Canada, Australia & NZ Are Still Colonies.

reply to post by XPLodER


the wost part is, when we are being kicked and jabbed in our little hiney's it's like taking 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine because of all the holes in our brain

Originally posted by ThePyramidAgenda
reply to post by oozyism

 

I'm guessing your American, because of your subtitle. What makes us more idiotic than you? Please tell me.
Yeah we're a smaller country. Yeah we are under British rule, why are we idiots. Because we're not under US control?

Cheers
Brady

You guessed wrong.

OOZY is in New Zealand and is all yours

reply to post by Mapleleaf_Messenger

All three are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, to be a member a nation must recognize QEII as head of state... Where are you from?

Sorry, incorrect.

There are currently 54 nations in the Commonwealth of which only 15 recognize the Queen as Head of State. Fiji and South Africa are two that come to mind immediately. Mozambique is a member, and was never even part of the British Empire.

The Queen of England is not the Queen of Australia. They happen to be the same individual but they are entirely separate 'offices'. That the Queen of Australia chooses to live in exile doesn't disturb most Aussies, it just makes her occasional visits all the more anticipated and provides a continuing market for TV docos on the wacky Royals.

Whether or not Canada, Australia, and New Zealand continue to recognize the Queen as HoS into the future is, to a greater or lesser degree, a matter for continued debate in each country. There is certainly a vocal republican movement in Australia who think that it is a sign of maturity to cast off the last vestigial link with its colonial past and provide for an Australian HoS that is truly Australian. The debate continues.

The OP's thesis that recognition of the Queen, and the continuation of the Commonwealth means that the member nations are still colonies is wrong, and to somehow couch that silly idea in even sillier remarks that such independence is illegal and renders the laws and governments of those countries null and void is just silly.

Australia was granted independence in 1901 and the idea that the British Government could somehow take back that independence due to some perceived threat by the League of Nations is also ridiculous. Its true that Australia didn't issue passports under its own name until 1954, but at least it had control over its own Constitution right from the start. Canada didn't get that control over its own Constitution until 1982. These are details tied up with the historical ties of each country with 'the mother country', internal politics, and the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, but they don't make either country any less independent in fact, international law, or self image.

The simple fact that all nations on earth, including the UK and its Queen, recognize these nations as independent and responsible for their own affairs makes the independence a fact. Period. Australia has been an independent nation since 1901. For all former Empire dominions (except India), it became law at adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 (or at ratification of same by the various Dominion legislatures).

reply to post by SNAFU38


I agree. That whole referendum on becoming republic was a joke. I just could not vote YES for it. And we've never had another referendum for a republic since. I am wondering, why not?

No, that is not correct. We are Loyal Subjects of HRH. Not colonies of Britain. I, as a Canadian, am proud of my Queen, and my future King.

The Royal House, is from Hanover, and the true Royal Family's Name is Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. The name was only changed in July 17, 1917, by King George V, due to the war with Germany. Britain has no jurisdiction over Canada, just like Canada has no jurisdiction over England - we just share the same Monarch!

Originally posted by DaMouse
reply to post by SNAFU38

 

I agree. That whole referendum on becoming republic was a joke. I just could not vote YES for it. And we've never had another referendum for a republic since. I am wondering, why not?

Ive been wondering why they have all turned around so much also.

People who made the push for us to break free are ALL saying lets keep it as is for some mysterious reason, & its got nothing to do with public opinion who mostly dislike royalty & its 'holier than thou' attitude.

As for being proud of our queen, so am I, very, but MY queen is Molly Meldrum, not stuck up lizzie.

ps. No, I dont share Mollys lifestyle, I'd just prefer him as my queen than a pom.

reply to post by SNAFU38


Constitutional Conventions and Referendums cost a lost of money, and it makes no real sense to do it year after year after year.

The last time exposed a lot of fear over the idea of an elected President, unfounded probably, but enough that 'they' couldn't let it get up. So the referendum was worded that way to prevent that happening. Parliament (read John Howard) was sh1t scared that the Presidency, being elected, might build up a power base of its own and claim a electoral mandate to mess around in politics.

Solve that fear problem, and Australia will be a republic faster that you can say 'President Kylie'.

reply to post by Mythkiller


Why bother with this thread?
I live in Australia and this is well known.
We don't even have the Act that created our country, the British kept that.
In 1975 the Queen's representative here - the Governor-General - dismissed the Democratically elected Government, installed the opposition as a caretaker Government and called for a general election.
Let's not forget Bill Clinton's toast to our Head of State - To the Queen of Australia.
I loved how he did that - a good poke in our eye to get off our backsides and declare independence.
No news in this thread, this is well known.