The 'yes' mob are in full meltdown., page-181

I don't require your admiration Scott, it has no value to me. Your insults have no value to me either, positive or negative, the only one who cares about them is you. I have continued to ask a question you won't answer, but you have alluded to the answer constantly with your obfuscation.

What is the difference between:

A) The Voice being legislated, and being abolished by the next Government, and

B) The Voice being constitutionalised, and being ignored by the next Government?

There isn't a difference, Scott. Is there? A Government can ignore the wishes of a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament. The same Government in a different reality could abolish a legislated Voice to Parliament. So constitutional change shouldn't matter, should it Scott. In the end, all roads lead to the Government of the day having its own say and making its own decisions, entirely independently of a Voice, regardless of how that Voice was created.

And why does a Government have to wait until a Voice to Parliament is enshrined in the Constitution to talk Treaty with First Australians? While you're at it, you can answer that one too. And I'll continue asking these questions of you Scott, between now and referendum day, until you answer them.