Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 6:39:24 GMT 7
Sigh - who gives a fork ............ ............................................................... The majority of New Zealanders would seemingly prefer to have an independent head of state instead of being ruled by the British monarchy, a republican pressure group has claimed. In a new poll carried out by New Zealand Republic, 59 per cent of people voted in favour of having an independent head of state, while 34 per cent of people said they would prefer to keep the monarchy when the next head of state is named. The poll shows an increase in favour of independent rule since March 2014, when 47 per cent of people said they would not keep the monarchy. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/new-zealander-s-keen-to-ditch-the-queen-and-seek-independent-state-when-she-passes-away-new-poll-a7228141.html |
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,997 
Likes: 9,333
|
Post by rubl on Sept 7, 2016 7:46:32 GMT 7
What does 'ruled by' actually mean in this case ?
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Sept 7, 2016 8:00:47 GMT 7
What does 'ruled by' actually mean in this case ? Something to do with drawing straight lines on a piece of paper? |
|
MrToad
Vigilante
Posts: 1,968
Likes: 1,688
|
Post by MrToad on Sept 7, 2016 8:07:04 GMT 7
The last flag vote didnt really go according to plan
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 8:55:02 GMT 7
I remember asking an Australian the benefits of removing the Queen as head of state -
"errrrr, ummmm, ehhhhh."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 9:05:47 GMT 7
I remember asking an Australian the benefits of removing the Queen as head of state - "errrrr, ummmm, ehhhhh." blether, most Aussies don't have a clue what the Queen does, what she has to do with Australia, and could not care less whether she is even there or not. I am one of them, although I cannot see any benefit in removing her. Won't make one bit of difference to the average Aussie. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 9:10:21 GMT 7
I remember asking an Australian the benefits of removing the Queen as head of state - "errrrr, ummmm, ehhhhh." blether, most Aussies don't have a clue what the Queen does, what she has to do with Australia, and could not care less whether she is even there or not. I am one of them, although I cannot see any benefit in removing her. Won't make one bit of difference to the average Aussie. All it would do would be to create another job for a politician and their attendant hangers-on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 9:30:18 GMT 7
I have no problem with being part of the British Commonwealth, the people that carry on about independence are the ones who want change just for the sake of it. Would rather see the money it would cost to do it put into the health or education system.
|
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Sept 7, 2016 9:33:41 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 10:11:34 GMT 7
Made up figures - laughable. The jet one is a prime example - the actual cost is landing fees, fuel, and a touch of wear and tear. The state security apparatus is already paid for. Virtually all hard cash spent is spent on Oz suppliers and businesses. Bet ya the real cost to Oz was 10% of the reported figure. Compare that to the worldwide publicity - what a bargain |
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Sept 7, 2016 10:17:22 GMT 7
Unlike the UK Australia has to pay. The UK tax payer pays plenty for its hereditary leeches - £35.7 million a year plus all the expenses associated with any royal visit. Australians are fortunate they only pay for the inbreed figureheads when they visit. Prince Charles also receives more £19 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall - a state asset, not his private property. To add insult to injury they are profligate with the money they are given. Prince Charles goes to Harrowgate and takes the Royal Train at a cost of £23,219. That would pay for more than 100 first class tickets. The Duck of York spent £14,692 chartering a plane to see a golf match. His brother spent £46,198 charter a flight to Sofia, Bucharest and Ljubljana. You can fly to Sofia with EasyJet for less than £31. Prince Charles chartered a private jet to fly to South Africa costing a cool £246,160. They even waste money on their pets. Apparently Royal Canin isn't good enough for Brenda's pooches: they have a diet of luxury fresh meats prepared by a chef. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 10:43:41 GMT 7
Unlike the UK Australia has to pay. The UK tax payer pays plenty for its hereditary leeches - £35.7 million a year plus all the expenses associated with any royal visit. Australians are fortunate they only pay for the inbreed figureheads when they visit. Prince Charles also receives more £19 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall - a state asset, not his private property. To add insult to injury they are profligate with the money they are given. Prince Charles goes to Harrowgate and takes the Royal Train at a cost of £23,219. That would pay for more than 100 first class tickets. The Duck of York spent £14,692 chartering a plane to see a golf match. His brother spent £46,198 charter a flight to Sofia, Bucharest and Ljubljana. You can fly to Sofia with EasyJet for less than £31. Prince Charles chartered a private jet to fly to South Africa costing a cool £246,160. They even waste money on their pets. Apparently Royal Canin isn't good enough for Brenda's pooches: they have a diet of luxury fresh meats prepared by a chef. Drivel |
|
