The no argument was basically:
FEAR CHANGE! IF THINGS CHANGE THEY WONT BE LIKE THEY WERE AND YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THAT! BOO!
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
136 points (96.6% liked)
Australian Politics
1281 readers
6 users here now
A place to discuss Australia Politics.
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There are two "no" camps:
- This constitutional change is too much. We don't want a body we didn't elect having a voice to parliament.
- This constitutional change doesn't do nearly enough. We don't want a toothless voice that can't really affect anything. We want a full treaty.
The first camp I can't find common ground with. Every Billionaire in the country is an unelected individual who has a pretty big voice to parliament with their political donations and nobody bats an eye. But how dare we give a voice to the most powerless people in the country!
The second camp, I see their point. They're worried that this will be an end to discussion regarding indigenous issues. They don't think the voice is enough. They're right - if you read the Uluru Statement from the heart, you'll see that the voice is the first step towards a treaty. I personally don't think this topic will come up again for a generation if the no vote wins, so I can't really agree with them at all.
The Voice is one pathway to treaty.
I accept that there are people who genuinely believe in the ‘progressive no’ vote but I still think if you want a treaty and indigenous sovereignty recognised the Voice is a great opportunity for that.
I on the other hand think it will basically stop that pathway in its tracks and will be pointed at for generations to say “look what we already gave you! You’re in the constitution and have a voice! Problem solved”.
We don’t change the constitution often or lightly. When we do it should be for something meaningful that makes an actual immediate difference. Another advisor position doesn’t do that in any way.
This sounds a lot like the 'Yes republic, but not like that' position of 2000. And here we are 23 years later, and the entire republic debate was dropped.
I believe the same thing will happen with a no vote on this. "We had a whole referendum on this question and the people voted no".
They should have come up with a better proposal before bringing it to a referendum then. Give me something that meaningfully and permanently provides actual change for indigenous people. Another advisory position is pointless.
Also I believe a huge part of the swing towards the No vote is due to the over the top aggression and abuse that’s thrown at anyone that even dares to question voting yes, being called racists and the like. The communities in here are as guilty of it as any. All that type of activism does is turn people against your cause.
It's quite funny how you've gone from complaining about "perpetually offended progressives" a couple of months ago, to constantly crying about your own hurt feelings in every single thread about the Voice. Also very interesting how this matches up exactly with the Conservative No's campaign tactics at the moment. Yet once again, we're expected to believe you're here to debate in good faith.
Where exactly am I crying about my hurt feelings?
Funny how once again a staunch yes voter comes stomping in aggressively telling the no voters they’re just racist etc, literally exactly like I just said 😂 . You couldn’t have proven my point any better.
telling the no voters they’re just racist
???????????????
While there is plenty of scope for justifiable criticism about the form of the amendment that's going ahead, it's too late for that argument to achieve much. The wording is set, the date is set, the taxpayer money is already being spent.
Since it is going ahead anyway, do you think voting no will make governments revisit further steps in the future faster than a yes vote?
Personally, I doubt it would. Progress is more likely to be gained by having something, no matter how small, already in place so that a future amendment can build on it, rather than trying for something more substantial from scratch.
Honestly I don’t think voting no will hold it back more than voting yes. I think Yes winning would just allow the slacktivists to put the cue back in the rack and pat themselves on the back and say they solved racism so don’t need to do anything else. Either way I’m not expecting anything more to be done for a decade or 2 anyway unfortunately.
second camp has a point...but it's still not a good reason to vote no.
There is no good reason to vote no.
This constitutional change is too much. We don’t want a body we didn’t elect having a voice to parliament.
if albo goes ahead and legislates it anyway after a failed vote, you reckon they will still think that?
Haha Brexit
Genuinely took a few confused minutes of reading the other comments to realise this isn't about Brexit
more chance for the conservative cuntolition to show how gross they are before they become irrelevant
Yeah unfortunately that shit works. Maybe not on you, but it does work. It's kinda like spam. It's intentionally bad so the victims self-select.
Just remember that because of how vague this amendment is, if the yes vote wins as soon as the LN P get in power they can at best completely render ur irrelevant and pointless, and at worst actually use it to make life even worse for indigenous people.
This is the problem a lot of us have with it. It’s protected in name only, and has zero power.
If we don't get the Voice through this referendum I doubt it would ever get through at least for a few decades in a second one. It's either enshrine A Voice this time or nothing. Referendums are hard.
Id love to float a hypothetical here.
Say the referendum fails. One of the big 'No' arguments, if you can call it that, is "wHY nEeD rEFeReNDuMB jUSt LegISLatE"
What if albo just legislates the body in.
Reckon they will be consistent and say 'see thats all you need!", or will heads melt.
Because we know, it has nothing to do with that at all
What if albo just legislates the body in.
It will be repealed next time the LNP get in, just like everything else.
i agree. i would LOVE to hear what the people advocating for legislation only as their argument for a NO vote would say, because I have a little feeling they actually dont want that, they just want NO because they are either misinformed, rascist or voting purely along party lines, which is bizarre for a referendum