gzt:

tdgeek: I favour the commonwealth, but I am not a Royalist. Just posing the pro's and con's. I can't think of many pro's to becoming a republic

There are numerous republics in the commonwealth. India is the biggest example I can think of top of mind. Queen definitely is not head of state for India : ). Commonwealth is a free association by choice. Even to the extent any can join.

Yep, it was an empire like many before it. Strong prey on the weak, that was normal then, not now. Over QEII's reign, the empire rolled back as a sign of the times. Its now an association as you allude to.

tdgeek:

 

Lias:

 

That's fine, you go live in Aotearoa, I'll stay in New Zealand.

 

 

I feel that's inappropriate and off topic. What we call ourselves is our choice, not the Monarch's, thats the point of this thread. Nor is bypassing our indigenous population who were here before us

 

In my experience there is a strong correlation between people who want a republic and people who want to change the countries name, so I disagree it's inappropriate or off topic.

MikeB4: Only a small number of nations in the commonwealth have the King as head of state.

Yes, and its only symbolical

My point is, the world has changed, we cannot roll back history (which applies to many empires), and we cannot delete history from the history books, its part of us and how humans evolved. Past abuses have been learnt (more or less)

tdgeek:

MikeB4: Only a small number of nations in the commonwealth have the King as head of state.

Yes, and its only symbolical

My point is, the world has changed, we cannot roll back history (which applies to many empires), and we cannot delete history from the history books, its part of us and how humans evolved. Past abuses have been learnt (more or less)

Lias:

 

In my experience there is a strong correlation between people who want a republic and people who want to change the countries name, so I disagree it's inappropriate or off topic.

 

I'll take your word of that, Im not aware of a high level of either. Going to a republic is trendy IMO, changing our name is more of an identity thing. (which I would have no issue with, its quite common now)

tdgeek:

 

I'll take your word of that, Im not aware of a high level of either. Going to a republic is trendy IMO, changing our name is more of an identity thing. (which I would have no issue with, its quite common now)

 

I mean it's entirely possible we just debate things with different people :-)

MikeB4:

And that is precisely why the treaty has to be dealt with. It is the agreement that created the nation in its present form. The contract was between Maori and the Monarchy. The outstanding issues must be dealt with and the treaty renegotiated to become a republic.

I dont disagree. The Monarchy signed it, but they no longer exist (as its customary now, NZ governments control matters) If we became a republic tomorrow, nothing changes, apart from rescinding the GG, and replacing responsibility to the PM/President and future PM;s/ Presidents. The actual management and control is unchanged. Legally, perhaps the Government takes over from the GG, but from a practical POV, NZ will continue to fix the Treaty

Lias:

 

I mean it's entirely possible we just debate things with different people :-)

 

Perhaps!  I dont recall debating this with anyone. I see the history, I see the future. The monarchy has been symbolic for a long time. IMO its an emotional issue not a practical issue. If the Monarchy wielded some power over us that would change matters a great deal, but they dont. Are the First Four Ships part of us, or not?

MikeB4: Agreement that creates this nation is between Māori and the Monarchy. If the nation moves to break its link to the monarchy then a new treaty will need to be negotiated.

A new Treaty or new signatories?

MikeB4: If the parties agree to the terms of any new treaty. Then they will sign.

The Treaty of Waitangi is brazenly unfair. Decades of restoration has been progressing. I would have assumed that the restorations of the Treaty would remain as so under new signatories. Given that independent NZ have managed these restorations even though signed off by the GG's over time. In short, nothing would change?