Hi all,
As people could probably guess, I agree with Rod on these issues, though the
overall debate within this forum has been really helpful. So I just wanted
to add a couple more comments in response.
Trudy wrote:
>Rod,
>I can't let this go by without a few comments. I have said that I want a
direct election model but I have >always been willing to listen to reason
and be convinced that another model is better. Unfortunately, I
>feel that anyone who wasn't thrilled with the ARM model wasn't listened to.
The reason the 'yes' faction will lose, I believe, is because they haven't
come up with anything that will >convince the direct electionists to see it
their way. They also have shown no interest in listening to the >Australian
people.
tim:
Although I'm certainly no big fan of the ARM, the idea that the obligation
was on them to be inclusive seems misplaced. They were formed to promote
not just a Republic but a particular model, a model that they, for whatever
reasons, decided was best. Malcolm Turnbull wrote a book about the thing
way back in 1993 and has been pretty consistent in his reasons for wanting
this model. What is perceived as the intransigence or arrogance of the
indirect electionists may just be a case of a group of people who have
genuinely thought through the issues to their own satisfaction and have
reached a conclusion. It is no more unreasonable for them to stick to their
guns than it is for anybody else.
Trudy wrote:
>The whole thing has degenerated into sloganeering and is now descending
into the farce of making the dead >vote. The 'yes' faction is using a very
strange method of persuading direct electionists in my view. They >ridicule,
threaten and attack and I, for one, don't find that very convincing.
tim:
I too deplore the use of mindless sloganeering, though I haven't seen a
great deal of evidence of ridicule and threats. Nonetheless, the direct
electionists have not been without their fair share of denigrating comments
about the other side (I'll forget the endless personal attacks launched by
the actual monarchists in the No camp). Those who favour an appointed
President have been told at various times and in various forums that an
appointed President is anti-democratic, authoritarian, elitist, a stooge of
the Howard camp, selfish, racist and unsupportive of Indigenous Australia.
So if there is blame to be apportioned on this score then it belongs to both
sides.
Trudy wrote:
>Any poll taken shows the overwhelming majority of Australians want a
republic but they don't want this >model.
tim:
This is not true. The deliberative poll - which fulfils a reasonable
defintion of being properly representative and of being an opportunity for
ordinary people to assess the arguments - shows beyond doubt that once they
are properly consulted and informed, people reject the direct election
model. The figures were astounding - support for direct election dropped
from 50% to 19% over the six weeks of the process. And the only response
the No case has had is to denigrate the process, saying it was rigged. But
the real lesson in this result was for direct electionists - it showed that
they can't rely on a direct election model getting up. It doesn't guarantee
that it will be beaten, but it does show that the current figures of the
regular polls showing high support for a direct election model can't be
relied on once a concerted No campaign starts.
Trudy wrote:
>The way this has been conducted has guaranteed it will lose >because
Australians have been treated >like mushrooms. Many >people don't understand
the details and instead of educating them >the ads on TV and the >slogans
have treated them like simpletons - >playing on nationalistic emotions.
tim:
I agree with this up to a point - the ads from both sides have been
appalling and insulting. Nonetheless, there is also an obligation on people
to do some of the work themselves and I doubt that there is an aspect of
this issue where information is not available somewhere fairly accessibly.
Books have been written, endless articles in newspapers, mags and on
websites in earnest for the last seven years - the amount of info available
is immense. In addition, there have been countless television shows, radio
discussions and public meetings going over and over the issues. The fact
that the ads haven't made use of this material is deplorable, but the idea
that "Australians have been treated like mushrooms" in any sense beyond that
is, I think, wrong.
Trudy wrote:
>Its not as simple as 'if you want a republic you will vote yes'.
tim:
But it is - as Rod has said - as simple as that if you vote no, there will
be no republic. That is certain. Prospects for further referendums,
different models, and wider and deeper constitutional change, are
speculation only.
Trudy wrote:
>We should have a plebiscite first and when the real number of Australians
for a republic is known, then >different models should be put up for
discussion until one is found that most people will trust.
tim:
I agree with this absolutely and unreservedly. This would have been the
best way to go. But it hasn't gone this way and it seems wrong to me to
reward those (like Howard) who have manipulated the process to their own
ends. If there is a possibility of more discussion and future referendums
after a No vote, then it is also possible to have this after a Yes vote.
Labor have guaranteed the issues will be revisited after a Yes vote. There
is even a guarantee that another convention will be held within 3-5 years
after this vote, regardless of the outcome - that was one of the better
results of the constitutional convention.
It gets back, in my opinion, to what I said earlier and following on from
Rod's comments - a No vote means No republic: that is a certainty. On Nov 7
we wake wake up with a monarchy still at the heart of the constitution, a
more bigoted and undemocratic system than that on offer on Nov 6. What
might happen beyond that is speculation.
Tim
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
