Elizabeth II has died

[Politesse]

I am mildly comforted that the Queen of Australia's heirs and successors are not nearly as popular as she is.

Seems that QE2 is very likable. The same cannot be said of Prince Charles or Prince William. Prince Charles strikes me as very reckless, while Prince William seems like a nobody.

It's a monarchy.

Being likeable is entirely optional, as is being competent.

Nobody gets to vote, so public opinion is utterly irrelevant.

People in the west have apparently forgotten that their opinions don't matter to aristocrats. But they never did, and they still don't.

When Lizzy kicks the bucket, her successor will be Charlie, unless he croaks first. His abilities, qualifications, popularity, or likeability will not be taken into account.

Maybe. You know that republicans will see this as an opportunity to drive a much larger wedge between the Royal Family and matters of State, once the very particularly popular cult of Elizabeth II is no longer there to generate public emotional sympathy for her family's role and the justification of their lifestyle and expenses.

Sure. But the crown is just a distraction. The wider aristocracy is a bigger problem, and one that's not even on most people's radar.

A handful of people own most of the UK, and are wealthy and powerful for no reason other than that they have a distant ancestor who kissed royal backside.

Never mind Lizzy and Charlie; What's being done to redistribute the obscene and totally undeserved wealth of the Dukes and Earls? Nothing much, that's what. They bitch about being taxed to ruin, but still live lives beyond most people's imagining, despite doing (at best) token work for the society they parasitise.

You're not wrong. And indeed many of the same families form much of the capitalist superstructure of many other nations throughout the former Empire. These issues are pernicious as they are frequently beyond the radar of your average citizen.

 

[lpetrich]

After that disastrous royal tour, is the sun finally setting on the Commonwealth realms? | Moya Lothian-McLean | The Guardian - "A reckoning with those countries that have held on to Queen Elizabeth as their head of state is long overdue – as William and Kate’s trip to the Caribbean made clear"

Just how long has the British monarchy been in crisis? This time – after “Megxit”, after Prince Andrew – it was the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s disastrous trip to the Caribbean. What was supposed to be a “charm offensive”, drumming up enthusiasm in the year of the Queen’s platinum jubilee, ended up looking more like a long goodbye, with the headlines spotlighting anti-royal protests, failures to address legacies of slavery, and the news that Jamaica is planning to ditch the Queen as head of state.

It may well be time for the royal family to face up to the fact that the sun is setting on those final remnants of the empire that they once embodied – and not a moment too soon.

Then on what an embarrassing flop the trip was.

The article noted
St Vincent PM Wants Other CARICOM Countries to Attain Republican Status - Caribbean News
Thus joining Barbados, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Dominica. CARICOM = Caribbean Community.

“Guyana and Dominica have been republics since independence respectively in 1966 and 1977 although Guyana has an executive Presidency and Dominica, a Non-Executive President. Trinidad and Tobago which became independent in August 1962 with a constitutional monarchial system with a largely ceremonial Governor-General, altered its constitution in 1976 to a republican one with a Non-Executive President,” said Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

“I earnestly look forward to such a change in Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts-Nevis, St Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. These eight CARICOM member-states plus six other countries are those outside of the United Kingdom, with the British monarch as their Head of State: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.”

In addition to these colonies, there are 5 British colonies / overseas territories: Anguilla, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos Islands.

“The wider Caribbean is also awash with colonial territories or departments of colonial powers of the United States of America, France, and Holland. Hopefully, too, all these colonial territories will push for independence within the comity of nations globally.”

“It would be good to see the end of colonialism in our Caribbean. But that initiative belongs not to me but to the people of these twenty or so colonies or territories and their national leaders,” he wrote in a letter to PM Mia Mottley of Barbados.

 

[lpetrich]

A challenger to Queen Elizabeth II in Canada: Canada's QAnon 'Queen' and her escalating rhetoric | CBC Radio

For months, a B.C.-based QAnon conspiracy influencer named Romana Didulo has been amassing followers online, declaring herself the "Queen of Canada."

In the summer, her audience began distributing cease-and-desist letters across North America on her behalf, demanding a stop to COVID-19 restrictions.

Recently, her rhetoric escalated when she urged her followers to "shoot to kill" anyone who administers vaccines to children. The RCMP have visited her since, and one of her followers in Laval, Que., was arrested after allegedly posting threats about his daughter's school.

 

[bilby]

A challenger to Queen Elizabeth II in Canada: Canada's QAnon 'Queen' and her escalating rhetoric | CBC Radio

For months, a B.C.-based QAnon conspiracy influencer named Romana Didulo has been amassing followers online, declaring herself the "Queen of Canada."

In the summer, her audience began distributing cease-and-desist letters across North America on her behalf, demanding a stop to COVID-19 restrictions.

Recently, her rhetoric escalated when she urged her followers to "shoot to kill" anyone who administers vaccines to children. The RCMP have visited her since, and one of her followers in Laval, Que., was arrested after allegedly posting threats about his daughter's school.

I don't think it's very helpful to pander to the delusions of someone who clearly needs psychiatric care.

Even if (perhaps particularly if) she manages to persuade other nutters that her delusions have substance.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I feel ashamed that Australia has proven herself so immature that she has not yet been able to wrest herself away from mother's skirts.

I am mildly comforted that the Queen of Australia's heirs and successors are not nearly as popular as she is.

I have a quiet bet with myself that when the Queen goes, Charles will succeed, but establish his place in the history books by engineering the "conscious uncoupling" of the Windsor family and the State in Britain.

Should take a few years but he'd have time. I suspect neither of the boys want it.

I don't think we'll ever get out from under while the Libs are in power.

 

[Metaphor]

I feel ashamed that Australia has proven herself so immature that she has not yet been able to wrest herself away from mother's skirts.

I am mildly comforted that the Queen of Australia's heirs and successors are not nearly as popular as she is.

I have a quiet bet with myself that when the Queen goes, Charles will succeed, but establish his place in the history books by engineering the "conscious uncoupling" of the Windsor family and the State in Britain.

Should take a few years but he'd have time. I suspect neither of the boys want it.

I don't think we'll ever get out from under while the Libs are in power.

The referendum was two decades ago and both Labour and LNP have held federal power since then. I reluctantly accept the support was not there twenty years ago but I doubt it has anything to do with who is holding federal power right now.

 

[Hermit]

The referendum was two decades ago and both Labour and LNP have held federal power since then. I reluctantly accept the support was not there twenty years ago but I doubt it has anything to do with who is holding federal power right now.

The phrasing of the referendum was designed to split the pro-republicans. The proposal

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

pretty much ensured that enough of the pro-republicans who wanted to see the presidency determined by popular vote would tick "No" to result in its rejection.

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I am fairly sure that John Howard had a say in the formulation of the proposal in 1999, and he made sure that the form it was put would split the republican vote.

 

[Metaphor]

The referendum was two decades ago and both Labour and LNP have held federal power since then. I reluctantly accept the support was not there twenty years ago but I doubt it has anything to do with who is holding federal power right now.

The phrasing of the referendum was designed to split the pro-republicans. The proposal

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

pretty much ensured that enough of the pro-republicans who wanted to see the presidency determined by popular vote would tick "No" to result in its rejection.

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I am fairly sure that John Howard had a say in the formulation of the proposal in 1999, and he made sure that the form it was put would split the republican vote.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you'd need a second referendum, just a plebiscite. The first is what would be necessary to alter the Constitution, the second would just be specifics

 

[Hermit]

The referendum was two decades ago and both Labour and LNP have held federal power since then. I reluctantly accept the support was not there twenty years ago but I doubt it has anything to do with who is holding federal power right now.

The phrasing of the referendum was designed to split the pro-republicans. The proposal

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

pretty much ensured that enough of the pro-republicans who wanted to see the presidency determined by popular vote would tick "No" to result in its rejection.

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I am fairly sure that John Howard had a say in the formulation of the proposal in 1999, and he made sure that the form it was put would split the republican vote.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you'd need a second referendum, just a plebiscite. The first is what would be necessary to alter the Constitution, the second would just be specifics

Two problems with plebiscites:
1) Their outcomes are not binding. The government of the day can ignore them.
2) They cannot amend the constitution. Acts of parliament can be repealed or amended.

 

[Metaphor]

The referendum was two decades ago and both Labour and LNP have held federal power since then. I reluctantly accept the support was not there twenty years ago but I doubt it has anything to do with who is holding federal power right now.

The phrasing of the referendum was designed to split the pro-republicans. The proposal

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

pretty much ensured that enough of the pro-republicans who wanted to see the presidency determined by popular vote would tick "No" to result in its rejection.

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I am fairly sure that John Howard had a say in the formulation of the proposal in 1999, and he made sure that the form it was put would split the republican vote.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you'd need a second referendum, just a plebiscite. The first is what would be necessary to alter the Constitution, the second would just be specifics

Two problems with plebiscites:
1) Their outcomes are not binding. The government of the day can ignore them.
2) They cannot amend the constitution. Acts of parliament can be repealed or amended.

I mean you would not need a second referendum after the first referendum was successful.

The first referendum would give you the power to amend the Constitution. The plebiscite could give you the specifics of how it would be amended.

(Having said that, the referendum questions are very specific from what I recall. Not "do you want to replace X with Y" but do you agree to strike these specific words (from the Constitution) and insert these specific words".)

 

[Hermit]

The referendum was two decades ago and both Labour and LNP have held federal power since then. I reluctantly accept the support was not there twenty years ago but I doubt it has anything to do with who is holding federal power right now.

The phrasing of the referendum was designed to split the pro-republicans. The proposal

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

pretty much ensured that enough of the pro-republicans who wanted to see the presidency determined by popular vote would tick "No" to result in its rejection.

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I am fairly sure that John Howard had a say in the formulation of the proposal in 1999, and he made sure that the form it was put would split the republican vote.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you'd need a second referendum, just a plebiscite. The first is what would be necessary to alter the Constitution, the second would just be specifics

Two problems with plebiscites:
1) Their outcomes are not binding. The government of the day can ignore them.
2) They cannot amend the constitution. Acts of parliament can be repealed or amended.

I mean you would not need a second referendum after the first referendum was successful.

The first referendum would give you the power to amend the Constitution. The plebiscite could give you the specifics of how it would be amended.

No. The constitution can only be amended via a majority of voters and in a majority of states in a referendum.

In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has enough public support to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

(Having said that, the referendum questions are very specific from what I recall. Not "do you want to replace X with Y" but do you agree to strike these specific words (from the Constitution) and insert these specific words".)

I quoted the wording of the referendum verbatim. Here it is again:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

 

[Metaphor]

The referendum was two decades ago and both Labour and LNP have held federal power since then. I reluctantly accept the support was not there twenty years ago but I doubt it has anything to do with who is holding federal power right now.

The phrasing of the referendum was designed to split the pro-republicans. The proposal

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

pretty much ensured that enough of the pro-republicans who wanted to see the presidency determined by popular vote would tick "No" to result in its rejection.

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I am fairly sure that John Howard had a say in the formulation of the proposal in 1999, and he made sure that the form it was put would split the republican vote.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you'd need a second referendum, just a plebiscite. The first is what would be necessary to alter the Constitution, the second would just be specifics

Two problems with plebiscites:
1) Their outcomes are not binding. The government of the day can ignore them.
2) They cannot amend the constitution. Acts of parliament can be repealed or amended.

I mean you would not need a second referendum after the first referendum was successful.

The first referendum would give you the power to amend the Constitution. The plebiscite could give you the specifics of how it would be amended.

No. The constitution can only be amended via a majority of voters and in a majority of states in a referendum.

I know how a referendum works.

In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has enough public support to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

(Having said that, the referendum questions are very specific from what I recall. Not "do you want to replace X with Y" but do you agree to strike these specific words (from the Constitution) and insert these specific words".)

I quoted the wording of the referendum verbatim. Here it is again:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

And, as you said, you could have a referendum that asks:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President

Assuming the referendum is successful, you now have permission to alter the Constitution to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a president.

You do not need (I assume) a second referendum to determine the specifics. In fact, a second referendum could fail making the first referendum a pointless waste of time.

 

[Hermit]

In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has enough public support to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

(Having said that, the referendum questions are very specific from what I recall. Not "do you want to replace X with Y" but do you agree to strike these specific words (from the Constitution) and insert these specific words".)

I quoted the wording of the referendum verbatim. Here it is again:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

And, as you said, you could have a referendum that asks:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President

Assuming the referendum is successful, you now have permission to alter the Constitution to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a president.

You do not need (I assume) a second referendum to determine the specifics. In fact, a second referendum could fail making the first referendum a pointless waste of time.

You do need a second referendum if you don't want governments to change the method by which the president is installed. Plebiscites can't fix this.

 

[Swammerdami]

The phrasing of the referendum was designed to split the pro-republicans. The proposal

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

pretty much ensured that enough of the pro-republicans who wanted to see the presidency determined by popular vote would tick "No" to result in its rejection.

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I am fairly sure that John Howard had a say in the formulation of the proposal in 1999, and he made sure that the form it was put would split the republican vote.

My comment is about voting among three (or more) choices in general; I know nothing of Australian politics. But suppose, hypothetically, that the real choice is between a bland head of state (which EITHER a 2/3 vote of Parliament OR the present system would provide) and an opportunity for a powerful populist (which results from popular election). In that case would it have been "fairer" for the referendum to be specifically about the popular-vote option?

This is a potential problem whenever a choice among three or more options is split into a series of votes on binary choices. Much political chicanery — or 'transparency' in the words of politicians who voice the opposite spin — is based on the structuring of such binary choices. (The GOP famously defeated the D's health-care proposal in the 1990's by inducing the D's to "love it to death.")

Having the electorate vote (using ranked choice) on all three (or more) options at once may be a good solution, but even that is subject to the  Condorcet paradox. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Kenneth  Arrow's impossibility theorem establishes that a fully satisfactory electoral system may be unattainable.

 

[Metaphor]

In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has enough public support to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

(Having said that, the referendum questions are very specific from what I recall. Not "do you want to replace X with Y" but do you agree to strike these specific words (from the Constitution) and insert these specific words".)

I quoted the wording of the referendum verbatim. Here it is again:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

And, as you said, you could have a referendum that asks:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President

Assuming the referendum is successful, you now have permission to alter the Constitution to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a president.

You do not need (I assume) a second referendum to determine the specifics. In fact, a second referendum could fail making the first referendum a pointless waste of time.

You do need a second referendum if you don't want governments to change the method by which the president is installed. Plebiscites can't fix this.

If the Constitutional amendment (authorised by the referendum) is made according to the results of the plebiscite, governments can't change it without another referendum.

The only wiggle room is a government ignoring the plebiscite and instituting the Constitutional change (still authorised by the successful referendum) a different way. But that could happen without a second referendum or plebiscite.

 

[Hermit]

In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has enough public support to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

(Having said that, the referendum questions are very specific from what I recall. Not "do you want to replace X with Y" but do you agree to strike these specific words (from the Constitution) and insert these specific words".)

I quoted the wording of the referendum verbatim. Here it is again:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

And, as you said, you could have a referendum that asks:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President

Assuming the referendum is successful, you now have permission to alter the Constitution to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a president.

You do not need (I assume) a second referendum to determine the specifics. In fact, a second referendum could fail making the first referendum a pointless waste of time.

You do need a second referendum if you don't want governments to change the method by which the president is installed. Plebiscites can't fix this.

If the Constitutional amendment (authorised by the referendum) is made according to the results of the plebiscite, governments can't change it without another referendum.

The only wiggle room is a government ignoring the plebiscite and instituting the Constitutional change (still authorised by the successful referendum) a different way. But that could happen without a second referendum or plebiscite.

No. Even if a government accepts the decision made by a plebiscite, said plebiscite cannot affect the constitution in any way. Had the 1999 referendum been successful and proposed the replacement of monarch and governor general by a president without specifying a method of selection, any government could pass legislation to the effect that the president could be appointed by BHP's board of directors, if it so wished.

 

[Metaphor]

In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has enough public support to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

(Having said that, the referendum questions are very specific from what I recall. Not "do you want to replace X with Y" but do you agree to strike these specific words (from the Constitution) and insert these specific words".)

I quoted the wording of the referendum verbatim. Here it is again:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

And, as you said, you could have a referendum that asks:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President

Assuming the referendum is successful, you now have permission to alter the Constitution to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a president.

You do not need (I assume) a second referendum to determine the specifics. In fact, a second referendum could fail making the first referendum a pointless waste of time.

You do need a second referendum if you don't want governments to change the method by which the president is installed. Plebiscites can't fix this.

If the Constitutional amendment (authorised by the referendum) is made according to the results of the plebiscite, governments can't change it without another referendum.

The only wiggle room is a government ignoring the plebiscite and instituting the Constitutional change (still authorised by the successful referendum) a different way. But that could happen without a second referendum or plebiscite.

No. Even if a government accepts the decision made by a plebiscite, said plebiscite cannot affect the constitution in any way. Had the 1999 referendum been successful and proposed the replacement of monarch and governor general by a president without specifying a method of selection, any government could pass legislation to the effect that the president could be appointed by BHP's board of directors, if it so wished.

Evidently, we are talking past each other, but you are starting to be very condescending about it.

I know what a plebiscite is. I know what a referendum is. I know how they work. However, you seem determined not to listen to what I am saying. I will explain what I mean in more detail, in what I hope is a less condescending tone than you've shown to me.

You suggested two referenda:

A fairer way to deal with the issue would have been ask: "Do you want the Queen and Governor-General replaced by a President?" in one referendum and, then ask "Do you want the President to be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?" in a subsequent referendum during the following general election.

I don't like the idea and I don't think it is necessary. In fact, it seems designed to fail to me, and I do not think two referenda held at different times can be actioned at the same time as if they were a package deal. Let's assume there are three possible outcomes:

• The first referendum fails. Presumably there is no follow-up referendum because the first failed.
• The first referendum succeeds and the second referendum succeeds. The Constitution is then amended to install a president, in the manner described in the second referendum.
• The first referendum succeeds and the second referendum fails. Now what? A referendum has passed compelling the government to change the Constitution to install a president, but the first referendum never specified the specifics of how the Constitution would be changed to install the president. Because of your desire to avoid a split republican vote, we now have a government compelled to alter the Constitution, and indeed it can now do it in any manner it sees fit. It can, as you say, say the president is to be elected by board members of BHP.

My suggestion is to get the permission to alter the Constitution to install a president in the first referendum. Then you can hold a plebiscite to gauge the public's preferred model. The plebiscite is an opinion poll. If the preferred model is two-thirds majority of both houses, then referendum #1 is actioned with that detail. If the preferred model is popular election, then referendum #1 is actioned with that model. If the preferred model is something else, then it is that model that is used.

The permission to alter the Constitution to replace the Queen and GG was given with the first referendum. If it succeeds, it must be presented to the GG for assent. The first referendum did not specify how the Constitution was to be altered to replace the Queen and GG with a president, simply that it could be.

A government could indeed ignore the plebiscite (if it chose to have one) and choose to install its own model. But it could simply decide to not hold a second referendum at all and install its own model. Your plan does nothing to prevent that. Worse, if the second referendum failed but still it had a majority of the popular vote (just not a majority of States), it could leave us with the preposterous situation of being forced to amend the Constitution to install a president but using a model that is not the preferred model of the public.

 

[Hermit]

Yes, referendums fail. All but 8 of the 44 referendums in Australia did. What you don't get is that plebiscites cannot change anything in the constitution.

The first referendum did not specify how the Constitution was to be altered to replace the Queen and GG with a president, simply that it could be.

The 1999 referendum did. I quoted it twice now. And it is of vital importance that the method is specified. The Australian constitution is full of specifications of who can elect government officials and members of its institutions as well as how such elections are to be conducted.

Australians must decide by referendum if they want to replace the monarchy and its representative with a president, and they must agree by what method such a president will be chosen. This cannot be done with one single referendum, and because the changes involve amendments to the constitution it cannot be done via plebiscite.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, referendums fail. All but 8 of the 44 referendums in Australia did. What you don't get is that plebiscites cannot change anything in the constitution.

I can see you are incapable of understanding my point. You keep repeating that plebiscites can't change anything in the Constitution. I know this and I went to great pains to explain it to you, and you simply tossed the entire post without responding to a single point.

I am not going to point out again what is wrong wth your plan. I've explained it quite clearly. I am truly sorry I chose to engage you in good faith.

 

[Hermit]

I can see you are incapable of understanding my point. ... I am truly sorry I chose to engage you in good faith.

Correction: You engaged me with your utter lack of comprehension.