Well the all island vote wasn’t the source of change, a war unfortunately had to follow.

And point of clarification - Ireland didn’t “leave the UK” - the British were forced to withdraw from 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland.

“NI” was carved out of the island by Britain holding on to as much industrialised land as they could, with as big a majority of British settlers vs native Irish.

There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

Your words. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing further. The constitution is already in the state you say is fundamentally objectionable, it is not a neutral, equal set of laws. But you draw the line here, when advantage is already enshrined one way. Funny that.

You’re pretty rude and divisive in your comments here, you can take negativity too far you know.

Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it’s a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.

Sure but then we must acknowledge one of those unacceptable things is reality, and the other which could have added some equality and balance was rejected, leaving the constitution favoured to one group of people, as society has been structured.

“Tests based on genetics that lead to different rights”. Again, that sounds alot like the constitutional rights granted to just one family line as head of state. And that genetic line didn’t come from Australia. So which race of humans have primacy in australian law?

Like enshrining the position of head of state as being the next in line for a particular family who are born & live on the other side of the world?