Planet Rugby Forum

Plato'sCave wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:My taxes are paying for this shite

Thanks bro we appreciate it. Next time you need another no.8 let us know.

That makes no sense to me

I meant thank you for paying for Harry to come over and if you need someone to play no.8 for Wales like Faletau, just give us a call.

CrazyIslander wrote:She was 6ft. Queen Elizabeth is short thus making Queen Salote look much taller.

6'0 or 6'4?

I remember a picture of her with Malietoa and she towers over him. And he is about 5'10.

kovana wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:My taxes are paying for this shite

Thanks bro we appreciate it. Next time you need another no.8 let us know.

It must burn some of these UK posters that two tongans are the best No8s up there.

Nah. Billy is one of the most popular players up here and English posters have done nothing but wish he was fit again.

redderneck wrote:

Not Frankie wrote:They're parasites, f*ck 'em.

And the royals?

They are the parasite's parasite

Plato'sCave wrote:My taxes are paying for this shite

Nah mate. We are paying for these leeches:

• "In common with all Realm visits, the costs of the visit will be met by the host governments."

kovana wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:She was 6ft. Queen Elizabeth is short thus making Queen Salote look much taller.

6'0 or 6'4?

I remember a picture of her with Malietoa and she towers over him. And he is about 5'10.

I didnt see her in person but most reports she was exactly 6ft.
It is a great picture IMO. The irony that the physically bigger Queen rules a tiny Kingdom whilst the smaller Queen reigned over a huge empire.

CrazyIslander wrote:

kovana wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:She was 6ft. Queen Elizabeth is short thus making Queen Salote look much taller.

6'0 or 6'4?

I remember a picture of her with Malietoa and she towers over him. And he is about 5'10.

I didnt see her in person but most reports she was exactly 6ft.
It is a great picture IMO. The irony that the physically bigger Queen rules a tiny Kingdom whilst the smaller Queen reigned over a huge empire.

You have to define 'reigned'.

kovana wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

kovana wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:She was 6ft. Queen Elizabeth is short thus making Queen Salote look much taller.

6'0 or 6'4?

I remember a picture of her with Malietoa and she towers over him. And he is about 5'10.

I didnt see her in person but most reports she was exactly 6ft.
It is a great picture IMO. The irony that the physically bigger Queen rules a tiny Kingdom whilst the smaller Queen reigned over a huge empire.

You have to define 'reigned'.

Head of state, ceremonial or otherwise.

kovana wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:My taxes are paying for this shite

Thanks bro we appreciate it. Next time you need another no.8 let us know.

It must burn some of these UK posters that two tongans are the best No8s up there.

You would really like that nonsense to be true wouldn't you

Salix wrote:Going by the old photo it looks like the tongans are our version of the dwarves in discworld in that it's difficult to tell the difference between the males and females.

+1 for the Discworld reference

-382344738434 for being a cnut.

kovana wrote:

Salix wrote:Going by the old photo it looks like the tongans are our version of the dwarves in discworld in that it's difficult to tell the difference between the males and females.

Yea.. it must be hard for you to spot tongan women ey?

Spoiler: show

Britte Fuimaono



Diamond Langi..

Christ, am sick of hearing about these people. The fawning worship of the "royal" family some people have always baffles me. I cannot wait to become a republic after the old bag croaks.

Bowens wrote:

kovana wrote:

Salix wrote:Going by the old photo it looks like the tongans are our version of the dwarves in discworld in that it's difficult to tell the difference between the males and females.

Yea.. it must be hard for you to spot tongan women ey?

Spoiler: show

Britte Fuimaono



Diamond Langi..

Nice


But you would see their like out clubbing in Dundee or Nottingham any night of the week.

CrazyIslander wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:My taxes are paying for this shite

Thanks bro we appreciate it. Next time you need another no.8 let us know.

brilliant

Plato'sCave wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:My taxes are paying for this shite

Thanks bro we appreciate it. Next time you need another no.8 let us know.

That makes no sense to me

Just as aside, but at least in NZ it is the nz taxpayers paying for it.

Harry seems like a good lad, and the Invictus games is a good cause, but the fact we're paying for their expensive jolly is why I work hard to avoid paying any tax.

How much is the despot Tongan king hiking up the taxes for the “privilege” of hosting these two? This better not come out of our aid money

Zakar wrote:Harry seems like a good lad, and the Invictus games is a good cause, but the fact we're paying for their expensive jolly is why I work hard to avoid paying any tax.

In know they are only costing 1 mill here in NZ

Cheap as really

About 2rds of one of our govts 2 day conferences/talkfests for teachers

Dark wrote:

Zakar wrote:Harry seems like a good lad, and the Invictus games is a good cause, but the fact we're paying for their expensive jolly is why I work hard to avoid paying any tax.

In know they are only costing 1 mill here in NZ

Cheap as really

About 2rds of one of our govts 2 day conferences/talkfests for teachers

Didn't they fly here in a NZ Airforce plane? That must cost hundreds of thousands alone. That's literally half our airforce booked out.

Zakar wrote:Harry seems like a good lad, and the Invictus games is a good cause, but the fact we're paying for their expensive jolly is why I work hard to avoid paying any tax.

All the younger Royals seem okay imo, William, Kate, Harry, Zara, Eugenie & Beatrice all come across as grounded, fairly humble and acutely aware of public perceptions.

It's the older plums like Prince Charles, the other woman Camilla, sour Princess Anne, dodgy Andrew and Edward who seem entitled and off-putting.

Still a lot cheaper than having our own President

Enzedder wrote:Still a lot cheaper than having our own President

How?

True Blue wrote:

Dark wrote:

Zakar wrote:Harry seems like a good lad, and the Invictus games is a good cause, but the fact we're paying for their expensive jolly is why I work hard to avoid paying any tax.

In know they are only costing 1 mill here in NZ

Cheap as really

About 2rds of one of our govts 2 day conferences/talkfests for teachers

Didn't they fly here in a NZ Airforce plane? That must cost hundreds of thousands alone. That's literally half our airforce booked out.

I hate it when one individual’s fearful penury clouds their pleasure of historic, artless, and grand gestures.

But it’s also q amusing to observe.

True Blue wrote:

Dark wrote:

Zakar wrote:Harry seems like a good lad, and the Invictus games is a good cause, but the fact we're paying for their expensive jolly is why I work hard to avoid paying any tax.

In know they are only costing 1 mill here in NZ

Cheap as really

About 2rds of one of our govts 2 day conferences/talkfests for teachers

Didn't they fly here in a NZ Airforce plane? That must cost hundreds of thousands alone. That's literally half our airforce booked out.

Well it wasn't doing anything else was it.

maxbox wrote:

Enzedder wrote:Still a lot cheaper than having our own President

How?

Shameless presidents of France for example, and most of the EU countries are the same
His residence ( l'Elysée) with about 300 employees




His wine cellar


His summer house


Not counting planes etc etc.

Lol, our President would be lucky to be given a holiday retreat at whitianga

Our republic would be very cost effective

Enzedder wrote:Still a lot cheaper than having our own President

You already have a Governor-General, the office for which costs c. $10 mill a year.

Get rid of Sweaty Betty and end the needless GG double up.

True Blue wrote:Christ, am sick of hearing about these people. The fawning worship of the "royal" family some people have always baffles me. I cannot wait to become a republic after the old bag croaks.

I agree. Have absolutely no interest in any of them. But I'm not baying for the opportunity to form a Republic. Primarily due to the cost of holding the necessary referendum in order to to do. I was against the Marriage Equality Postal Survey last year because I thought it was an expensive boondoggle devised to appease the knuckledraggers in the Coalition (who largely ignored it anyway in the voting on the matter) and should have been taken care of in Parliament itself. That was $120m pissed down the drain to confirm what at least a dozen polls had been declaring for some time.

A referendum would be significantly more expensive and you have to really weigh it up. What would be most cost effective. A Republic or having to foot the bill for the odd visit from the 'Royals'.

I am a Republican and it's quite concerning how many people are so ambivalent about it in Oz

I couldn't give a toss about the royal trip here but I must say I quite liked Harry's te reo effort here. Even singing the waiata!... That is top notch. No wonder so many Maori are ardent royalists.

Anyway, the younger royals are nice people. It's all marketing to make the institution relevant for the next 100 years but it works. The poms should keep it. For NZ, I'm still a republican and new flag revolutionary.

However, if I was British, I would be a staunch monarchist.

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:I am a Republican and it's quite concerning how many people are so ambivalent about it in Oz

If we were having the referendum tomorrow I'd vote in favour of the Republic. No question in my mind on that. But in order for it to be justified it would need to be bundled with some other major constitutional questions in order for the overall cost to be worth it. Because outside of that I don't see any functional purpose. The Royal family are nothing more than a symbolic sideshow these days and even if they tried to say dissolve our parliament it's not like we'd actually listen.

Working Class Rugger wrote:

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:I am a Republican and it's quite concerning how many people are so ambivalent about it in Oz

If we were having the referendum tomorrow I'd vote in favour of the Republic. No question in my mind on that. But in order for it to be justified it would need to be bundled with some other major constitutional questions in order for the overall cost to be worth it. Because outside of that I don't see any functional purpose. The Royal family are nothing more than a symbolic sideshow these days and even if they tried to say dissolve our parliament it's not like we'd actually listen.

What is so wrong with simply changing the signs on the Governor General's House and stationary? That'll cost a few thousand. Nothing much else needs changing. Everyone working at the GG's house stays put.

Tonga use to have a monarchy with absolute power. After years of campaigning for change plus demonstrations and a riot we changed to a more democratic Constitutional Monarchy. It turns out the Democratic government is more corrupt now some people including myself want the King to have absolute power again.

Auckman wrote:

Working Class Rugger wrote:

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:I am a Republican and it's quite concerning how many people are so ambivalent about it in Oz

If we were having the referendum tomorrow I'd vote in favour of the Republic. No question in my mind on that. But in order for it to be justified it would need to be bundled with some other major constitutional questions in order for the overall cost to be worth it. Because outside of that I don't see any functional purpose. The Royal family are nothing more than a symbolic sideshow these days and even if they tried to say dissolve our parliament it's not like we'd actually listen.

What is so wrong with simply changing the signs on the Governor General's House and stationary? That'll cost a few thousand. Nothing much else needs changing. Everyone working at the GG's house stays put.

Largely the same reasons we spent $120m on a postal survey to 'provide guidance' on marriage equality when we all knew the result thanks to poll after poll supporting it. People from both sides will likely feel that it either disrespects the institution or doesn't go far enough and will probably chuck a collective hissy while refusing to agree on anything surrounding the issue.

I've had this argument many times. In principle I'm in favour of a Republic but as above don't really see a functional purpose in it. Which doesn't please the more militant of either side from my experience.

The Governor General is a fantastic check on power. It is appointed by the government but has the power to dismiss a government but it has no executive powers.
It pretty much means, if a government is endangering the country, the GG can sent it back to the people for an election. If the GG is being power hungry and dismiss the government for no good reason then the people can re-elect the government who can comeback and give the GG the boot.

CrazyIslander wrote:The Governor General is a fantastic check on power. It is appointed by the government but has the power to dismiss a government but it has no executive powers.
It pretty much means, if a government is endangering the country, the GG can sent it back to the people for an election. If the GG is being power hungry and dismiss the government for no good reason then the people can re-elect the government who can comeback and give the GG the boot.

That would still essentially be the role a President would assume. All that would happen would be the title change and the writing out of the constitution of the Queen being the Head of State. Maybe the President will be adorned with that symbolic title as well. Nothing more. But in order to get there we'd likely have to spend something close to the current cost of a Federal Election to essentially tweak it. No thank you.

CrazyIslander wrote:The Governor General is a fantastic check on power. It is appointed by the government but has the power to dismiss a government but it has no executive powers.
It pretty much means, if a government is endangering the country, the GG can sent it back to the people for an election. If the GG is being power hungry and dismiss the government for no good reason then the people can re-elect the government who can comeback and give the GG the boot.

Yeah and a mainly ceremonial (figurehead) president has the same powers....

Goddamnit! Beaten to the punch by Working Class Tugga

Working Class Rugger wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:The Governor General is a fantastic check on power. It is appointed by the government but has the power to dismiss a government but it has no executive powers.
It pretty much means, if a government is endangering the country, the GG can sent it back to the people for an election. If the GG is being power hungry and dismiss the government for no good reason then the people can re-elect the government who can comeback and give the GG the boot.

That would still essentially be the role a President would assume. All that would happen would be the title change and the writing out of the constitution of the Queen being the Head of State. Maybe the President will be adorned with that symbolic title as well. Nothing more. But in order to get there we'd likely have to spend something close to the current cost of a Federal Election to essentially tweak it. No thank you.

Who will elect the president?

I am going to hazard a guess at seperate elections

maxbox wrote:I am going to hazard a guess at seperate elections

For a largely ceremonial position. God no. Would be a complete waste of money. Outside of a few tweaks there would be no reason whatever to change anything around how they are appointed. If they had to be elected let them be added to the process at a Federal Election.