Short Extension of Non-O marriage visa

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I don't remember the exact details, but the terms of the referendum were couched in such a way it would have taken something like a 75% vote in favor of becoming a republic to get up.

 

   Surely you can do a web search and find details of that ?

Then post a link to those claims ?

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I don't remember the exact details, but the terms of the referendum were couched in such a way it would have taken something like a 75% vote in favor of becoming a republic to get up. That was not going to happen with many Australians still wanting to tug the forelock to Liz.

Howard carried on the Menzies tradition of British to the bootheels. The Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was quite vomitous in his servility.

 

Abbott presumably is still hoping for a knighthood. Knighting Prince Philip was when the whole of Australia laughed and cringed simultaneously.

Not rigged then. 

 

Seems the rules were clear.

 

[Lacessit]

17 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Not rigged then. 

 

Seems the rules were clear.

 

So the referendum fails if 74% vote in favor of a republic?

 

You have weird ideas about what is not rigged.

 

Please explain to me the relevance of Britain to Australia. Hint: Trade with the UK is 1.2% of Australian imports and exports.

[youreavinalaff]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

So the referendum fails if 74% vote in favor of a republic?

 

You have weird ideas about what is not rigged.

 

Please explain to me the relevance of Britain to Australia. Hint: Trade with the UK is 1.2% of Australian imports and exports.

The referendum failed. It would have failed if a simple majority was needed. 

 

The question us not regarding trade do the second part of your comment is inane.

[Lacessit]

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The referendum failed. It would have failed if a simple majority was needed. 

 

The question us not regarding trade do the second part of your comment is inane.

Lay off the booze, it's affecting your typing skills.

 

So you cannot explain the relevance of the UK to Australia, then.

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Lay off the booze, it's affecting your typing skills.

 

So you cannot explain the relevance of the UK to Australia, then.

I'm not on the booze.

 

You appear to be as you think there is some hidden agenda. 

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm not on the booze.

 

You appear to be as you think there is some hidden agenda. 

If you are not on the booze, I'd suggest some proofreading before you post.

 

No hidden agenda, Howard was quite open about what he wanted, along with his fellow bootlickers.

 

Still waiting for your explanation of the UK's relevance. I won't hold my breath.

 

Every time we have a visit from Charlie or his disreputable sprogs, it costs the Australian taxpayer a fortune. P!ss off is my reaction.

[youreavinalaff]

40 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you are not on the booze, I'd suggest some proofreading before you post.

 

No hidden agenda, Howard was quite open about what he wanted, along with his fellow bootlickers.

 

Still waiting for your explanation of the UK's relevance. I won't hold my breath.

 

Every time we have a visit from Charlie or his disreputable sprogs, it costs the Australian taxpayer a fortune. P!ss off is my reaction.

Not the same reaction as the majority of voters in the referendum.

 

You keep banging on about relevance. The article is about a ceremonial head of state. I suggest, when you sober up, you read some history books.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

Not the same reaction as the majority of voters in the referendum.

 

You keep banging on about relevance. The article is about a ceremonial head of state. I suggest, when you sober up, you read some history books.

As I have not consumed alcohol for about 18 months, your sledge is wide of the mark.

 

My guess is you are one of the forelock tuggers that emigrated to Australia, and brought your outdated allegiances with you.

 

History says the Americans got tired of British exploitation, and told the Brits to p!ss off. So did India, more peaceably.

 

Time Australia grew up, obviously you can't.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

As I have not consumed alcohol for about 18 months, your sledge is wide of the mark.

 

My guess is you are one of the forelock tuggers that emigrated to Australia, and brought your outdated allegiances with you.

 

History says the Americans got tired of British exploitation, and told the Brits to p!ss off. So did India, more peaceably.

 

Time Australia grew up, obviously you can't.

I've never even been to Australia. So, you're way off there.

 

I've been stating facts. Nothing about allegiancies, outdated or not.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

I've never even been to Australia. So, you're way off there.

 

I've been stating facts. Nothing about allegiancies, outdated or not.

You have not stated a single justification for having a British head of state for Australia.

 

You've never been to Australia, why are you so interested? You're afraid of running out of colonials to look down on?

 

It's allegiances. One "I", not two.

[Nick Carter icp]

Its King Charles land , he owns Australia he can go anytime he like and for how long for .

   He can kick Aussies out if he wants to