He probably doesn't have much say in it.
Printable View
He probably doesn't have much say in it.
Impressed how Bocelli always knows just how much of a step back he needs to avoid nutting the mic when he bows.
Well, I'm suspicious.
He's been the unexpected star of the show. The tantrum at the loud planes, the mocking of the shite music. He has all the potential in the world to go full Joffrey. Go on lad.
They could have done with a better closer, but otherwise that was good.
Found myself at this affair tonight. Left during Sweet Caroline but is that the best of British pop they could assemble? Fucking hell.
One more for the Rwanda flight.
At least I was out there in the thick of it amongst the sea of gammons like a stray halal chicken sausage in a full english.
Better not tell command you had such an opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
:lol:
Can we not just make him our Eurovision entry in perpetuity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Offshore Toon
I think we proved a point this year that we can win if we want to, so I'd like to see us go full Brit for next year with Fat Les or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
I’m currently working a shift in a pub where there have 3 flags of the queen up and Fields of Athen Rye is playing on the jukebox.
This parade is batshit. As ever, though, genius PR from the firm sticking the young princes out front to get in a load of reaction gifs.
Topped off with a freshly-executed bear put in a blue coat and dragged behind an old police Range Rover.
The new Albanese Labor government here in Australia has appointed the first-ever Assistant Minister for the Republic. It's early days in any possible move to Australia becoming a republic with the general consensus being that it won't move forward unless Labor gets a second term in three years time, but at least it's a first step on the road.
What would actually change? What does the Queen do over there?
It’s about time. You did a Scotland on the last attempt.
Tbh, nothing much would change in day-to-day life, we'd just exchange the Queen (and her official representative, the Governor-General) for an Australian-elected President, but we'd be a republic instead of member of the Commonwealth. I don't think we gain anything from having the Queen as our monarch and it's really just a case of "that's how it's always been" since we were founded as a British colony in 1788, followed by federation in 1901 and then becoming a member of the Commonwealth in 1926.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spikey M
For me personally, I'd just like to be able to say Australia completely controls it's own destiny as a republic and doesn't need to have this outdated figurehead maintaining its ceremonial control over my country.
Fair enough. I was just wondering what they did as they barely do anything here - aside from hand shaking and nonce enabling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spav
Do you pay tax towards them?
As you state, that's literally all they do. No Australian taxes go towards the royal family or even Britain in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spikey M
We should dissolve the Commonwealth anyway because it's stupid, but if countries are breaking away from the monarchy then we need to do it ahead of time so it looks like it was our decision.
That's just petty. Although I do like the idea of the Queen doing a tour of Canada and ending, "Fucking keep it, mate."
Most of the 54 countries in the Commonwealth are already republics, so Australia can stay in the Commonwealth for whatever perceived benefits that may bring. I just want us to be a republic while we're doing it.
I think this is where I was getting confused. I don't generally pay the blindest bit of attention to this stuff so I wasn't aware there was a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spav
It does also mean that I'm now not too sure I know what the Commonwealth is. Is it just "the countries that were in the empire regardless of current status"?
Not all, we left in 1949. Not sure if there were others but wasn't one of the carribean islands looking to do the same recently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spikey M
Edit - us and Zimbabwe apparently, though the latter have tried get back in.
Surprised it's not more than that really.
"Oh hi! My ancestors stole your country for a bit, took all your resources, crushed a few rebellions and installed new borders that are still causing problems for you today. We did give you Cricket though. Would you like to be in our "Super Friendly Mates Club"?".
Surprised it wasn't more either, but as Spav was saying it probably costs nothing. I would have guess India too though.
We were a 'dominion' until then. Not sure if that's just what you call a commonwealth member or if that's something deeper in than what the likes of Canada and Barbados are these days.
No idea, all this stuff is just unnecessarily complicated.
I sort of understand countries like Australia being in the Commonwealth. They basically are British people (Aboriginals aside), it's the likes of India and the Caribbean I don't understand.
I would take the Commonwealth more seriously if homosexuality were not illegal in 24 of its 54 member states.