"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/04/2016 5:51 PM, Je�us wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:30:02 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:02:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:50:01 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:37:15 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:30:31 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 07:20:01 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 05:36:06 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:23:34 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A disgrace to the stereotype! I shall report you to the Queen
>>>>>>>>>> and she
>>>>>>>>>> will kick your ass!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the Queen kicks anything, it would be an arse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or perhaps a corgi when she's in a bad mood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as she doesn't kick the bucket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not keen on the idea of King Charles then?
>>>>>
>>>>> That might be a big moment for Australia, actually.
>>>>
>>>> It'd be of significance in one way. Those trashy women's magazines
>>>> would be creaming their jeans over it, of course. In another way, most
>>>> Australians really couldn't care less, one way or the other.
>>>
>>> But it might lead to the republic. Isn't the succession when they'll
>>> hold the new plebiscite?
>>
>> Yes, first we have the plebiscite then go from there.
>>
>> Personally, I don't care either way, since I'm not the slightest bit
>> patriotic. As long as it doesn't cost hundreds of millions of $ to
>> change to a republic I'm fine with it. In practice it's a purely
>> symbolic thing as the royals have little to no impact on the day to
>> day running of our government and becoming a republic likewise will
>> cause little change.
>>
> The problem is with what form of presidency to you replace it? The US
> model can hardly give anyone confidence:-)

Yes, and think of all the power a president has, let alone the cost.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/