Is Australia already independent of the British crown?
My thoughts below;
Quote:
Yes indeed ladies and Gentlemen, the great United Kingdom, whose head of state is "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc" spans Europe and Australia both.
There is a common misconception out and among the world, that Australia is independent of her mother country, that she is her own, independent state.
To them I ask, when was the independence established?
Do you argue that it was in 1901, the year of federation?
Why my merry friends, you would be wrong, the 'Federation' of Australia was a mere act of parliament, to be repealed at any time the British parliament felt so inclined. Australia's 'independence' is actually a facade, permitted by the London elite, by the downing street crew and hinging on their generosity. Furthermore; at the time of federation, the Governor-General was appointed by those same British elites, and State governors on advice of British Officials. A rampant and hearty lie it is to say the least, that Australia was independent in 1901!
So when else, might you bring it upon yourself to argue that the British kingdom had voluntarily just rescinded her own personal continent?
Could it be the Statute of Westminster, 1931 and adopted in 1939 where the Australian federal (but not state!) parliament may find in it the power to alter British legislation affecting Australia?
While indeed it is true that from that date, British parliament in relation to the Australian constitution was no longer the authoritive force, the British parliament could still theoretically legislate on Australia, and more to the point, Prime Minister Robert Menzies (QC) acknowledged as Britiain declared war on Germany --Australia was bound to the decision. In other words --Australia, even as far as WWII, did not have the power to declare is own wars or abstain from Englands'. Certainly, the Statute of Westminster did not seperate the continent of Australia from her motherland.
Then, what else could possibly have signified Australian independence? May it be you believe the 'Australia Acts' of 1986, where the Australian government no longer had a constitutional link to Great Britain, and where the British Parliament finally surrendered its right to legislate on Australia. Even with all these new freedoms (repeal-able!) though, a British monarch still sat atop an Australian throne. Indeed, Australia was not independent.
To elaborate. The original copy of the Australian constitution sits in London.
Also, and importantly, the Australian constitution remains an act of British parliament. Although, by section 128 it can be altered by the vote of Australian citizens, the source of federal power remains in the firm hands, of the children of Princess Sophia of Hanover. Yes I know, you've never heard of her have you?
So ladies and gentlemen. The United Kingdom, in its grandeur, spans two continents.
Thank you.
There is a common misconception out and among the world, that Australia is independent of her mother country, that she is her own, independent state.
To them I ask, when was the independence established?
Do you argue that it was in 1901, the year of federation?
Why my merry friends, you would be wrong, the 'Federation' of Australia was a mere act of parliament, to be repealed at any time the British parliament felt so inclined. Australia's 'independence' is actually a facade, permitted by the London elite, by the downing street crew and hinging on their generosity. Furthermore; at the time of federation, the Governor-General was appointed by those same British elites, and State governors on advice of British Officials. A rampant and hearty lie it is to say the least, that Australia was independent in 1901!
So when else, might you bring it upon yourself to argue that the British kingdom had voluntarily just rescinded her own personal continent?
Could it be the Statute of Westminster, 1931 and adopted in 1939 where the Australian federal (but not state!) parliament may find in it the power to alter British legislation affecting Australia?
While indeed it is true that from that date, British parliament in relation to the Australian constitution was no longer the authoritive force, the British parliament could still theoretically legislate on Australia, and more to the point, Prime Minister Robert Menzies (QC) acknowledged as Britiain declared war on Germany --Australia was bound to the decision. In other words --Australia, even as far as WWII, did not have the power to declare is own wars or abstain from Englands'. Certainly, the Statute of Westminster did not seperate the continent of Australia from her motherland.
Then, what else could possibly have signified Australian independence? May it be you believe the 'Australia Acts' of 1986, where the Australian government no longer had a constitutional link to Great Britain, and where the British Parliament finally surrendered its right to legislate on Australia. Even with all these new freedoms (repeal-able!) though, a British monarch still sat atop an Australian throne. Indeed, Australia was not independent.
To elaborate. The original copy of the Australian constitution sits in London.
Also, and importantly, the Australian constitution remains an act of British parliament. Although, by section 128 it can be altered by the vote of Australian citizens, the source of federal power remains in the firm hands, of the children of Princess Sophia of Hanover. Yes I know, you've never heard of her have you?
So ladies and gentlemen. The United Kingdom, in its grandeur, spans two continents.
Thank you.
