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.

Irish isn’t complicated - we’re a separate island from Britain.

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?

Haha, I promise I didn’t intentionally make my point about how obscure imperial units are in conversion. I looked it up but clearly transcribed wrong!

Well with metric there are alot less words you need to know to use them I think is the point of difference.

Like you need to know that a stone represents a weight, and that that weight is 14 pounds. What’s a pound? Oh it’s 12 ounces. None of those words are the same out of context but all describe a weight and the size of the weight.

In metric you only need to know that grams measure weight, metres length, litres volume. Then everyday use is normal prefix increments like OP said.

And again the prefixes apply consistently across units too, so a millimetre, a millilitre or a milligram will all be the same fraction of their base.

I think the point op is making is with ‘stones’ or ‘furlongs’ etc you need to already know what that unit represents to make sense of it.

With metric units, even the infrequently used increments can be reasoned out just from the name of the unit, as it’s a standard prefix in fixed multiples of 10, not a random number that must be learnt.

So they’re neither similar or exactly the same in principle really.