The lesson of 1999 is that an Australian republic can only come about if republicans unite. Minimalists want a small-change republic, in which parliament appoints the head of state. This, they argue, will ensure the head of state does not have a popular mandate and will not interfere in day-to-day politics.

It will also preserve the character of the role. Like the current governor-general, minimalists want the role to be an honour bestowed on a worthy servant, not a prize sought through ambitious campaigning. 

Direct electionists believe the spirit of republicanism is active participation. They do not want politicians to simply choose a head of state; instead, they desire a system in which the people are involved. 

The hybrid model below, designed by Paul Pickering and I, aims to ensure the process is democratic but also that the dignity of the office of head of state is maintained. It harnesses the best features of minimalism and direct election.

Under our model, each state and territory parliament nominates an Australian citizen to be head of state. There is no obligation to nominate someone who was born in or who resides in that particular state.

In the opinion of at least two-thirds of sitting MPs, the nominee must:

• be an Australian citizen over 18;

• have served the nation with distinction in their chosen field or fields;

• be of exemplary personal character and integrity; and

• be willing to serve as head of state for a term of five years.

Each parliament must nominate a different person. The eight nominees are then put to a non-compulsory, first-past-the-post, national vote.

The vote is non-compulsory to emphasise this is a titular and ceremonial role. Australians do not currently vote for the governor-general or the Queen, and should not have to vote for the head of state in a republic, either. 

This model deliberately casts a wide net but is protected by two hurdles. A nominee must be endorsed first by a parliamentary majority and second by a public vote. 

Some minimalists argue that, under a direct-election model, an exploitative populist or crass former sports star might become head of state. The twin hurdles of our hybrid model serve as a bulwark against unbridled populism, but ultimately defer to democracy. If a nominee has the confidence of both an elected parliament and the people, they deserve to be the head of state, regardless of their critics.

The nominee with the most votes becomes the Australian head of state and serves a five-year term.

Read more:

https://theconversation.com/a-model-for-an-australian-republic-that-can-...

More than 2 billion people are expected to tune in to watch Prince Harry marry Meghan Markle at St George's Chapel. 

Meanwhile a few more palestinians will be shot dead... and daddy may not be at the wedding:

Kensington Palace has asked for Meghan Markle's father to be given "respect and understanding" amid reports he has pulled out of attending his daughter's wedding to Prince Harry.

Thomas Markle told entertainment website TMZ he made the choice to not attend the Royal wedding after he staged a series of photos of himself for the event with a well-known paparazzo.

Mr Markle reportedly said he had a reason to make the deal with the photo agency and that it was not primarily about money, but he now deeply regrets the decision and did not want to embarrass his daughter or the Royal family further.

He also told TMZ he had suffered a heart attack last week but checked himself out of hospital to make it to Windsor in time for the wedding...

Read more of this overexposed marriage of the century designed to attrack young kids to the concept of hierarchy and kingdoms (privileges and social order) at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-15/meghan-markles-father-reportedly-w...

Markle is being attacked because she doesn't "fit the bill" as a royal. 

She was born in America, has an African American father and a Caucasian mother. She was married before, dated men before, doesn't have the British stiff upper lip and didn't originate from a wealthy background (there's no blue blood). 

In 2018, we are supposed to find it shocking that women are in charge of their relationships, sexuality and their money. Markle is guilty of those "crimes".

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-crimes-of-meghan-...

As far as I, Gus Leonisky of Australia, is concerned I don't care should Markle be a gold digger or not. Good luck to her as long as she enjoys life and makes Harry Happy and vice versa... But this article is a bit sloppy... It appears to me looking at all the photographs and reading articles about Meghan is that her mother is African American and her father is Caucasian... But who cares — as long as no-one watches this sirupy spectacle designed to turn young girls into princesses instead of democratic libertarian. I can die in hope... There is nothing democratic about the Royals. I's time to piss them off.

Read:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/26787

As the minister responded to shock jock Chris Smith on 2GB when asked if ABC staff got bonuses for just “doing their job”: “I guess it’s nice work if you can get it.”

We wonder if Fifield will be as keen to monitor the salary rates at the NBN, another agency in his portfolio, because that agency makes the ABC look positively frugal.

According to questions on notice from Senate estimates, 8% of NBN Co staff receive a salary of $200,000 or more, compared with just 2.9% of ABC execs. At NBN Co roughly 2% receive $300,000 or more while just 0.4% of staff at Aunty are on that salary.

The ABC has 139 staff on more than $200,000 compared with the NBN’s 484, and 21 are on more than $300,000 compared with 120 at the NBN. We can’t wait for Fifield to show his even-handedness by hitting the airwaves to berate the NBN about efficiency. 

We did think it was unfortunate timing when the day after ABC news chief Gaven Morris said “There is no more fat to cut in ABC News. From this point on, we’re cutting into muscle”, ABC TV publicity announced some special arrangements for the “wedding of the year”.

Jeremy Fernandez and Annabel Crabb will be on the ground in London, alongside ABC correspondents Lisa Millar and James Glenday to report live from the royal wedding.

....

The ABC was quick to correct the story, saying the broadcaster had forked out for economy fares only. “In April 2011 more than 1.1 million Australians watched ABC TV’s coverage of the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton,” the statement said.

“With the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the ABC is pleased to again be able to provide this valued service to our audiences across the country.”

Our sources say there is no bad blood in the London bureau about the addition of Fernandez and Crabb, the former who landed feeling sick after sharing cattle class with the masses, while Seven’s Samantha Armytage and cohort enjoyed the luxury of business class.

Perhaps the ABC should have saved some cash by staying home and covering it with a cardboard cutout like the rather ingenious Newcastle Herald.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/18/royal-outrage-as-conservat...

Hopefully there will be AFL (Australian Football) on some tele channel somewhere for free, with a few adverts for beer. Read from top.

The royal wedding was sugar-coated propaganda designed to prop up the ruling class at the expense of the masses, writes John Passant.

OK, put your hands up if you watched it. Go on, don’t be shy. Let the world know.

Now, to be fair, the game itself wasn’t as bad as I feared. As a long-time Collingwood supporter, I thought they played well. And I switched over to the rugby league, my first love, to watch Manly against the Storm when it came on.

Oh, did you think I meant the wedding of Harry and Meghan? It just shows how dominant their wedding has been in the media in Australia that I only had to refer to it as an "it" and many of you assumed their wedding was what I meant.

Yet most Australians were uninterested in the event.

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/from-royal-...

The ghosts of Eureka still haunt us. Terra Australis has come a long way since the rebellion of 1854, but that last crucial step to becoming a fully independent nation again, remains elusive.

Journalist, author and chair of the Australian Republic Movement (ARM), Peter FitzSimons, recounts how he once discussed the Eureka Rebellion with former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and how Abbott expressed his misgivings about that seminal moment in Australia’s history:

"Let’s not forget those guys raised arms against the Crown!"

I am unclear if this exchange was what prompted the author of Eureka: The Unfinished Revolution to get involved with the Australian Republic Movement, but it illustrates what the movement is up against in the current climate of political upheaval and polarised debate.

Not even the footy finals last weekend seem to have calmed things down as it would normally this time of year. We are a country in apparent disagreement about many political issues, headed for what may well be the most aggressive federal election fight since 1975. There is the possibility of a landslide swing — not unlike what the Coalition enjoyed then, except towards Labor this time around.

Very careful to remain non-partisan, FitzSimons and ARM CEO Michael Cooney are currently doing a series of town hall meetings – in pubs, of course – around the country. I caught up with them in Perth last week. They are keen to make their cause a lot less divisive than what it was in the 1999 referendum when the monarchists won by almost 10%. They recognise that the challenge is to keep it simple, suggesting a two-stage process.

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/peter-fitzs...

-------------------

Gus:

Yes Pete... But talking to Abbott about the "Republic", his brain will make smelly noisy bubbles like farting in a bath tub.

My apologies. Lately it seems I've caught Tourette Syndrome and this has overflowed into my writings... But the grandstanding idiots out there are to be blamed. They deserve to be "invectived" with the most vile of words — words that are even too weak to describe their cultivated idiocy. I say cultivated (not cultured) because I've know many idiots in my life, but most of them did not have access to the levers of society and only played with their little plastic (wood) toys while in adulthood. 

Read from top.

The UK’s national broadcaster BBC accidentally picked up on Princess Eugenie’s breasts during the live broadcast of her lavish wedding on Friday. What appeared to be a gaffe was first spotted by sports journalist Ollie Bayliss, who took to Twitter to report it.

The commentator of the wedding ceremony voiced his admiration for the princess’s outfit, as she got out of the car. “What a beautiful dress! Absolutely fitting her.”  As the words “dress” and “breasts” feature the same vowel and sound very much alike in English, the subtitles system apparently transcribed the word incorrectly, with the wrong word awkwardly popping up on screens.

“What a beautiful breasts. Absolutely fitting her,” the subtitle read. 

Having noticed the fail, journalist Ollie Bayliss assumed the BBC’s subtitles machine had broken down or, alternatively, that BBC News staffers “are getting rather personal” about the princess.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201810121068840116-twitter-bbc-royal-weddi...

---------------

Long live the teats of the Australian republic! Er... I mean the "feast" or the "feats"...

Read from top.

On the first day of his state visit to the UK, the US President was welcomed by Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace, while on Tuesday Donald Trump met with outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May.

US President Donald Trump has revealed his true feelings about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in his sole interview in the UK, with Piers Morgan, host of Good Morning Britain.

In the 33-minute conversation in the Churchill War Rooms, Trump revealed his thoughts on the Duchess of Sussex after she was said to have criticised him as “divisive”.

When asked if he thought Meghan was indeed “nasty”, a claim he earlier denied as "fake news," Trump said:

“They said some of the things that she said and it’s actually on tape.” “And I said: 'Well, I didn’t know she was nasty.' I wasn’t referring to she’s nasty.”

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201906051075637702-donald-trump-meghan-na...

------------------

Whatever the princess said or not, Trump could be said to be the most nasty person to the rest of the world. He is a bully, has no grace, is self-absorbed with a stupid IQ, he is a flip-flop man, only has hubris in his brain, has hate in his heart, uses fear like myxomatosis to threaten and kill people, is bombastic with low value ideas, he thinks brawn as a solution to everything... In short he is an idiot who only got a gig that unfortunately is demanding a psycho idiot for chief-loony supported by other psychopaths.