|
|
Post by fish on Dec 10, 2023 9:44:53 GMT 12
Dude keep up, that was in the coalition Document released weeks ago. It will be supported by the 3 coalition parties to Select committee stage and then the chips fall where they may.
What is the referendum question that has you so scared?
He is saying it won't get past select committee - so it's a complete waste of money, if it won't get past select committee then what's the point of doing it in the first place? What is the point of democracy? |
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Dec 10, 2023 10:16:19 GMT 12
Thank God! Common sense prevailing... Luxon said a Treaty principles bill (which Act has said would include a requirement for a public binding referendum as part of a commencement clause) would be supported to select committee, but “that’s as far as it will go”. What a complete woftam a referendum would be. Dude keep up, that was in the coalition Document released weeks ago. It will be supported by the 3 coalition parties to Select committee stage and then the chips fall where they may.
What is the referendum question that has you so scared?
Duck master is correct.Select committe and there it stops .Luxon said so or Luxon turning to be what many are saying.A liar or misrepresents the truth?? |
|
|
|
Post by dutyfree on Dec 10, 2023 11:11:52 GMT 12
That is not what he said. The agreement says national and NZf will support to committee phase. Act has said it’s up to act to convince people of the value of a referendum to get past that point.
Given neither national or NZF campaigned on a referendum it is no surprise. So what do you think he is lying about?
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Dec 10, 2023 15:25:13 GMT 12
Dude keep up, that was in the coalition Document released weeks ago. It will be supported by the 3 coalition parties to Select committee stage and then the chips fall where they may.
What is the referendum question that has you so scared?
He is saying it won't get past select committee - so it's a complete waste of money, if it won't get past select committee then what's the point of doing it in the first place?
This is a classic example of why I find this referendum thing so depressing, it clearly shows a shed load of NZers are silly enough to not realise they are being played by the shadow people who have made them nothing more than drones programmed to rabbit their propaganda. Either that or they are simply unable to process basic information i.e they have a genuine mental disability.
It's a very simple question. On asking many have gone to big lengths to always include the term 'racist' along with at least one of these names Luxon, Peter and/or Seymour. But they NEVER answer the very simple and basic question 'What is it about the Referendum question that has you so scared?'
I have asked probably 45-50 people now and there are 2 very distinct groups, those who know there is no referendum unless a hell of a lot happens beforehand that gets one off the ground so they quite relaxed to see where the Select Committee goes and what may follow....or not. The other group have already decided there is a referendum, they know what the question is and they are totally outraged and offended by it to the point they need to throw promises of physical violence at their fellow NZers.
And that folks is why I find that knowing so many of my fellow NZers are that far down the referendum misinformation hole they are threatening physical violence on their fellow NZers due to a referendum that isn't even on the cards today, I find it quite depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 10, 2023 15:58:39 GMT 12
He is saying it won't get past select committee - so it's a complete waste of money, if it won't get past select committee then what's the point of doing it in the first place?
This is a classic example of why I find this referendum thing so depressing, it clearly shows a shed load of NZers are silly enough to not realise they are being played by the shadow people who have made them nothing more than drones programmed to rabbit their propaganda. Either that or they are simply unable to process basic information i.e they have a genuine mental disability.
It's a very simple question. On asking many have gone to big lengths to always include the term 'racist' along with at least one of these names Luxon, Peter and/or Seymour. But they NEVER answer the very simple and basic question 'What is it about the Referendum question that has you so scared?'
I have asked probably 45-50 people now and there are 2 very distinct groups, those who know there is no referendum unless a hell of a lot happens beforehand that gets one off the ground so they quite relaxed to see where the Select Committee goes and what may follow....or not. The other group have already decided there is a referendum, they know what the question is and they are totally outraged and offended by it to the point they need to throw promises of physical violence at their fellow NZers.
And that folks is why I find that knowing so many of my fellow NZers are that far down the referendum misinformation hole they are threatening physical violence on their fellow NZers due to a referendum that isn't even on the cards today, I find it quite depressing.
When Te Tiriti went down in Waitangi and other spots, it was all in te reo. To get what the big promises between the rangatira and Queen Vic were about, you gotta look at the OG text – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Back in 1840, te reo ruled the scene, and English was a minor player. Fast forward to today, it's flipped, and both te reo and english have done the time warp. Now in 2023, not many Kiwis can crack open the original Te Tiriti. Lawyers, politicians, brainiacs – they're all stuck with the English version or translations. It makes sense, but it's also a slippery slope. When the languages had totally different vibes (like te reo and English in 1840), debates over translations are gonna pop up. But hey, let's keep it real and respectful. Enter the Treaty. The English talks about 'sovereignty,' 'property,' and 'British citizens' rights' in certain articles. Te Tiriti has its own lingo like 'kawanatanga,' 'tino rangatiratanga,' and 'nga tikanga rite tahi.' Different words, different dance. Scholars, language buffs, legal eagles – they've been wrestling with these twists for 50 years. Now, ACT rolls in, thinking they can hit the reset button on the Treaty of Waitangi. Spoiler alert: their 'Principles' are like a remix that forgot the original tune. Instead of patching things up, their text plays fast and loose with the OG promises. Rude move. Especially coming from a party that only snagged 8.6 percent of the vote. Rewriting a pact that involves Queen V and the rangatira? That's some next-level presumptuousness. In times of crisis, a government's gotta bring folks together. ACT's take on Te Tiriti? It's a recipe for division. Many high figures aren't buying it, and honestly, neither am I. It's not about being scared of the question. It's the presumption that the question should even be asked. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 10, 2023 16:44:09 GMT 12
This is a classic example of why I find this referendum thing so depressing, it clearly shows a shed load of NZers are silly enough to not realise they are being played by the shadow people who have made them nothing more than drones programmed to rabbit their propaganda. Either that or they are simply unable to process basic information i.e they have a genuine mental disability.
It's a very simple question. On asking many have gone to big lengths to always include the term 'racist' along with at least one of these names Luxon, Peter and/or Seymour. But they NEVER answer the very simple and basic question 'What is it about the Referendum question that has you so scared?'
I have asked probably 45-50 people now and there are 2 very distinct groups, those who know there is no referendum unless a hell of a lot happens beforehand that gets one off the ground so they quite relaxed to see where the Select Committee goes and what may follow....or not. The other group have already decided there is a referendum, they know what the question is and they are totally outraged and offended by it to the point they need to throw promises of physical violence at their fellow NZers.
And that folks is why I find that knowing so many of my fellow NZers are that far down the referendum misinformation hole they are threatening physical violence on their fellow NZers due to a referendum that isn't even on the cards today, I find it quite depressing.
When Te Tiriti went down in Waitangi and other spots, it was all in te reo. To get what the big promises between the rangatira and Queen Vic were about, you gotta look at the OG text – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Back in 1840, te reo ruled the scene, and English was a minor player. Fast forward to today, it's flipped, and both te reo and english have done the time warp. Now in 2023, not many Kiwis can crack open the original Te Tiriti. Lawyers, politicians, brainiacs – they're all stuck with the English version or translations. It makes sense, but it's also a slippery slope. When the languages had totally different vibes (like te reo and English in 1840), debates over translations are gonna pop up. But hey, let's keep it real and respectful. Enter the Treaty. The English talks about 'sovereignty,' 'property,' and 'British citizens' rights' in certain articles. Te Tiriti has its own lingo like 'kawanatanga,' 'tino rangatiratanga,' and 'nga tikanga rite tahi.' Different words, different dance. Scholars, language buffs, legal eagles – they've been wrestling with these twists for 50 years. Now, ACT rolls in, thinking they can hit the reset button on the Treaty of Waitangi. Spoiler alert: their 'Principles' are like a remix that forgot the original tune. Instead of patching things up, their text plays fast and loose with the OG promises. Rude move. Especially coming from a party that only snagged 8.6 percent of the vote. Rewriting a pact that involves Queen V and the rangatira? That's some next-level presumptuousness. In times of crisis, a government's gotta bring folks together. ACT's take on Te Tiriti? It's a recipe for division. Many high figures aren't buying it, and honestly, neither am I. It's not about being scared of the question. It's the presumption that the question should even be asked. It is funny how some people (normally those wanting special privileges based on race) say the treaty will be re-written via this proposed process. The Treaty is there, it exists. It can't be taken away now. All ACT are seeking is clarification. Re-written V clarification. Would clear up the last 50 years of lawyers, academics et al squabbling over what 3 paragraphs (articles 1-2-3) mean. Perhaps that whole treaty industry (the lawyers et al) don't want it clarified. How could the lawyers have an industry if it is all clarified? |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Dec 10, 2023 17:09:59 GMT 12
It's not about being scared of the question. It's the presumption that the question should even be asked. Blaa blaa blaa, irrelevant as that has nothing to do with the question you're going to lengths to dodge.
I ask yet again, what is the referendum question and what about it has you so scared?
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 10, 2023 17:12:27 GMT 12
When Te Tiriti went down in Waitangi and other spots, it was all in te reo. To get what the big promises between the rangatira and Queen Vic were about, you gotta look at the OG text – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Back in 1840, te reo ruled the scene, and English was a minor player. Fast forward to today, it's flipped, and both te reo and english have done the time warp. Now in 2023, not many Kiwis can crack open the original Te Tiriti. Lawyers, politicians, brainiacs – they're all stuck with the English version or translations. It makes sense, but it's also a slippery slope. When the languages had totally different vibes (like te reo and English in 1840), debates over translations are gonna pop up. But hey, let's keep it real and respectful. Enter the Treaty. The English talks about 'sovereignty,' 'property,' and 'British citizens' rights' in certain articles. Te Tiriti has its own lingo like 'kawanatanga,' 'tino rangatiratanga,' and 'nga tikanga rite tahi.' Different words, different dance. Scholars, language buffs, legal eagles – they've been wrestling with these twists for 50 years. Now, ACT rolls in, thinking they can hit the reset button on the Treaty of Waitangi. Spoiler alert: their 'Principles' are like a remix that forgot the original tune. Instead of patching things up, their text plays fast and loose with the OG promises. Rude move. Especially coming from a party that only snagged 8.6 percent of the vote. Rewriting a pact that involves Queen V and the rangatira? That's some next-level presumptuousness. In times of crisis, a government's gotta bring folks together. ACT's take on Te Tiriti? It's a recipe for division. Many high figures aren't buying it, and honestly, neither am I. It's not about being scared of the question. It's the presumption that the question should even be asked. It is funny how some people (normally those wanting special privileges based on race) say the treaty will be re-written via this proposed process. The Treaty is there, it exists. It can't be taken away now. All ACT are seeking is clarification. Re-written V clarification. Would clear up the last 50 years of lawyers, academics et al squabbling over what 3 paragraphs (articles 1-2-3) mean. Perhaps that whole treaty industry (the lawyers et al) don't want it clarified. How could the lawyers have an industry if it is all clarified? You've already shown your ignorance on the treaty on the most simplistic of issues, being the difference between the texts. You represent the majority of people. I knew 1/billionath more than you did about the treaty. And together we still know fuck all. Neither of us are qualified to clarify what the treaty means. This needs to be left to scholars and experts. Asking the unqualified population to clarify what the treaty means is akin to having a referendum to decide what grade of concrete should be used on the next harbour crossing. It's a task that needs to be left to the experts. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Dec 10, 2023 17:15:12 GMT 12
It's a task that needs to be left to the experts. As the treaty was signed 200 odd years ago between 2 cultures that no longer exist how would you define what are the 'expert/s'?
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 10, 2023 17:23:02 GMT 12
It's not about being scared of the question. It's the presumption that the question should even be asked. Blaa blaa blaa, irrelevant as that has nothing to do with the question you're going to lengths to dodge.
I ask yet again, what is the referendum question and what about it has you so scared?
It's not about being afraid of the question. It's that's the question shouldn't be asked. In the 1970s no one was afraid of a question on abortion. But the government knew that the question shouldn't be asked and no referendum took place. There are some questions which are appropriate for the people, like which flag should we have, or should we have mmp. There are others which need to be answered by experts. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 10, 2023 17:30:45 GMT 12
It's a task that needs to be left to the experts. As the treaty was signed 200 odd years ago between 2 cultures that no longer exist how would you define what are the 'expert/s'?
Many scholars have devoted there lives to the study of the treaty, the cultures and the languages. There are records in both the UK and NZ archives. We already have 100 years+ of constitutional law. Treaty studies boomed since the '70s and aren't slowing down. Pinning down clear public and legal acceptance won't happen overnight—it's not a show-of-hands situation. It's a journey, not a sprint. |
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Dec 10, 2023 17:35:40 GMT 12
That is not what he said. The agreement says national and NZf will support to committee phase. Act has said it’s up to act to convince people of the value of a referendum to get past that point. Given neither national or NZF campaigned on a referendum it is no surprise. So what do you think he is lying about? Asked by Te Pāti Māori’s Tākuta Ferris why he was “leaving the door open” to a referendum on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Luxon said a Treaty principles bill (which Act has said would include a requirement for a public binding referendum as part of a commencement clause) would be supported to select committee, but “that’s as far as it will go”. “We have not committed to a referendum,” he added. Dutyfree clearly in the Land of Luxon as you claimed he never said that. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 10, 2023 17:53:51 GMT 12
That is not what he said. The agreement says national and NZf will support to committee phase. Act has said it’s up to act to convince people of the value of a referendum to get past that point. Given neither national or NZF campaigned on a referendum it is no surprise. So what do you think he is lying about? Asked by Te Pāti Māori’s Tākuta Ferris why he was “leaving the door open” to a referendum on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Luxon said a Treaty principles bill (which Act has said would include a requirement for a public binding referendum as part of a commencement clause) would be supported to select committee, but “that’s as far as it will go”. “We have not committed to a referendum,” he added. Dutyfree clearly in the Land of Luxon as you claimed he never said that. That is as far as the contractual support in the coalition agreement goes. Anything can happen in politics. Everyone said ACT couldn't get the End of Life Choice Bill over the line. Nekminnit. I don't see a referendum as an 'us v them' proposition. I see it clearly up a load of confusion, and IF done well, will serve to unit us as a country. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 10, 2023 18:08:44 GMT 12
I see it clearly up a load of confusion, and IF done well, will serve to unit us as a country. Mate, you're dreaming  Is the Treaty a partnership? A British takeover? Was it a fraud? Did it really extend British law only to settlers? Is it Māori version or the English one? Did Māori chiefs and the British fully grasp what they were signing? Pick your side, tick the box and let's see which view prevails. While referendums, like the one that gave us the MMP system, can be effective in settling straightforward matters with broad social agreement, they aren't magic clarity-makers for complex issues. When propositions are nuanced and the interested parties won't commit to accepting the outcome, the value of a referendum becomes murky. Significant societal shifts, like the acceptance of personal choice in abortion in the 1970s or the decriminalization of homosexuality in the 1980s, evolve through the persuasion of hearts and minds, rather than by the binary results of a referendum. So, while referendums have their place, they are not the silver bullet for very complex issues. |
|
|
|
Post by dutyfree on Dec 11, 2023 5:29:04 GMT 12
That is not what he said. The agreement says national and NZf will support to committee phase. Act has said it’s up to act to convince people of the value of a referendum to get past that point. Given neither national or NZF campaigned on a referendum it is no surprise. So what do you think he is lying about? Asked by Te Pāti Māori’s Tākuta Ferris why he was “leaving the door open” to a referendum on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Luxon said a Treaty principles bill (which Act has said would include a requirement for a public binding referendum as part of a commencement clause) would be supported to select committee, but “that’s as far as it will go”. “We have not committed to a referendum,” he added. Dutyfree clearly in the Land of Luxon as you claimed he never said that. Harry just quoted their coalition agreement and exactly what I said. lol |
|
