Quite right, the French were very helpful. On the other hand if you needed them there is a right wing gov't there now that might help out. And if Sarkozy was reluctant, at least you wouldn't have the to deal with the Germans, as we did. So that evens out.
For the rest, your pathetic excuses about why in the 21st century a modern society accepts the nominal leadership of a feudal monarch are risible. It is certainly no harder to make Downunder a republic than for ordinary Americans to affect the foreign and other policy of our own republic with its "imperial presidency."
--- Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> At 10:16 PM -0700 19/3/08, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, Bill, won't do as way to wriggle out.
> >Backwards as we Yanks are in lots of ways we did
> show
> >the world how to get out from under a monarchy 200
> >years ago.
>
> That's right, you went running to the French and
> beseeched them to
> come to your rescue, as I recall my history. I'm not
> sure that would
> work again. For a start they are probably a bit
> disappointed in your
> lack of gratitude and wouldn't be bothered helping
> out Anglos again.
> So you've stuffed that for the rest ofr us, hope
> you're proud of
> yourselves? They're also a bit less inclined to that
> sort of martial
> adventure these days. The EEU and all that. I think
> one of the rules
> is they aren't allowed to go to war with England
> anymore.
>
> >These days you wouldn't even have to bring down the
> >squirrel muskets and hold your fire till you see
> the
> >whites of their eyes, have only one life to give
> for
> >your country, pledge your lives, your fortunes, and
> >your sacred honor, make any midnight rights in
> Boston
> >or Canberra, or winter at the Downunder equivalent
> of
> >Valley Force. A vote in parliament would probably
> >suffice, and the Brits wouldn't even send the
> Germans
> >after you the way they did us.
>
> Needs a referendum to amend the constitution I'm
> afraid. Which is a
> tricky thing just to get started. (You need an act
> of parliament
> (with Royal Assent) just to get the question on the
> ballot. Then you
> need a majority of voters, *in a majority of states*
> to approve it.
> Such things hardly ever pass, Australians being a
> suspicious lot.
> They tried it a few years back and it was rejected.
> Trouble was, the
> referendum proposed what we call here a "Clayton's"
> republic. The
> republic you have when you aren't having a republic.
>
> The proposal was for a republic of Australia with a
> head of state
> appointed by parliament. The majority decided they
> might as well
> stick with old 'Liz. Didn't trust the politicians.
> It would pass if
> people were offered the chance to elect a head of
> state, like in a
> dinki-di republic. But we have no mechanism of
> having such a question
> put to referendum, if the pollies won't approve it.
> So it ain't go'na
> happen.
>
> Sure, we could get out our muskets and start
> shooting people. But
> unlike Americans, we aren't that excitable. It isn't
> as if we think
> it would make that much difference. Judging by the
> way it worked out
> for you, it could be out of the frying pan into the
> fire. That isn't
> worth killing and dying for.
>
> Anyhow, there's a few perks. Like I say, the buck
> stops with Liz, not
> my fault mate. You can only dream of having that
> excuse.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell tas
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ