions to your pleasure.

    Besides which, are you not again arguing for change in violation of tradition when you complain that our current constitutional arrangements failed? It seems to me you wish we had binding referendums – quite at odds with our traditions.

    Democracy does not grant direct authority over the state in any real sense.

    I don’t think it does either. It is at best a working compromise on how to deal with those who seek power and the need to organise in our common interests by properly placing authority to govern in the hands of the governed. Something, by the way, inherited privilege does not fit with.

    “So arguing for blind tradition”

    Tradition is not blind. It is, rightly understood, the collective wisdom of our ancestors.

    “rightly understood” sounds like “when I agree with it”. Our ancestors made some very bad decisions, but they also include many people who over-turned the worst ideas for better ones and today we live with the benefits. I do not happen to think by accident of being the current generation alive that we have finished improving.

    I would honour my ancestors by continuing to improve the world where reason suggests I should rather than refuse reason by bludgeoning it with practice.

    If we err we can correct ourselves. If tradition holds wisdom it can explain itself. But silent and blind tradition can be put aside.

    “It is not a convincing argument against improving our situation.”

    Ditching the monarchy will not improve anything, quite the opposite. Our current system of constitutional monarchy does not need improving. It’s fine the way it is.

    I think most New Zealanders agree with this, and that sans constitutional crisis there is still a generation or two to pass before New Zealanders general opinion will have changed to considering it an out of date relic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    David:

    You hit the nail on the head in your 2.21 post.

    The NZ republicans want to overthrow the present set-up without a clear plan for what would replace it.

    It’s not enough to say the people will then decide and vote. I’m sure that’s much how Lenin conned the people of St Petersburg.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    I have no idea whether I am of “of the Hanoverian Georges” but I very much doubt it.

    I am of the Lowburn Georges. Apparently I am also of the Wantage Georges from some small sliver of my distant past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. SGA (957 comments) says:

    David Garrett at 2:21 pm

    What KIND of republic would we be? … [snip] … There appears to be a conspicuous absence of detail provided by those who urge that we become a republic. In some cases at least, I suspect that is because they know very little about it.

    I agree, and I’ve nothing against the idea of a republic in principle. (Relatedly, I found it extremely odd that there were some complaints that the discussion about changing the flag considered some concrete alternatives).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. hj (6,732 comments) says:

    The monarchy is a sort of parent figure whom we control. E.g the queens chain. We could feel safe that we could roam freely without a thought of Queen Vic bowling along on her horse telling us to f off.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    HoS (whatever that would then actually mean)

    Technically, I think, Head Of State means simply the highest ranked official. If a nation had a Parliament but no President I think it would attach to the Prime Minister.

    Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, there are four states where the position is currently held by a body of persons rather than an individual.

    Writing this, it occurred to me, a Westminster-ish Republican government, without a President, might do well to have some solid rules about specifying who the Prime Minister is that we might not have at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. hj (6,732 comments) says:

    remember Keith Locke crying in parliament when his republican (something) bill was defeated? Maybe he saw his presidency slipping away!?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    If we don’t ditch our outdated ties with the monarchy Manolo or Jack5 might become the next Governor General!

    An option infinitely superior to Peter Dunne, President!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    Ah yes, Keith Locke, the man who was a supporter of Pol Pot.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    There appears to be a conspicuous absence of detail provided by those who urge that we become a republic

    Have you looked for it? There are a few fleshed out plans that have been brought up over they years the topic has been discussed. The simplest, basically the “whiteout” option, is going over the places in law we refer to a Monarch and reduce them to references to the Governor General, then enact a law on choosing the Governor General (among the options for that law are a variety of parliament appoints, public elects etc choices).

    That particular option seems a bit half hearted to me and solely about removing the Windsors for those who want done with Monarchy in all forms and lacking a greater ambition to improve our constitutional arrangements.

    But the work has been done and resisting the idea on the basis of no one offering details is misguided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    big bruv
    Still repeating the Keith Locke/Pol Pot canard. IIRC, Locke once authored an article welcoming the 1975 fall of the regimes in Vietnam and Cambodia. He was later accused, mainly by Winston Peters, of being some sort of apologist for Pol Pot’s genocidal regime. Ironically, the government of which Peters was a young MP, actively supported the Pol Pot regime.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Fentex,

    “if you think we’ve a problem with too big a government, that we ought improve our constitutional basis for it?”

    Yes. That’s why I posted the article by David Seymour. We do need constitutional change, I’m just not convinced that ditching the monarchy is a need as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Shawn LH. My view as well. I think that existing form is fine, but that power needs to be devolved to the public, that politicians have too much power and that power ought to be restrained as monarchs were once restrained

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    I still repeat it because it is true. Locke was a supporter of Pol Pot, that is a statement of fact.

    How long have you been a member of the Greens?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    Not only was Locke a supporter of Pol Pot but he gave tacit approval to the 911 attacks on the twin towers.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Evidence, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “His political enemies have referred to him during question time as “Pol Pot” or “the Honourable Member for Cambodia” due to supportive articles he wrote while editor of the New Zealand Socialist Action newspaper about the Khmer Rouge regime under the headline; ‘Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity.’

    Similarly, while he opposed the 2001 war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, he wrote an article (in Socialist Action) entitled “Why workers should support Soviet action in Afghanistan” in 1980. This led to accusations of hypocrisy.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    I don’t know about Locke, but we know there are two bin Laden supporters in Mana, Hone and Sykes. That such a party may have any influence on a future government is a good reason to ditch MMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. kowtow (7,945 comments) says:

    PG is a “hangover” george.

    A thumping great headache.

    But unlike a hangover,he hasn’t gone by around mid day.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. JMS (314 comments) says:

    That such a party may have any influence on a future government is a good reason to ditch MMP

    Hone is electorate MP, in a close FPP election he could also hold the balance of power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “Hone is electorate MP, in a close FPP election he could also hold the balance of power.”

    Not if we ditched the Maori seats as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. JMS (314 comments) says:

    Not if we ditched the Maori seats as well.

    Good Point.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Southern Raider (1,747 comments) says:

    Who determined that this clown (Don) could speak on behallf of NZ? Fuck off back under your rock and stop trying to move the country down a pre determined path the rest of us have no interest in.

    If its not broken why waste money trying to fix it.

    Republicans are dickheads with too much time on their hands and no concept of the big picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Seems to me that NZ as a republic is big picture, actually.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. kowtow (7,945 comments) says:

    Talking of our proud British heritage ,traditions and legacy, India goes to the polls.The largest democratic exercise in the world.

    Yet we’re constantly treated to anti white,anti British,anti colonial tripe from the usual haters .

    The British Empire,the greatest the world has ever seen!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    The British Empire,the greatest the world has ever seen!

    Seen. History. From the last millennium.

    Back then New Zealand was a useful food producer until we were discarded as unimportant to the fading empire.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    ” Soon after the act of war that was September 11, Keith Locke spoke at a meeting in Rotorua on a platform with Annette Sykes, at a meeting called to protest the liberation of Afghanistan. As Keith sat there smiling and nodding his head in agreement, Sykes told the audience (as transcribed by a member of that audience):
    When I first saw the planes fly into the towers I jumped for joy, I was so happy that at long last capitalism was under attack. Until, it suddenly dawned on me, what about all those poor pizza delivery boys, those poor firemen, those poor policemen, those poor lift-operators, all those poor cleaners, all those other poor workers who are forced to work for and were trying to save those greedy and horrible capitalists!? My heart and head was so confused – happy that some capitalists had been killed and very, very sad for all those who had died while working for them.”

    There you go. Now, tell me, how long have you been a Green supporter?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Pete George (21,761 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    Seen. History. From the last millennium.

    Back then New Zealand was a useful food producer until we were discarded as unimportant to the fading empire
    ——————————————–

    Pfftt, the Empire was long gone by the time the UK went into the EEC. But the lies Heath told to keep the UK in the EEC was an excellent example of why consitional matters must be reserved to the public and not poltiticans, as the EEC is rapidly becoming the USofE without so much as a ‘by your leave’. Republicans in NZ tend to be fixated on how we arrive at a head of state before the crux of the issue, power, accountability and democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    big bruv
    I’m not interested in whatever loopy things Annette Sykes had to say. I was interested if you could justify your claim that Keith Locke was a supporter of Pol Pot’s genocide.
    So far as I can see, the main New Zealand supporters of Pol Pot were the National and Labour governments of the 1980s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    SJM
    Fair enough. NZ has very centralised political power. Possibly an elected presidency could provide an additional set of checks and balances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    I do appreciate that like all Greens you are on a never ending mission to rewrite history but on some issues you are destined to come unstuck.
    How about we use Comrade Locke’s own words.

    “Locke has claimed his initial support for the Khmer Rouge was because “…many people thought the Khmer Rouge were an adjunct of the Vietnamese communist forces” and that he thought they “…would be better than the regimes they replaced”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Yes, no one has denied that Locke welcomed the 1975 overthrow of the Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes (see my 3.02pm). That does not equate to support for the genocidal government that ensued in Cambodia. The distinction of supporting that government goes to the National and Labour parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. SJM (71 comments) says:

    mikenmild (8,441 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 4:04 pm
    Seems to me that NZ as a republic is big picture, actually
    —————————–

    Problem is that republicans in general, seem to be fixated on the nature of our head of state and little else, seeing trees and not woods. When its only those with political power and influence who determine when and if there is constitional change, who set the agenda and the pace of change, then the only ‘republic’ we will have is a politicians republic. Until such power is firmly in the hands of the public, discussing a republic is democraticaly innapropriate and the current system should remain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Locke may not have agreed with the genocide that came about because of the Pol Pot regime, but it says something about the danger of hard Left thinking that he did not think that would be a likely possibility, given communism’s track record.

    The best thing you could say about Locke is that he was stupidly reckless, brainless and naive in his support for communism.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. big bruv (13,559 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    “That does not equate to support for the genocidal government that ensued in Cambodia.”

    Evidence please.

    Locke supported the khmer rouge and Pol Pot, there is nothing to suggest that Locke changed his views until he entered the house. Like most of his fellow Greens I suspect he retraced his support with his fingers well and truly crossed behind his back.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. SJM (71 comments) says:

    mikenmild (8,444 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 4:40 pm
    SJM
    Fair enough. NZ has very centralised political power. Possibly an elected presidency could provide an additional set of checks and balances.
    ————————————

    No, an elected presidency will do no such thing, a tinkering with form, not substance and takes no account of human nature and could cause more problems than its worth. Any person who is elected to such a position with power will have a manadate to use that power, creating yet another layer of partisan government that is unneeded. A position with no power is no check on abuse of power. All in all a republic based on our current system will either cause constitional deadlock or further concentrate power in the hands of the politicians and the PM in particular.

    The only way to check political power within a Westminster system of government is to devolve power to the public; Electorate MP’s must face recall elections for underperformance or abuse of office, and governments the same, the budget to be approved by the public and the public able to veto laws after a certain period of time after being passed by parliament. Above all the ability to change the constition and national sysmbols must be reserved to the public with out political interferance.

    With this in place, the nature of our head of state is quite irrelivant.

    Our history on the British side, is a process of the devolution of power and evolution of institions to reflect that. Republicanism in NZ, as it stands, wouuld halt or reverse this trend. The onus is on republicans to provide a better system, a more accountable system. Mindlessly chanting Republic! Republic! without viable serious details, is to avoid the real issues here; power, accountability and democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Viking2 (11,275 comments) says:

    I’ve said this before but I will repeat it again.

    Wills for the next Gov. General.
    Couldn’t think of a better person.

    Key, I believe, has tested this water and this trip is about building the popularity that will allow this to happen.

    Wills needs the experience, so would be great training.

    Be great.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Viking2: Agreed, Wills for GG.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Why is becoming a republic inevitable?

    Because the monarchy is a sham. The coranation oath is broken by acts of genocide like the Canadian genocide.

    What remains is whether the republic will be a true democratic republic or not, i.e will due process and the rule of law be observed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    You will still have to have a drivers licence Uglynut. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    But Ugly, how can we be sure that if we ditch the queen we don’t end up with a different reptilian shapeshifter in her place?
    Leaving aside the fact that there was no genocide in Canada, let alone one perpertrated by the queen.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    As Cam Slater said on the radio this arvo: One can support NZ becoming a republic only after two politicians are dead: Jim Bolger and Helen Clark.

    Right on the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “Jim Bolger and Helen Clark.”

    That list is way too short. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Jim Bolger would make a good president, but I think he’s a bit too old now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. kowtow (7,945 comments) says:

    Hangover George

    India a democracy is now,not history.But it is a democracy because of its history.Its British history.

    Canada,Australia,South Africa,us, Ireland,even the USA.

    British legacy democracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Leaving aside the fact that there was no genocide in Canada, let alone one perpertrated by the queen.

    Still playing gatekeeper for the evil empire, MM?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Just noting that you had no evidence for those outlandish claims. Or any of your other outlandish claims, actually.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Why don’t you answer the question? It’s obvious that evidence exists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Sorry, I meant credible evidence. I’m being generous in admitting your ITCCS rubbish as evidence; but it’s not credible evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Sorry, I meant credible evidence.

    Why should anyone care what you think is credible?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I’m not the one who believes a one-man blog is actually an international court.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Neither am I.
    Do try to keep up, MM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    You’re not an international court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Ugly, you cited the web site, which does claim to be an international court. If Arnett is lying about that, and he is, why did you cite them as a credible source?

    Sounds to me like your lying to cover your ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You’re not an international court?

    No argument, so now you’re playing stupid. All the tricks in the book.

    Again, the monarchy is a sham. The coranation oath is broken by acts of genocide like the Canadian genocide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    But you have no evidence of a Canadian genocide.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If Arnett is lying about that, and he is, why did you cite them as a credible source?

    Arnett could be mistaken, and the credibility of the witness is a separate issue.

    Sounds to me like your lying to cover your ass.

    You should know that I can produce more examples of you lying that you can of me.
    Start with the quotes or slither back under your rock, ShawnLH.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    What about Arnett’s credibility? Do you think pretending to be an international tribunal is very credible?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    No you can’t Ugly. Your version of me “lying” is just me disagreeing with your lunacy.

    “Arnett could be mistaken, and the credibility of the witness is a separate issue.”

    Crap. It IS the issue. Basically you want to cite any source you like, no matter how whacky or insane, and when challenged you engage in diversion and backtracking.

    This is called being a bullshit artist.

    Now your quoting VT, a site that engages in open Jew hatred.

    Your sources are a joke and your credibility is zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    But you have no evidence of a Canadian genocide.

    You’ve just contradicted yourself.

    You said: “Sorry, I meant credible evidence. I’m being generous in admitting your ITCCS rubbish as evidence; but it’s not credible evidence”

    You have shown no reason to question the credibility of the witnesses or any of Arnett’s other evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Because they’re bat-shit crazy? Because it’s been shown to you before that the Queen was nowhere near the supposed scene of the crime at the time?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    This is from VT, a site you quote from:

    “Since Jews control every important aspect of our lives through banking, finance, law, war, food & drugs and entertainment, we are literally floating on a reservoir of truth blocked by a dam of lies… . The Jews have poisoned our minds for a long time, certainly for all the time that we’ve been alive.”

    It is one thing to quote from sites, even fringe sites, for political opinion. But when you make accusations of criminal activity and genocide you have to quote from sites that are not written by people who are Jew haters or who, like Arnett, have mental illnesses.

    That is just an invitation for people to dismiss your claims out of hand. And that is why almost no one apart from Reid takes you seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Your version of me “lying” is just me disagreeing with your lunacy.

    So why snip the meaning of “In judicio non creditur nisi juratis.” from your quote, if not to deflect attention away from your lie?

    Here it is again in full, note that you don’t have to have a degree to be a witness.

    In judicio non creditur nisi juratis. In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must when established, by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation. Cro. Car. 64.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Because witnesses can be mistaken. That is why expert testimony is also used in courts. Your assumption is that witnesses alone prove your case. They don’t. So far from lying, I simply exposed your facile attempt to claim as fact something you could not actually prove.

    All your doing is making up the rules to suit yourself, by very selectively choosing what you deem to be evidence.

    As I said, bullshit artist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Ugly
    Why, when challenged, do you slip into a meaningless tangle of pseudolegal definitions? Are you afraid to state plainly what you think and why you think it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Because they’re bat-shit crazy?

    You’re arguing that they are bat-shit crazy for testifying that the Christian religious heirarchy are behaving like the Bible said they would?

    Because it’s been shown to you before that the Queen was nowhere near the supposed scene of the crime at the time?

    That’s crimes, plural. Define “nowhere near”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “Define “nowhere near”.

    As in she was not within 100 miles of the incident you claimed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “Why, when challenged, do you slip into a meaningless tangle of pseudolegal definitions?”

    Diversion. Deflection. Bullshit production.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Because witnesses can be mistaken.

    Yes witnesses can be mistaken. However in the original context it was pretty clear that the witnesses were not mistaken, and you opposed their testimony on the basis that the truth depends on “people who have degrees and relevant knowledge”. Link.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “However in the original context it was pretty clear that the witnesses were not mistaken”

    No Ugly, it wasn’t clear at all. Unless those people had relevant qualifications, they could easily be mistaken, and likely were, given that people who DO have the relevant qualifications said they were.

    Your just trying, rather badly, to make up the rules to suit yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    As in she was not within 100 miles of the incident you claimed.

    So what? She travels from place to place all the time.
    Also, I didn’t claim any incident, the witness did.

    You’re just playing the same stupid game, MM. You can’t argue with the bulk of the evidence that you contradicted yourself about, so you try to pick holes in one point as if it made some kind of difference to the overall case, which it doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    You don’t think it is relevant that it has been established that the Queen was nowhere near the scene of the alleged crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    :lol:
    MM you will end up as a cross between ugly with a conspiracy addled paranoid world view and your other friends weird religion and Ayn Rand, anarchist monarchist fever ,
    The
    Mind
    Boggles

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No Ugly, it wasn’t clear at all.

    The witnesses reports were clear because they were corroborated by the extraordinary amount of heat at the site.

    WTC Fires All But Defeated – December 19, 2001

    Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. The fires that began with the Sept. 11 attacks had been strong enough that firetrucks had to spray a nearly constant jet of water on them. At times, the flames slowed the work of clearing the site. “You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.” [CBS News]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Hey Griff! Prayed to Gaia today? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “Also, I didn’t claim any incident, the witness did.”

    Liar. You cited the witness and approved.

    “because they were corroborated by the extraordinary amount of heat at the site.”

    Which has already been explained to you, but that explanation did not fit your global conspiracy theory so you dismissed it.

    You believe only what you want. Law and witnesses have nothing to do with that. You would still believe your theory regardless.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You don’t think it is relevant that it has been established that the Queen was nowhere near the scene of the alleged crime?

    No crime was alleged, and your argument is not relevant because Elizabeth can travel.

    Why are you focusing of the disappearance of 10 children rather than the more serious matter of riitual stanic abuse?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “the more serious matter of riitual stanic abuse?”

    You mean the non-existent ritual satanic abuse that the FBI proved was an urban myth?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Liar. You cited the witness and approved.

    Hey idiot, quoting someone is not the same as you claiming that it happened.

    Which has already been explained to you, but that explanation did not fit your global conspiracy theory so you dismissed it.

    The “explanation” didn’t explain how 700 degree surface hotspots could persist for five days, or how fires could keep burning for months.
    The witnesses said they saw molten steel, and steel fused with concrete was found in the remains.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Oh look Griff said Gaia the planet.
    ( Flogs self uncontrollably)
    fuck that’s a personification he worships god . He is as stupid as me………..

    Shall we look for a modern meaning of the word Griff used ?

    The original Gaia Hypothesis as developed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. Though it does conceive of the earth as a living entity, such a being, if conscious at all, has (in the words of Margulis) the sentience “of an amoeba” –

    Phawn you are such an odd creature.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Griff, you really should learn to figure out when someone is just winding you up for fun. Relax dude. The world is not going to end tomorrow. I think. Could be wrong about that. Relax anyway. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You mean the non-existent ritual satanic abuse that the FBI proved was an urban myth?

    Why would the FBI investigate the Canadian cases?

    http://henrymakow.com/2013/11/Satanic-Ritual-Abuse-Survivor-Speaks-Out.html

    22 Faces’ theme, SRA, is a practice so disturbing many refuse to accept it occurs. But more and more people are coming forward with evidence international Satanic networks is linked into drugs, child pornography and other brutal mafias.

    1) In 1996, 300,000 Belgians marched to protest government cover-ups in the Dutroux affair, which involved SRA and multiple child murders.

    2 ) In 1999, reams of witness testimony emerged to prove SRA was widespread in Australia.

    3) In 2011, Netherlanders protested their government’s cover-up of senior politician Joris Demminks’ raping, torturing and murdering of boys.

    4 ) In 2012 it was revealed that deceased UK celebrity Jimmy Savile, a close friend of the royal family, had abused hundreds of children, practised necrophilia (sex with dead bodies) and attended Satanic rituals. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379792/Jimmy-Savile-s-Satanic-ritual)

    5) In 2013, so much evidence exists to implicate Pope Benedict and accomplices of SRA that this November, Italian politicians will meet with US and European activists and survivors to discuss procedure.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Ugly, have you ever thought of getting psychotherapy?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Henry Makow now? Please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Excessive reading of the Koran has sent UT down the drain. Lost his marbles in the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ad hominems again? Please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    McKinnon always was a waffling second rate poser who never could cut it as a real leader of anything so took the booby prize of the Commonwealth sinecure when it was our turn to appoint someone that we really wanted shot of. His opinion on the future of Royalty in NZ is about as significant as my last fart! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    I can never quite get my head around having as head of state a woman whose greatest achievement was to come out of the right vagina.

    Apart from opening things, attending receptions, waving at the populace as she sweeps by in her Rolls and giving endless, boring speeches about nothing in particular, what use is Betty Windsor?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Johnboy (15,586 comments) says:

    She saves us from harridans like Helen or Fran or Dame Sylvia or horror of horrors…..Don McKinnon! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Andronicus (184 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 9:32 pm
    I can never quite get my head around having as head of state a woman whose greatest achievement was to come out of the right vagina.

    Apart from opening things, attending receptions, waving at the populace as she sweeps by in her Rolls and giving endless, boring speeches about nothing in particular, what use is Betty Windsor?
    ————————————————————————-

    Denying power to those who would abuse it.

    You want a republic? fine, but come up with a system that is better than the current one, not a polticians republic that concentrates more power into the hand of those who are essentialy unaccountable to anyone, and certainly not the public, which seems to be standard republican fare.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. V (694 comments) says:

    So typical, a rare royal visit comes along, generally a happy occasion and on cue some doudy republican gets in the news, making the usual claims.

    Why do they do it when the royals are here? Because nobody would be the damn slightest bit interested if they tried to get into the news at any other time. Shows how much interest there really is in becoming a republic.

    Also note how Sir Donald Charles McKinnon, and Sir Michael John Cullen etc are happy to take the titles, that they would others not allow others to have.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Rich Prick (1,633 comments) says:

    Let’s run one up the pole and see how it looks: President Cunliffe. Pass me a bucket.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Daigotsu (451 comments) says:

    It saddens me David that you will exalt the opinions of all manner of nonentities just because the agree with you.

    Who the fuck is Don McKinnon? Does anybody care what he thinks? Did you, DPF, ever care what he thought until he started prognosticating on your pet cause?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Mark (1,431 comments) says:

    If we head dwn the path of a constitution the elephant in the room will be the Treaty of Waitangi.

    In an ideal world a constitution will say all historic grievances have been settled and all New Zealanders have equal rights.

    Wont happen but its a thought

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The constitutional advisory panel was set up in an effort to maorify our constitution.
    I think the result was unambiguously take the treaty and stuff it.
    The mere fact that such a corrupt and obviusly skewed panel was created by national for maori shows the attacks on democracy from maori interests are real and have ploitical power.
    http://www.ourconstitution.org.nz/store/doc/FR_Treaty_Of_Waitangi.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    None of the panel’s recommendations seem particularly threatening:
    http://www.ourconstitution.org.nz/Recommendations

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me what being a Republic will give us, that we don’t have now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Separation from the Crown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi

    continues to affirm the importance of the Treaty as a foundational document
    ensures a Treaty education strategy is developed that includes the current role and status of the Treaty and the Treaty settlement process so people can inform themselves about the rights and obligations under the Treaty
    supports the continued development of the role and status of the Treaty under the current arrangements as has occurred over the past decades
    sets up a process to develop a range of options for the future role of Treaty, including options within existing constitutional arrangements and arrangements in which the Treaty is the foundation
    invites and supports the people of Aotearoa New Zealand to continue the conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitution.

    Māori representation in Parliament and in local government, the Māori Electoral Option and Māori electoral participation

    notes the Panel’s advice that the current arrangements for the representation of Māori in Parliament should remain while the conversation continues
    investigates how Māori representation in Parliament might be improved
    investigates how local government processes and decision-making can better reflect the interests and views of tangata whenua and whether the processes can be made more consistent and effective
    when conducting the investigation into representation in both Parliament and local government has regard to a range of options including Māori political structures, and local and international models.

    What a load of apartheid pushing shit MM
    The result of a panel that was full of maori focused educators not New Zealanders.
    Racist codswollop from the maori elite in academia . Which national gives credence to in its pandering to this farce of a panel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ UglyTruth (2,799 comments) says:
    April 8th, 2014 at 7:59 am

    Separation from the Crown.

    Which will allow us to do what, that we can’t do now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You want a republic? fine, but come up with a system that is better than the current one, not a polticians republic that concentrates more power into the hand of those who are essentialy unaccountable to anyone, and certainly not the public, which seems to be standard republican fare.

    A democratic republic avoids those two problems, but it relies on an awareness of the real nature of democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Which will allow us to do what, that we can’t do now?

    Realize liberty. The current civil system is based on a social hierarchy, hence the idea that for anything to happen permission must first be obtained. The principles of a true democratic republic embody the idea that permission is not required for any lawful act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    @ UglyTruth (2,801 comments) says:
    April 8th, 2014 at 8:09 am

    So it also presumes that every one is capable of knowing what is a lawful act and what isn’t?

    Given that we have a large number of people that can’t even determine whether coke is good to give their children for breakfast or not, I fail to see how such a system would be even remotely workable, let alone beneficial.

    If we were a republic, what would we have to do (other than an a massive disaster) to get our name on the front page of every major tabloid in the world, like we did yesterday?

    We are a tinpot group of islands at the bottom of the world, with very little going for us in the way of natural resources etc and with a tiny population. Our biggest ‘product’ is our tourism, which is entirely dependent on getting our name out there.
    Yesterday, thanks to the Monarchy, the name New Zealand was read by billions of people – so, that is a huge financial boost that being a republic could not replicate. I think we need to be practical, we are neither big enough, old enough, rich enough nor I would argue mature enough to go it alone. The monarchy does not interfere in any of our freedoms – in fact supports them, but being part of it provides us with some definite positives that a Republic doesn’t seem to be able to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So it also presumes that every one is capable of knowing what is a lawful act and what isn’t?

    No, only those of full legal capacity. Children are not presumed to know the difference.

    Given that we have a large number of people that can’t even determine whether coke is good to give their children for breakfast or not, I fail to see how such a system would be even remotely workable, let alone beneficial.

    What people eat for breakfast isn’t an example that distinguishes the relative merits of the various options.

    Yesterday, thanks to the Monarchy, the name New Zealand was read by billions of people – so, that is a huge financial boost that being a republic could not replicate.

    There’s more to financial wellbeing that having your name in the tabloids.

    The monarchy does not interfere in any of our freedoms – in fact supports them

    The freedoms that it supports include the freedom of predators to bleed the public of their wealth.

    being part of it provides us with some definite positives that a Republic doesn’t seem to be able to do.

    What does it give NZ that is more valuable that liberty?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Judith:

    “Can anyone tell me what being a Republic will give us, that we don’t have now?”

    Nothing at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    The freedoms that it supports include the freedom of predators to bleed the public of their wealth.

    Exactly how does a Republic stop this from happening?

    We have our freedom now – so, other than been able to use the word liberty – what ACTUAL things will we be able to do, say, own, etc, that we don’t now?

    Other than being able to SAY we are liberated, what advantages will we have, what would change, and is it sufficient to counterbalance the positives that we get from the Monarchy (e.g. millions of dollars of advertsing our name, like yesterday).

    Do you really believe that anything a republic, with some old fart as a president, who no one outside NZ has probably ever heard of, could possibly bring us as much attention as the Royals can/do?

    There is no practical reason to get rid of the monarchy, as far as I can see, other than to be able to use the word ‘liberty’, but there are some very good reason for why we shouldn’t get rid of it. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but so far, no one can tell me a single practical thing makes the change worth doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Politicians could be said to bleed the public of their wealth. The Crown costs us next to nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Exactly how does a Republic stop this from happening?

    It doesn’t. A democratic republic opposes this because of its inherent nature of serving the well being of the people via the rule of law.

    We have our freedom now

    No, you don’t. You don’t have the freedom of fair use public property within the civil system. While you do have free speech, if this free speech falls outside of the condoned topics of discussion it won’t gain much traction within the media.

    what ACTUAL things will we be able to do, say, own, etc, that we don’t now?

    In an ideal democratic republic you would not have to obtain permission to build a house on your own land or drive a car on a public road, and so you would not have not pay for licences or permits to do these things. The most significant differences between the current system and a democratic republic is the elimination of the karmic debt incurred by serving the empire, or in more concrete terms the elimination of the enforced servitude of the public via taxes and rates.

    Attention isn’t necessarily a good thing, it can bring ridicule or condemnation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “you would not have to obtain permission to build a house on your own land or drive a car on a public road, and so you would not have not pay for licences or permits to do these things.”

    Are you a libertarian Ugly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Ugly, could you give examples of countries that enjoy more freedoms than NZ, because they are democratic republics rather than constitutional monarchies? BTW, I’m leaning more in favour of the status quo, just because you favour a republic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “BTW, I’m leaning more in favour of the status quo, just because you favour a republic.”

    He’s having a similar effect on me. Fringe political views are looking less and less savoury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly, could you give examples of countries that enjoy more freedoms than NZ, because they are democratic republics …

    AFAIK there are no true democratic republics, for some people all democracy means is that the people are allowed to vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    So you can’t really tell whether a change to a republic would improve democracy, can you?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Dean Papa (782 comments) says:

    That’s GOLD!!!

    http://keoghcartoons.com.au/menzies-i-did-but-see-her-passing-by/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Mike, I think you got the non answer Ugly specialises in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So you can’t really tell whether a change to a republic would improve democracy, can you?

    It would improve it by removing the source of state corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    How is the monarchy the source of state corruption? How can you guarantee a republican arrangement would be free of corruption?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    How is the monarchy the source of state corruption?

    It established civil government in New Zealand, which is in a state of conflict with the law of the land.

    How can you guarantee a republican arrangement would be free of corruption?

    I can’t. A real democratic republic would not have the existing systemic corruption, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “It established civil government in New Zealand, which is in a state of conflict with the law of the land.”

    If there is no civil government, how can there be a law of the land?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Back to your pseudolegal bullshit, again.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If there is no civil government, how can there be a law of the land?

    The law of the land (aka common law) exists independently of civil government.

    LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority
    from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has
    never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is
    the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. (Bouvier’s dictionary of law)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    Common law did not exist in New Zealand. Thus there was no law of the land here for any civil government to violate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Oh, no one disputes that there is a common law. Where you seem to fall off your trolley is with an inability to acknowledge that the legislature can change the law, acting on behalf of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Where you seem to fall off your trolley is with an inability to acknowledge that the legislature can change the law, acting on behalf of the people.

    A properly constituted legislature can change the law that applies to the people that it represents. It can’t override the common law in the sense that a criminal act by the majority is still a conspiracy regardless of it being called law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    What defines a “properly constituted legislature” and why does the current parliament not fit that description?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (2,808 comments) says:
    April 8th, 2014 at 9:50 am

    AFAIK there are no true democratic republics, for some people all democracy means is that the people are allowed to vote.

    So in essence, it is just ‘pie in the sky’ stuff, that sounds good on paper, but in a realistic world is not achievable and therefore, I ask again, what (going from the examples of republics we have) – what is there for us that makes it a practical and positive reason to change to a republic?

    What is it about NZ that means we would be able to achieve a true democratic republic, when we have less resources, less population, are further distanced and are still characterized by inequality – when other countries have failed – are we just as likely, or even more likely to fall into the same trap and end up with worse than what we have now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What defines a “properly constituted legislature” and why does the current parliament not fit that description?

    A property constituted legislature is one in which its principles of operation are consistent with a constitution which is grounded in reality. The current parliament does not find that description because its interpretation of the common law is not grounded in reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    How is its interpretation of the common law not grounded in reality?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “A property constituted legislature is one in which its principles of operation are consistent with a constitution which is grounded in reality.”

    This is just meaningless waffle. “Grounded in reality” is not an objective principle for law as reality is very much in the eye of the beholder. Definitions of what is reality are as numerous as the number of human beings.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So in essence, it is just ‘pie in the sky’ stuff

    Not when you consider the alternative. It’s simply a case of being aware of what real democracy implies and adopting it in order to promote a system which is philosophically sound.

    I ask again, what (going from the examples of republics we have) – what is there for us that makes it a practical and positive reason to change to a republic?

    AFAIK the existing examples do not include a true democratic republic.

    What is it about NZ that means we would be able to achieve a true democratic republic, when we have less resources, less population, are further distanced and are still characterized by inequality – when other countries have failed – are we just as likely, or even more likely to fall into the same trap and end up with worse than what we have now?

    Physical resources, population, and physical isolation are not valid arguments for a change of state. Inequality within society is pretty much unavoidable, what real democracy brings is an environment in which these inequalities are not aggravated by the state.

    The risks of failure mostly comes from ignorance and lack of vigilance against existing threats, typically outside intervention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Grounded in reality” is not an objective principle for law

    It is an objective principle because of the role of reason in law. Conclusions based on facts and reason are grounded in reality.

    “Reason is the life of the law” ~ Coke

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Not being very specific about the nature of your democratic republic, are you? I’m yet to see you point out how in essence it would operate differently from what we have now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    How is its interpretation of the common law not grounded in reality?

    Because its description is factually false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I’m yet to see you point out how in essence it would operate differently from what we have now.

    See above

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “Conclusions based on facts and reason are grounded in reality.”

    You mean like the need to have driver’s licenses to ensure that those who drive are capable of doing so and capable of understanding the road rules? That kind of reality and reason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Yes, you are going back to your definitions of common law. What you are not articulating is how you feel that the legislature is falsely interpreting common law. Not that it is actually the legislature’s job to interpret the law BTW, that is the role of judges. The legislature’s role is to change the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Yes, you are going back to your definitions of common law.

    The definitions are from two different dictionaries of law. The differences with the state’s description are obvious.

    What you are not articulating is how you feel that the legislature is falsely interpreting common law.

    The state’s interpretation is false because it is a secular interpretation of something that is inherently theistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    You have said that common law pre-dates Christianity, in which case it is not inherently theistic, but inherently polytheistic. So your saying law is not valid unless the State recognises multiple gods first?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You mean like the need to have driver’s licenses to ensure that those who drive are capable of doing so and capable of understanding the road rules? That kind of reality and reason?

    The threat to public safety caused by careless or incompetent drivers is aggravated by the state’s practice of insulating those drivers from the consequences of their actions. Road rules and driver licences are two separate issues, road rules are a rational response to the problem of disorder in the public domain, while driver licences are fundamentally a permission and are not a guarantee that the driver will take proper care when using public roads.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    “The threat to public safety caused by careless or incompetent drivers is aggravated by the state’s practice of insulating those drivers from the consequences of their actions.”

    You mean like running over children? That would be a good way for them to learn responsibility?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You have said that common law pre-dates Christianity, in which case it is not inherently theistic, but inherently polytheistic.

    The religion of the law inherited by English common law was not polytheistic, but henotheistic, in which one deity is recognised as preeminent.
    This is illustrated by the first commandment of the Mosaic covenant, which is also found at the beginning of the original legal code of the English common law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. ShawnLH (4,434 comments) says:

    The Mosaic covenant was virtually unknown in Britain prior to the advent of Christianity. Your contradicting yourself. Pre-Christian Britain was polytheistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    You’ve still not demonstrated anything improper in how the NZ parliament makes laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What is improper is the interpretation of those laws as being universal, i.e. the idea that ordinary New Zealanders are bound by them. This interpretation seems to be based on faith, i.e. faith in the Westminster system of government, which goes back to Rome or (currently) to the house of Windsor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    But ordinary New Zealanders are bound by acts of their parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    But ordinary New Zealanders are bound by acts of their parliament.

    I notice you slipped in a “their”.
    Only persons are bound by the legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. SJM (71 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (2,818 comments) says:
    April 8th, 2014 at 8:05 am

    A democratic republic avoids those two problems, but it relies on an awareness of the real nature of democracy.
    ——————————————-

    Is that the best you can do? You add no detail, and point to some vague notion of the “awareness of the real nature of democracy”, wow, talk about giving a politician a blank cheque to do as he or she pleases! Thanks for confirming my belief that NZ republicans would halt or reverse the devolution of power that has happened with our current system!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    Only persons are bound by the legislation.

    There is little point arguing in detail about historical facts when discussing the actual effects of legislation.
    The real delineater of what legislation effects is what force will compel compliance.
    And thus the relevant definitions are the ones adhered to by the public, police and courts

    Besides which, even what UT insists on were true or not, legislation binds whatever entities it is written to bind. Natural person or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Oh Ugly, you are back to the ‘persons’ versus ‘people’ thing again. A meaningless distinction when looking at the application of statutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Not playing any more, Ugly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You add no detail, and point to some vague notion of the “awareness of the real nature of democracy”, wow, talk about giving a politician a blank cheque to do as he or she pleases!

    Wow, talk about ignorant. Democracy isn’t just about elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The real delineater of what legislation effects is what force will compel compliance.

    So if the local thugs get together and hatch a conspiracy, it’s all good because they have all the weapons?

    legislation binds whatever entities it is written to bind.

    The obvious solution to AGW: legislate against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Can you give me an example of a piece of NZ legislation that does not apply to you, Ugly? And the reasons why it does not apply?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Oh Ugly, you are back to the ‘persons’ versus ‘people’ thing again. A meaningless distinction when looking at the application of statutes.

    Not at all. Governments are the creations of people, and they can be destroyed by people.
    Persons (eg corporations) are the creations of government, and are subject to government.

    People are not persons unless they have rank, eg citizen, constable, sergeant.

    person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You add no detail, and point to some vague notion of the “awareness of the real nature of democracy”

    Here is a description of democracy written from a civil perspective. Replacing the civil law influence with the principles of common law would imply removing references to citizenship and human rights and replacing them with natural rights.

    http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/DemocracyEducation0204.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Ugly, are you a person or one of the people?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Ugly:Wow, talk about ignorant. Democracy isn’t just about elections
    …………

    I didn’t mention elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. SJM (71 comments) says:

    Ugly 4.47pm:

    I ask for a viable alternative to the current system, you deliver psudolegalistic rubbish and no answer, clearly you cannot conduct a rational debate, bye.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @SJM

    A viable alternative is a democratic republic. If you don’t understand something then you could always ask a specific question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    Milkmilo: Can you give me an example of a piece of NZ legislation that does not apply to you, Ugly?

    Perhaps something to do with UT’s Driver’s Licence? :P

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Elaycee, driver licences are a cloak for state corruption.
    The natural right of liberty is not recognized because of this corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Ugly
    Does the Land Transport Act apply to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Or do you consider yourself a Freeman on the land?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.