Vote NO

Monday 1^st November 1999

The "YES" lobbyists attempt to counter people's rejection of this offering entail the following points of persuasion:

• Voting NO will mean no further action in our lifetime.
• Voting NO means supporting the monarchy.
• Voting NO means you are stupid.
• Wanting a direct elect president will make us like America, it will be bad, it will usurp the prime political power of the prime-minister.

The very fact that we rely on politicians to propose a referendum is reason enough to vote NO. To suggest there will be no progress in our generation is a piece of mythology. Parliament (indeed the senate) can propose bills for referenda.

Having concerns of watching monarchic power transfer to the president, or worse, the parliament will make the proposed change unacceptable. The voice of the people is not being increased under these changes. Hence they are not positive changes. Increasing Democracy we cry for many third world nations, but we allow ourselves to be happy with what we have got.

And that is the particular downfall of the "YES" case. The proposed changes entrench the status quo. To actually write the terms "Prime Minister" and "Leader of the Opposition" into the constitution is to further control the language of political debate by enforcing an official expectation that there will be such people in Parliament. Stifled imagination has delivered nothing, or even perhaps something worse.

And woe to the folk who express doubt about these changes and fear possible consequences. They are called stupid, silly, old fashioned, monarchists etc. They are particularly stupid for wanting to elect their head of state.

And this the final treason of the politicians against the people: They will not give what the people want. But you don't want a politician as head of state! You don't want to become like America! You don't want...

But alas, much to the disgust of the "YES" campaigners, the people do want a politician as head of state. A different politician who has the power to slow down legislative change, and force the houses to be reselected by the people. That is not America.

end of rant.

Post Script:

Let us be clear about a key point in this debate:

The people of Australia are not being asked to vote between a Republic and a Monarchy. We are voting on a proposed set of changes to the constitution.

We are being asked to agree or disagree to the proposed changes.

We are not being asked to reject the current constitution as it stands.

If you are driving an as new Falcon Sedan, and someone offers to swap you a rusting Datsun with panel damage, you would decline. But if someone else offers to swap it for a top of the line Rolls in mint condition, you would seriously consider saying yes.

The people of Australia are seeing a set of changes which the Yes camp say is symbolic only, retaining the current conventions. The No camp raise a series of doubts and negative potential. Is this good enough?

The people will decline.

End of Post Script rant.

(C)opyright Sylvano Lucchetti