Paphitis wrote: Well it looks like under that model Australia would never become a Republic EVER.
You mean under a model of democracy, where by the people, either directly or indirectly via their elected representatives, do not just get to decide If Australia should be a republic but also if it should, they
also get a democratic say in
how it does ?
Your argument is nothing more than the people can and should decide if Australia becomes a republic or not, but if they decide it should, then they should not have a valid democratic say in how that happens and this should be decided only by a minority of those who most vociferously campaigned to become a republic. I do not share the notion. I think democracy should apply to both the IF and the HOW.
Paphitis wrote: Britons wre also asked a simple question about whether or not to remain or leave the EU and voted to leave and you are not respecting this mandate.
I accept ANY form of Brexit that can command a majority in either Parliament of the people. You will only accept the one singular form of Brexit that you want, that does not have majority support in Parliament or the people and advocate that Parliament should be denied its right and ability to reflect the will of the people in how we leave so you can get what you want. Who is the democrat here ?
Paphitis wrote:Unfortunately for you though, you are pissing into wind.
If this was all pissing in the wind, then you would not care. It is exactly because it is not pissing in the wind, because you can not get what you want in terms of how we leave without
denying the people a valid say in that, that you are behaving the way you do.