On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:35:14 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 8/06/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:03:21 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/06/2022 10:25 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't
>>>>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now
>>>>>>>>> I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool
>>>>>>>>> being our head of state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have the
>>>>>>> same system of government and laws,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our system is unique.
>>>>>
>>>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but most
>>>>> of what we have here is from England.
>>>>>
>>>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public service
>>>>> operates. English law still still holds precedent in Australia, and
>>>>> the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of it is from England, except for the federal government and the
>>>>> existence of states, and that is just because of the spatially large
>>>>> nature of our continent.
>>>> 'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart from
>>>> a few similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of power
>>>> stemming from the Monarch, we're very different. The Poms don't even
>>>> have a Cosntitution
>>
>>> England does have a constitution.
>> Bullshit it does.
>>

> It has no codified constitution in one document.

It has no constitution.

> But it does have a constitution in a range of laws, court decisions and
> conventions.

That isn't a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.

>>> It just isn't codified. It is contained in case law.

>> Thats common law, not a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.

> Common law just means that law is contained in court decisions which
> form precedents.

But isnt a CONSTITUTION, you pig ignorant clown.

> The English consitution is contained in court decisions, plus
> legislation and unwritten conventions.

None of that is a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.

>>> and they have an upper house the is undemocratic.
>>>>> We are a child of England, and to become a republic would be like
>>>>> disowning one's mother or father.
>>>> LOL. Some children just never try to grow up and leave home. I'm
>>>> not one of them.
>>>>

On 8/06/2022 9:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:35:14 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 8/06/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:03:21 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/06/2022 10:25 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>> On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> republic needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest,
>>>>>>>>>>> haven't you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because
>>>>>>>>>> now I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie
>>>>>>>>>> fool being our head of state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have
>>>>>>>> the same system of government and laws,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our system is unique.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but most
>>>>>> of what we have here is from England.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public service
>>>>>> operates. English law still still holds precedent in Australia,
>>>>>> and the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of it is from England, except for the federal government and
>>>>>> the existence of states, and that is just because of the spatially
>>>>>> large nature of our continent.
>>>>>   'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart
>>>>> from a few similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of
>>>>> power stemming from the Monarch, we're very different.  The Poms
>>>>> don't even have a Cosntitution
>>>
>>>> England does have a constitution.
>>>  Bullshit it does.
>>>
>
>> It has no codified constitution in one document.
>
> It has no constitution.
>
>> But it does have a constitution in a range of laws, court decisions
>> and conventions.
>
> That isn't a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>>>> It just isn't codified.  It is  contained in case law.
>
>>>  Thats common law, not a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>> Common law just means that law is contained in court decisions which
>> form precedents.
>
> But isnt a CONSTITUTION, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>> The English consitution is contained in court decisions, plus
>> legislation and unwritten conventions.
>
> None of that is a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>

They don't need a single document constitution, but the courts recognise
that there is a constitution.

A un-codified consitution has its advantages. It means it can be
modified without a referendum.

>>>> and they have an upper house the is undemocratic.
>>>>>> We are a child of England, and to become a republic would be like
>>>>>> disowning one's mother or father.
>>>>>  LOL.  Some children just never try to grow up and leave home.  I'm
>>>>> not one of them.
>>>>>

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:22:06 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 8/06/2022 9:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:35:14 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/06/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:03:21 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/06/2022 10:25 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> republic needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest,
>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because
>>>>>>>>>>> now I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie
>>>>>>>>>>> fool being our head of state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have
>>>>>>>>> the same system of government and laws,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our system is unique.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but most
>>>>>>> of what we have here is from England.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public service
>>>>>>> operates. English law still still holds precedent in Australia,
>>>>>>> and the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of it is from England, except for the federal government and
>>>>>>> the existence of states, and that is just because of the spatially
>>>>>>> large nature of our continent.
>>>>>> 'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart
>>>>>> from a few similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of
>>>>>> power stemming from the Monarch, we're very different. The Poms
>>>>>> don't even have a Cosntitution
>>>>
>>>>> England does have a constitution.
>>>> Bullshit it does.
>>>>
>>
>>> It has no codified constitution in one document.

>> It has no constitution.

>>> But it does have a constitution in a range of laws, court decisions
>>> and conventions.

>> That isn't a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.

>>>>> It just isn't codified. It is contained in case law.

>>>> Thats common law, not a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.

>>> Common law just means that law is contained in court decisions which
>>> form precedents.

>> But isnt a CONSTITUTION, you pig ignorant clown.

>>> The English consitution is contained in court decisions, plus
>>> legislation and unwritten conventions.

>> None of that is a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.

> They don't need a single document constitution,

They don't even have a multiple document constitution.

> but the courts recognise that there is a constitution.

court decisions, plus legislation and unwritten conventions
arent a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.

> A un-codified consitution has its advantages.

Yes, but the UK doesn't have one.

> It means it can be modified without a referendum.

If it can be modified by any govt that feels
like doing that, it isnt a constitution.

And plenty of constitutions don't require a referendum to be modified.

>>>>> and they have an upper house the is undemocratic.
>>>>>>> We are a child of England, and to become a republic would be like
>>>>>>> disowning one's mother or father.
>>>>>> LOL. Some children just never try to grow up and leave home. I'm
>>>>>> not one of them.
>>>>>>

On 9/06/2022 5:44 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:22:06 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 8/06/2022 9:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:35:14 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/06/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:03:21 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 10:25 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> republic needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because
>>>>>>>>>>>> now I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie
>>>>>>>>>>>> fool being our head of state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have
>>>>>>>>>> the same system of government and laws,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our system is unique.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but
>>>>>>>> most of what we have here is from England.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public
>>>>>>>> service operates. English law still still holds precedent in
>>>>>>>> Australia, and the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of it is from England, except for the federal government and
>>>>>>>> the existence of states, and that is just because of the
>>>>>>>> spatially large nature of our continent.
>>>>>>>   'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart
>>>>>>> from a few similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of
>>>>>>> power stemming from the Monarch, we're very different.  The Poms
>>>>>>> don't even have a Cosntitution
>>>>>
>>>>>> England does have a constitution.
>>>>>  Bullshit it does.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> It has no codified constitution in one document.
>
>>>  It has no constitution.
>
>>>> But it does have a constitution in a range of laws, court decisions
>>>> and conventions.
>
>>>  That isn't a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>>>>>> It just isn't codified.  It is  contained in case law.
>
>>>>>  Thats common law, not a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>>>> Common law just means that law is contained in court decisions which
>>>> form precedents.
>
>>>  But isnt a CONSTITUTION, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>>>> The English consitution is contained in court decisions, plus
>>>> legislation and unwritten conventions.
>
>>>  None of that is a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>> They don't need a single document constitution,
>
> They don't even have a multiple document constitution.
>
>> but the courts recognise  that there is a constitution.
>
> court decisions, plus legislation and unwritten conventions
> arent a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>> A un-codified consitution has its advantages.
>
> Yes, but the UK doesn't have one.
>
>> It means it can be  modified without a referendum.
>
> If it can be modified by any govt that feels
> like doing that, it isnt a constitution.
>
> And plenty of constitutions don't require a referendum to be modified.
>

Legislation or referendums are the only way constitutions can be modified.

Either way, there is a constitution, and the UK has one.

>>>>>> and they have an upper house the is undemocratic.
>>>>>>>> We are a child of England, and to become a republic would be
>>>>>>>> like disowning one's mother or father.
>>>>>>>  LOL.  Some children just never try to grow up and leave home.
>>>>>>> I'm not one of them.
>>>>>>>

On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 18:16:05 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 9/06/2022 5:44 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:22:06 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/06/2022 9:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:35:14 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/06/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:03:21 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 10:25 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> republic needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool being our head of state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have
>>>>>>>>>>> the same system of government and laws,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Our system is unique.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but
>>>>>>>>> most of what we have here is from England.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public
>>>>>>>>> service operates. English law still still holds precedent in
>>>>>>>>> Australia, and the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of it is from England, except for the federal government and
>>>>>>>>> the existence of states, and that is just because of the
>>>>>>>>> spatially large nature of our continent.
>>>>>>>> 'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart
>>>>>>>> from a few similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of
>>>>>>>> power stemming from the Monarch, we're very different. The Poms
>>>>>>>> don't even have a Cosntitution
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> England does have a constitution.
>>>>>> Bullshit it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It has no codified constitution in one document.
>>
>>>> It has no constitution.
>>
>>>>> But it does have a constitution in a range of laws, court decisions
>>>>> and conventions.
>>
>>>> That isn't a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>>>>>> It just isn't codified. It is contained in case law.
>>
>>>>>> Thats common law, not a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>>>> Common law just means that law is contained in court decisions which
>>>>> form precedents.
>>
>>>> But isnt a CONSTITUTION, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>>>> The English consitution is contained in court decisions, plus
>>>>> legislation and unwritten conventions.
>>
>>>> None of that is a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>> They don't need a single document constitution,
>> They don't even have a multiple document constitution.
>>
>>> but the courts recognise that there is a constitution.
>> court decisions, plus legislation and unwritten conventions
>> arent a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>> A un-codified consitution has its advantages.
>> Yes, but the UK doesn't have one.
>>
>>> It means it can be modified without a referendum.
>> If it can be modified by any govt that feels
>> like doing that, it isnt a constitution.

>> And plenty of constitutions don't require a referendum to be modified.

> Legislation or referendums are the only way constitutions can be
> modified.

Wrong, as always.

> Either way, there is a constitution,

Wrong, as always.

> and the UK has one.

Wrong, as always.

>>>>>>> and they have an upper house the is undemocratic.
>>>>>>>>> We are a child of England, and to become a republic would be
>>>>>>>>> like disowning one's mother or father.
>>>>>>>> LOL. Some children just never try to grow up and leave home.
>>>>>>>> I'm not one of them.
>>>>>>>>

On 8/06/2022 10:22 pm, Max wrote:
> On 8/06/2022 9:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:35:14 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/06/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:03:21 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/06/2022 10:25 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> republic needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest,
>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because
>>>>>>>>>>> now I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie
>>>>>>>>>>> fool being our head of state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have
>>>>>>>>> the same system of government and laws,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our system is unique.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but
>>>>>>> most of what we have here is from England.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public
>>>>>>> service operates. English law still still holds precedent in
>>>>>>> Australia, and the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of it is from England, except for the federal government and
>>>>>>> the existence of states, and that is just because of the
>>>>>>> spatially large nature of our continent.
>>>>>>   'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart
>>>>>> from a few similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of
>>>>>> power stemming from the Monarch, we're very different.  The Poms
>>>>>> don't even have a Cosntitution
>>>>
>>>>> England does have a constitution.
>>>>  Bullshit it does.
>>>>
>>
>>> It has no codified constitution in one document.
>>
>> It has no constitution.
>>
>>> But it does have a constitution in a range of laws, court decisions
>>> and conventions.
>>
>> That isn't a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>>>> It just isn't codified.  It is  contained in case law.
>>
>>>>  Thats common law, not a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>> Common law just means that law is contained in court decisions which
>>> form precedents.
>>
>> But isnt a CONSTITUTION, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>> The English consitution is contained in court decisions, plus
>>> legislation and unwritten conventions.
>>
>> None of that is a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>
> They don't need a single document constitution, but the courts recognise
> that there is a constitution.

Whether it's needed or not is not under discussion. What is beign
discussed is IF the UK has a Constituion. It doesn't.

It has lots of cute and curious things of cute things like 'unwritten
conventions and then a whole pile of other crud like
Acts and case law etc. It does not have a Constitution.

> A un-codified consitution has its advantages.  It means it can be
> modified without a referendum.

??????? That response is VERY Australia one.

Brits doing referenda is almost as common as phoenixs rising.

On 9/06/2022 6:16 pm, Max wrote:
> On 9/06/2022 5:44 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:22:06 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/06/2022 9:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:35:14 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/06/2022 7:45 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 19:03:21 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 10:25 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/06/2022 6:07 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 10:22 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:42 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> republic needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendum decides there should be a republic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now I realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool being our head of state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>>>>>>>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>>>>>>>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have
>>>>>>>>>>> the same system of government and laws,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, we do not have the same system of Government and laws.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Our system is unique.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There may be some slight differences, such as federalism, but
>>>>>>>>> most of what we have here is from England.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Councils, the traditions of parliament, the way the public
>>>>>>>>> service operates. English law still still holds precedent in
>>>>>>>>> Australia, and the whole legal system is virtually the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of it is from England, except for the federal government
>>>>>>>>> and the existence of states, and that is just because of the
>>>>>>>>> spatially large nature of our continent.
>>>>>>>>   'English' law does not hold precedent in Australia. And apart
>>>>>>>> from a few similarities, such as Councils and the devolution of
>>>>>>>> power stemming from the Monarch, we're very different.  The Poms
>>>>>>>> don't even have a Cosntitution
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> England does have a constitution.
>>>>>>  Bullshit it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It has no codified constitution in one document.
>>
>>>>  It has no constitution.
>>
>>>>> But it does have a constitution in a range of laws, court decisions
>>>>> and conventions.
>>
>>>>  That isn't a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>>>>>> It just isn't codified.  It is  contained in case law.
>>
>>>>>>  Thats common law, not a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>>>> Common law just means that law is contained in court decisions
>>>>> which form precedents.
>>
>>>>  But isnt a CONSTITUTION, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>>>> The English consitution is contained in court decisions, plus
>>>>> legislation and unwritten conventions.
>>
>>>>  None of that is a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>> They don't need a single document constitution,
>>
>> They don't even have a multiple document constitution.
>>
>>> but the courts recognise  that there is a constitution.
>>
>> court decisions, plus legislation and unwritten conventions
>> arent a constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
>>
>>> A un-codified consitution has its advantages.
>>
>> Yes, but the UK doesn't have one.
>>
>>> It means it can be  modified without a referendum.
>>
>> If it can be modified by any govt that feels
>> like doing that, it isnt a constitution.
>>
>> And plenty of constitutions don't require a referendum to be modified.
>>
>
> Legislation or referendums are the only way constitutions can be modified.
>
> Either way, there is a constitution, and the UK has one.

You're either trolling or can't do basic homework before posting.
Either way, you're becoming boring.