Voice referendum

[Doogie]

Yes it is!

We all know that we can flick the Federal Government in max 3 years, if they are really shit there can be a double dissolution and we get a full election (not half Senate) in less than 3 years. How often are Referendums, the last one was 24 years ago.

What does "doesn't work" actually mean? If nothing improves, stays the same, does that mean it didn't work? Obviously deterioration means it isn't working. Or if the improvement is like 1% or less, I wouldn't call that worthwhile. What's the measure of improvement?

If you want to get into costs, Federal elections are compulsory to have max every 3 years, so the cost is locked in, unavoidable. Referendums cost (your numbers) more and are avoidable.

And, lastly, IMHO this Referendum is not required, the result could easily and efficiently be achieved with relatively free legislation.


Always a Bulldog

Both sides of parliament are calling for a referendum on indigenous acknowledgement. So you were getting it irrespective of who won the last election. So the question is the Voice being the difference. So what are all the No arguments:
- caught up in legals, debunked by 9/10 of constitutional lawyers
- not enough details, thats your legislation right then and there
- no net benefit, thats the legislation as thats the details
- equality of citizenship, thats a laugh because thats considered in the eyes of the law. The day you tell me you can walk into court an equal in the eyes of the law with say Gina Reinhart and her teams of lawyers is the day you can lend me $500. You'd be so wealthy with your own team of lawyers you wouldn't miss it when I didn't pay you back.

My hypothetical was based on the idea that referendums are not locked in and if another referendum was required, relative to first nations spending anyways, its 1% of the annual cost. So small bikkies to get it right if its as wrong as being portrayed. Scomo put aside $660M for railway carparks before the last election, so in real terms, if you had to go to round 2 to get an issue much more important than railway parking right I'd be cool with it.

As for legislation, well we saw what happened with ATSIC. Got nixed because it was corrupt right? Interesting that because only a few people in ATSIC were corrupt - mainly Geoff Clark and a few others. Yet we have corrupt politicians all the time and do we get rid of Parliament, no. Because its in the constitution.

And that is why the Voice is being proposed in the constitution. You were getting a referendum one way or the other (if the opposition is to be believed). You don't have to agree with that, that's your prerogative but the rationale is on point.

 

[Doogie]

thats very short sighted..

You're right. 10 years to get the I30 moving again. Its that shit.

 

[Doogie]

Am I righ my in saying this?
Kennel yes voters:
Hacky
Doogie
Dinkumdogg
Flanagun
Nasheed (50/50)

Kennel no voters:
Everyone else?

Nope. Many others but they couldn't be bothered. Its the No's that yell the loudest.

Me - just like playing with the arguments - and its fun because the arguments don't stack up.

 

[XPICATE]

Nope. Many others but they couldn't be bothered. Its the No's that yell the loudest.

Me - just like playing with the arguments - and its fun because the arguments don't stack up.

You say nope like you know.. lol, you don’t..

 

[TwinTurbo]

Both sides of parliament are calling for a referendum on indigenous acknowledgement. So you were getting it irrespective of who won the last election. So the question is the Voice being the difference. So what are all the No arguments:
- caught up in legals, debunked by 9/10 of constitutional lawyers
- not enough details, thats your legislation right then and there
- no net benefit, thats the legislation as thats the details
- equality of citizenship, thats a laugh because thats considered in the eyes of the law. The day you tell me you can walk into court an equal in the eyes of the law with say Gina Reinhart and her teams of lawyers is the day you can lend me $500. You'd be so wealthy with your own team of lawyers you wouldn't miss it when I didn't pay you back.

My hypothetical was based on the idea that referendums are not locked in and if another referendum was required, relative to first nations spending anyways, its 1% of the annual cost. So small bikkies to get it right if its as wrong as being portrayed. Scomo put aside $660M for railway carparks before the last election, so in real terms, if you had to go to round 2 to get an issue much more important than railway parking right I'd be cool with it.

As for legislation, well we saw what happened with ATSIC. Got nixed because it was corrupt right? Interesting that because only a few people in ATSIC were corrupt - mainly Geoff Clark and a few others. Yet we have corrupt politicians all the time and do we get rid of Parliament, no. Because its in the constitution.

And that is why the Voice is being proposed in the constitution. You were getting a referendum one way or the other (if the opposition is to be believed). You don't have to agree with that, that's your prerogative but the rationale is on point.

I don't give fark who it was that was promising what "at the last election". I would look at what was proposed in the Referendum and then vote accordingly, yes if I thought it was sensible, logical and had a reasonable chance of making a difference, no if I didn't. The Voice has none of that and it opens up pandora's box of problems, so no it is.

My point on your hypothetical was simple, elections are compulsory, every 3 years or less, referendums are not. Not that hard to understand.

The rest, not worth responding to as it so far off topic as to be irrelevant.


Always a Bulldog

 

[XPICATE]

I don't give fark who it was that was promising what "at the last election". I would look at what was proposed in the Referendum and then vote accordingly, yes if I thought it was sensible, logical and had a reasonable chance of making a difference, no if I didn't. The Voice has none of that and it opens up pandora's box of problems, so no it is.

My point on your hypothetical was simple, elections are compulsory, every 3 years or less, referendums are not. Not that hard to understand.

The rest, not worth responding to as it so far off topic as to be irrelevant.


Always a Bulldog

Doogie has a split personality.

 

[Doogie]

I don't give fark who it was that was promising what "at the last election". I would look at what was proposed in the Referendum and then vote accordingly, yes if I thought it was sensible, logical and had a reasonable chance of making a difference, no if I didn't. The Voice has none of that and it opens up pandora's box of problems, so no it is.

My point on your hypothetical was simple, elections are compulsory, every 3 years or less, referendums are not. Not that hard to understand.

The rest, not worth responding to as it so far off topic as to be irrelevant.

Yes. Elections are compulsory and referendums are not. Well done.

Your argument was originally it didn't need a referendum could be legislated so I assume you would be ok if that was the case. You said it enough times. Now you don't think its sensible, logical or could make a difference? And you did respond, I clearly showed that the no reasoning is a furphy but now it is a Pandoras box?

Which is it or does it depend on the time of day?

 

[Flanagun]

I disagree, it’s a perfectly reasonable expectation and is the way to go.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any constitutional institution administrative or advisory body - OG or additional - which was laid out in intricate detail and not subject to adaptation and change, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I have told you what I think, you';ve told me what you think, and now we're just going around in circles.

 

[Blue_boost]

You're right. 10 years to get the I30 moving again. Its that shit.

ha, I bought mine brand new less than a year ago.. brand new.. i dont buy used cars to get someone’s problem, always buy new.. whatever you want to spend, you buy A new car in that price basket, not try pretend your better than you are driving a used scrapper

 

[Doogie]

ha, I bought mine brand new less than a year ago.. brand new.. i dont buy used cars to get someone’s problem, always buy new.. whatever you want to spend, you buy A new car in that price basket, not try pretend your better than you are driving a used scrapper

Only 12 months old and the most important thing on it is an oil tray?

Cannot say I'm surprised.

 

[Bullpit]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any constitutional institution administrative or advisory body - OG or additional - which was laid out in intricate detail and not subject to adaptation and change, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I have told you what I think, you';ve told me what you think, and now we're just going around in circles.

But, just for shits and giggles, want to point out I’m not looking for “intricate detail” which are your words - just more detail than the superficial emotive detail we have now. But … oops… I may have opened up another avenue for a discussion so better stop there!

Agree with your agreement to our disagreement

 

[Bullpit]

ha, I bought mine brand new less than a year ago.. brand new.. i dont buy used cars to get someone’s problem, always buy new.. whatever you want to spend, you buy A new car in that price basket, not try pretend your better than you are driving a used scrapper

Just as an aside, and hoping not to put a spanner in this long lasting discussion you guys have been having on this, how good is the i20N? What a great car!

 

[Blue_boost]

Nope. Many others but they couldn't be bothered. Its the No's that yell the loudest.

Me - just like playing with the arguments - and its fun because the arguments don't stack up.

It’s the yes campaign making all the arguments.. trying to convince us to buy a rotten egg sandwich just after we have already eaten. we say no and f$@k off but they keep coming back.

the yes campaign remind Me of the jahovas witness religion walking up and down the street knocking on doors trying to convince people they have it all wrong.. everyone slamming the door in their face and releasing the hounds on them so they don’t come back.

It’s a very hard sell that yes baloney..

it’s going to get flogged in the referendum, it will be seen as the biggest waste of taxpayer money ever

 

[Blue_boost]

Just as an aside, and hoping not to put a spanner in this long lasting discussion you guys have been having on this, how good is the i20N? What a great car!

top little car, it will turn most cars inside out on a tight track. Same with i30n kill most cars through the bends..

most on here for the same money will buy a thrashed AMG full of faults just to say they drive one, try sit at the table with the doctor

 

[Doogie]

It’s the yes campaign making all the arguments.. trying to convince us to buy a rotten egg sandwich just after we have already eaten. we say no and f$@k off but they keep coming back.

the yes campaign remind Me of the jahovas witness religion walking up and down the street knocking on doors trying to convince people they have it all wrong.. everyone slamming the door in their face and releasing the hounds on them so they don’t come back.

It’s a very hard sell that yes baloney..

it’s going to get flogged in the referendum, it will be seen as the biggest waste of taxpayer money ever

Yes campaign makes the arguments that its good for first nations and its what they want. Just like the writing of the constitution in 1901, self determination. The No campaign has just made statements. Cost a fortune, clog up the courts, create a race divide and the latest fun one, a declaration of war. Think I know where the rotten egg is.

And I believe the biggest waste of taxpayer money ever is the french sub deal.

I know being a I30 owner you're not very smart but surely it isn't this bad?

 

[DinkumDog]

Am I righ my in saying this?
Kennel yes voters:
Hacky
Doogie
Dinkumdogg
Flanagun
Nasheed (50/50)

Kennel no voters:
Everyone else?

Nope. You’re wrong.
And hilarious that the #COVIDIOT agrees with you too.
Oh, and tag me when f you want to mention me .

 

[XPICATE]

Nope. You’re wrong.
And hilarious that the #COVIDIOT agrees with you too.
Oh, and tag me when f you want to mention me .

Nope. You’re wrong.

See how easy it is to say?

 

[DinkumDog]

See how easy it is to not agree with something you know nothing about…

 

[Nasheed]

300 + bodies and 342 mil for this referendum alone.

just to help aborigines and still failing.

Are they really so inept that they can’tdo anything themselves?
Why is it up to other Australasian’s?
Are they toddlers?

 

[Nasheed]

See how easy it is to not agree with something you know nothing about…

so u voting no ?

Even when the extreme left on the kennel is voting no you know for sure it’s a dud initiative
I think I’ll vote no myself now