Whenever something adverse happens these days, the event will more likely than not be attributed to, or associated with, the theory of man-made global warming.
As everyone knows, this is now referred to as ‘climate change’, which is what I had thought the climate always does.
The event will often serve a secondary purpose, that of the long-awaited silver bullet which will finally deliver what most bien pensants lie awake at night anticipating.
In Britain, it will be the total re-submission of the United Kingdom to the European Union, otherwise known as the Berlin-Paris Axis.
In the United States, it will be a 25th amendment declaration of incapacity or the removal by the Senate of President Donald Trump and the emergence of a Bernie Sanders presidency heralding an American Soviet Socialist Republic with no borders.
And in Australia, it will be the final adoption of the 25-year-old Turnbull-Keating politicians’ republic.
Mr Keating is doing much to improve the image of what frankly is an extremely flawed and unattractive republic. So it was comforting for many to be assured that an Australian republic would revolutionise our chi, our ‘blood energy’. This will, according to Mr Keating, tell ‘us better who we are’. I am sure vast numbers of Australians are excited by this concept to say nothing of this innovative use of English.
But there’s more.
It will ‘affirm our sovereignty over the place’ as well as also being ‘a powerful economic event into the bargain’.
This recalls the assurance of the late Minister for, I think, the Mafia, Al Grassby. He assured the nation that a politicians’ republic would reverse the recession and resulting unemployment created by the monarchy.
(The editor asked me if the above comment were defamatory. I replied, ‘Do you mean of the Mafia?’)
As to the form of the republic, Mr Keating said in 2017 that the Chinese had ‘the best government in the world in the last thirty years’. When I relayed this to my Chinese friend, Billie, he said, ‘But my father swam through shark-infested seas to Hong Kong to escape that government. He still treasures a colonial Hong Kong flag.’
Some events are even seen as both caused by global warming and as a silver bullet for the bien pensants.
One such was the world-shattering decision of HRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to ‘step back’ and fly more across the Atlantic. This, the editor of the Australian says , has ‘given republicanism a shot in the arm’.
In addition, the resulting increased CO2 footprints from Their Royal Highnesses’ travel will, according to a large lusty and mature school girl on the Bondi Junction train who mistook me for Harvey Weinstein, greatly affect the weather or climate, she was not sure which.
I tried to check this by watching for the weather report on that evening’s news, but fell asleep after several of the messages that the relevant Part 5b of the evening’s typical roman-fleuve weather report would soon be delivered after repeating for the sixth time the same advertisement for some service offering 4-star hotel rooms at bed-and-breakfast prices. The delay had apparently occurred because the weather person had not yet worked themselves up into the requisite state of global-warming hysteria required under the relevant non-binding ACMA code.
(I am required by law to draw to your attention my use of ‘themselves’ under the Newspeak rule against gender specific pronouns.)
The theory that global warming is man-made is based on the proposition that the rising temperatures in the 23-year period from the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in 1975 until the Constitutional Convention in 1998 (which approved but only by a plurality the Keating-Turnbull republic) were caused by rising greenhouse gases much of it resulting from the massive amount of comment on the ABC and in the media generally on the dismissal .
Unfortunately for the theory, while greenhouse gases have continued to rise, temperatures stopped rising despite many valiant attempts to change the historical records all over the country.
That said, it is fair surely to depend on correlation as providing proof beyond reasonable doubt, consistent with the Magna Carta. Correlation is obviously crucial in establishing a scientific consensus. Indeed this can extend to the humanities. I recall reports showing a significant correlation between changes in the bank rate of the Bank of England and the incidence of gastrointestinal disease in the Scottish highlands, although I cannot recall which caused which.
As for TRHs ‘stepping back’ being a reason for removing the one part of the constitution which works and works well, doesn’t destroy industry or agriculture, lower educational standards or exacerbate drought and bushfires and doesn’t cost a pretty penny, I doubt whether that would pass the pub test.
As a reason for constitutional change it reminds me of when the Democrat leader, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, was launching a book on an Australian republic before numerous approving legal worthies and asked ‘Why shouldn’t Australia become a republic? After all Canada is.’
Or Paul Keating when he explained why we should abandon our constitution. This he said was because ‘we’ve got a constitution which was designed by the British Foreign Office to look over the Australian government’s shoulder.’
That would have surprised Sir Samuel Griffith and his drafting committee or the rank and file Australian voters (not all male and white) who approved the constitution before the British actually saw it.
My tip to the republicans is to go away and work out something which will obviously significantly improve the governance of Australia and make us the exceptional and great country the founders hoped, and then come back.
And if you want to change the constitution, try it through the front door.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10