Leading independent commentators condemn summit recommendations.
Written by Professor David Flint AM   
Tuesday, 22 April 2008

Image

 ...Andrew Bolt writes....

Andrew Bolt’s blog is bookmarked across the country. He is one of the nation's most respected independent commentators.

On 21 April 2008, he posted the following under “The Republic Con.” 
 

In just a few hours it had attracted hundreds of comments in just a few hours.

 “Professor David Flint, of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, points out in an email a stupidity in the summit’s proposal for a republic:  

“The panel recommends an as yet unknown republic through a two-stage process. The first stage is to end ties with the UK. What the Summit is trying to do is to remove our oldest institution, the Australian Crown, from the constitution, while keeping the Governor-General in place for five years. During these five years, a new constitution is supposed to be worked out.  

“This means two referendums. ‘The first will be to remove vast parts of the Constitution - without putting anything at all in their place. Do the republicans really think the people would ever agree to something so monumentally stupid?’ 

“Flint also notes just how comprehensively the summit was stacked to give a result so strongly pro-republican:

 “‘According to a reliable source, the group within the governance panel has voted that Australia is to become a republic by 2020. The vote was 29 in favour, with one abstention. If we apply the way the AEC counts referendums, the vote was 100% in favour. This is a better result than Mugabe has managed in the Zimbabwean elections.’ 

“And when the summit’s final recommendation for a republic was read out at the final session, it was greeted with huge applause. Kevin Rudd on AM this morning claimed:  “’I think what the summit was saying loud and clear was that there is a big groundswell of support for a republic in Australia.”

 “False. Rudd is treating the views of his handpicked claque as proof of the views of the public - when they are nothing of the kind. In fact, as the Summit briefing papers conceded (see page 11), a republic is backed by fewer than 50 per cent of voters. 

 “The summit was not democratic and not representative. It’s also being used to push a pre-set agenda - and one not backed by most voters who thought they’d already had their say.


...Alan Jones condemns the summit recommendations...



In his editorial on 2GB Monday 21 April, 2008, Alan Jones condemned the Summir recommendations on a republic. 

With by far the top rating programme in the Sydney area, his editorial is heard by hundreds of thousands of people, probably far more than  read any newspaper editorial in the country.
He observed in the course of this:

"...we were told that the governance panel voted 29 in favour of a republic and one abstention, so that's a 100 per cent vote.

"As one writer says this morning, it's a better result than Mugabe's managed in the Zimbabwean elections.

He concluded:
"In the 1999 referendum, the no vote prevailed in all States. And now the no vote doesn't exist, according to the weekend. But how on earth can you say that we're recommending a republic when we don't even have a model. And has Kevin Rudd now got himself into a bind that he's going to have to do something about this. Then we're going to abolish the States and introduce a bill of rights. Good heavens above. Let's get back to reality, I would have thought."