Who wants a Republic?

[Malifice]

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state[† 1] that is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and shares the same person, currently Queen Elizabeth II, as its head of state and reigning constitutional monarch, but retains a Crown legally distinct from the other realms. As of 2018, there are sixteen Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

The Crown is represented by the same physical person (Queen Elizabeth), but she is legally a different and distinct person (with different titles) in each of those States. When she's physically present in Australia, she represents the Crown of Australia (and is introduced as such). Ditto Canada and he other 14 Commonwealth realms.

I didn't pledge allegiance to the Queen of the UK, PNG or Canada when I joined the Army, I swore the oath to the the Queen of Australia.

 

[The Speaker]

This is where Roylion's disingenuous nature comes to the fore. He knows there is zero appetite on the republican or monarchist sides for a separate monarch.

The republicans refuse to mention it, because it would do away with the idea that we need a republic to have an Australian head of state, but monarchists will bring it up if Australians suddenly decide en masse that the Australian monarch needs to be Australian.

 

[Malifice]

The republicans refuse to mention it, because it would do away with the idea that we need a republic to have an Australian head of state, but monarchists will bring it up if Australians suddenly decide en masse that the Australian monarch needs to be Australian.

While our current Head of State is not an Australian, neither is her Majesty an alien. The Crown is Sui Generis. Its own special thing.

God save the Queen.

 

[Roylion]

The true King of Australia is dead
She wouldnt pass the DNA test
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ghtful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html

There are many, many lines of royal descent, (including the current Queen's) that are genealogically superior (via the rules of male primogeniture) to Michael Abney-Hastings. Then on top of that, there are also the various Acts of Parliament (which are still valid) dealing with the British succession, such as the Act of Settlement, which invests the British crown in the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Henry VII's title to the throne of England was confirmed also by an Act of Parliament on 7th November 1485, which reads.

Recognition of the Title of Henry VII

....it is ordained, established and enacted by authority of this present parliament, that the inheritances of the crowns of the realms of England and of France, ............ rest, remain and abide in the most royal person of our now sovereign lord King Henry the VIIth and in the heirs of his body lawfully coming, perpetually with the grace of God so to endure and in none other."

So unless Michael Abney-Hastings or his heirs can establish their senior line of descent from Sophia, via the rule of absolute primogeniture, he has no claim to the British or the Australian Crown.

To have any claim the Act of Settlement would have to be repealed by the British Parliament and the Australian Parliament and then he would have to establish his senior line of descent from some other monarch. Even if the Act of Settlement was repealed, then the senior descendant of Henry VII (r. 1485-1507), who claimed England by right of conquest (and was recongised as such by Act of Parliament) would be the true monarch. That isn't Abney-Hastings or his heirs either.

So for a whole host of reasons, whether Edward IV was illegitimate or not makes absolutely NO difference to Elizabeth II's right to be the British monarch. In any case her superior line of descent from the early Kings of England is not derived through Edward IV, as Abney-Hastings is.

 

[Roylion]

Pretty much. The Constitution cannot be amended by legislation.

I have other issues, to do with Parliamentary sovereignty (there is no theoretical reason why the UK couldn't simply repeal the Constitution of Australia Act (UK) for example, although I highly suspect the High Court of Australia would create a legal fiction to keep it in existence; ditto the Australia Act (UK) or even the Statue of Westminster) but those issues are largely academic (i.e. by convention, the UK wouldn't ever do it even though they could).

Even if they attempted to it would have no effect, certainly since the Statute of Westminster and certainly since the Australia Acts. Even in 1934 the new Western Australian government, who won power on the basis of a secessionist platform sent a delegation to London to petition George V and the British Parliament to overturn the Commonwealth of Australia Constiution Act 1900. This would have dissolved the Commonwealth and left the remaining states free to federate or not as they wished. A joint committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons considered the petition, and rejected it in 1935. It did so on the grounds that it could not overturn the Act without the approval of the Federal Parliament of Australia. Of course that wasn't going to happen.

International jurisprudence also seems to support the view that the UK has no jurisdiction to do anything you proposed because Australia is a sovereign state. It is a sovereign state because it meets both possible tests of sovereign statehood.

(1) other states recognise Australia as a state; and

(2) Australia has the capacity to be a state.

The first test is pretty obvious in its application, although you can always ask the question about how many states need to recognise Australia as a state before it can achieve sovereignty.

Under the second test, Australia needs: (a) a defined territory; (b) a permanent population; (c) a government and (d) capacity to enter relations with other states. It also needs its people to determine for themselves that they are part of a separate state but this is self-evident, given that a state can't appear unless somebody asserts that it should.

Australia recognises many sources of law but these sources are only valid because Australia has sovereignty (which initially was granted by the UK, but has now moved beyond the UK deciding the status of our sovereignity for the reasons mentioned above. Its sovereignty stems from its statehood, which stems (effectively) from the self-determination of the Australian people. That is, Australian law is binding on Australia and nobody else can change it because that's what we decided.

My main desire for a Republic has to do with the encroaching power of our Executive in recent years. We cant be said to have a true Separation of the Powers when the Legislature are also the Executive, and the head of the Executive (the Crown) are nothing more than a figure head who (by convention if nothing else) does nothing.

This was the issue in the events of 1975. They do have the power, its whether that power is actually exercised is the issue. It is rare. We've had the events of 1975 and certainly the Crown of Australia (either directly or through the office of Governor has intervened more actively in Australian State affairs such as the dismissal of Premier Jack Lang by Sir Philip Game, the Governor of New South Wales in 1932.

It makes matters worse when the Legislature/ Executive effectively are also the ones appointing the Judiciary.

So perhaps the method of appointment of the Queen's federal representative in Australia needs to be changed.

 

[The Speaker]

Even if they attempted to it would have no effect, certainly since the Statute of Westminster and certainly since the Australia Acts. Even in 1934 the new Western Australian government, who won power on the basis of a secessionist platform sent a delegation to London to petition George V and the British Parliament to overturn the Commonwealth of Australia Constiution Act 1900.

Not quite; the secessionists lost the election, but the referendum held at the same time was overwhelmingly in favour.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The republicans refuse to mention it, because it would do away with the idea that we need a republic to have an Australian head of state, but monarchists will bring it up if Australians suddenly decide en masse that the Australian monarch needs to be Australian.

I would be quite happy with it and see it as a reasonable compromise.

My real wish is to have a head of state who is an Australian citizen, whose principal place of residence is in Australia, and one who is full time. Sharing the same person between 15 other countries we get at best a 1/16 FTE in the job.

Whether we call that person "President" or "King" or "Head of State" or simply "The Crown" or even if we make up a new word for it is kind of secondary.

 

[Gough]

I would be quite happy with it and see it as a reasonable compromise.

My real wish is to have a head of state who is an Australian citizen, whose principal place of residence is in Australia, and one who is full time. Sharing the same person between 15 other countries we get at best a 1/16 FTE in the job.

Whether we call that person "President" or "King" or "Head of State" or simply "The Crown" or even if we make up a new word for it is kind of secondary.

In the same way I don't understand why some people consult single male virgins for marital advice, I don't see how an elderly Briton could be best positioned to know what's best for Australia going forward.

 

[The Speaker]

In the same way I don't understand why some people consult single male virgins for marital advice, I don't see how an elderly Briton could be best positioned to know what's best for Australia going forward.

But if the monarch was to be an elderly Australian?

 

[Gough]

But if the monarch was to be an elderly Australian?

They would still understand the needs of this country better than a Briton imo.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Do you not agree that Roylion is, legally (and therefore theoretically) speaking, absolutely correct? Your complaint seems to be with regards to how the monarchy works in practice rather than in theory.

No, my complaint - as specifically made multiple times - is he is filling the thread repetitively and disingenuously. The grand total of his point is avoiding saying that the Queen of Australia is English. That's it. And we all know she is, and that is a big chunk of the argument. The fact that the position is legally distinct is pretty meaningless since the position is unsurprisingly tied to whoever is England's Monarch.

His mod status isn't relevant, and he makes some valid points.

You're talking about the legal construction of a nation (under the Constitution and other Acts of British and Australian Parliament).

I'm a Republican personally, but what he is saying is correct. The Crown (the monarch, the head of the Executive) of Australia is legally distinct from the Crown of the UK.

His arguments we are fully independent are not quite true (there are still, even after the Australia Act, some residual connections to the UK, and some unsettled legal questions and hypotheticals), but most of those questions are largely academic.

For all intents and purposes (at international law down) the Commonwealth of Australia is an independent sovereign nation.

His Mod status is relevant, as Mods would smack down anyone else who did this:

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

"The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom"

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

She is the Queen of Australia, which is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct from the position of Queen of England.

• The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

The Queen is the current holder of the Crown of Australia. Equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

(The Crown of Australia is of course "Equal to", "independent of", and "legally distinct", from the Crown of the United Kingdom.)

The Crown of Australia which she holds is of course "Equal to", "independent of", and "legally distinct", from the Crown of the United Kingdom.

You know the rest.. "equal to", "independent of", "legally distinct'.....

the Crown of Australia is "Equal to", "independent of", and "legally distinct", from the Crown of the United Kingdom

That was done within the space of only 60 posts. And all the spamming led to you and Bomberokay arguing as to if he actually believes they should be different people. So you both know he isn't making a major point, and the convo is proof he isn't providing clarity. In fact he uses the confusion to pretend the Queen's role is more independent or less independent, depending on what others are saying. And he is spamming.

 

[The Speaker]

No, my complaint - as specifically made multiple times - is he is filling the thread repetitively and disingenuously. The grand total of his point is avoiding saying that the Queen of Australia is English. That's it. And we all know she is, and that is a big chunk of the argument.

Which is a matter of practice. In theory, the Queen is above nationalities, but in practice, she is English (and British).

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Which is a matter of practice. In theory, the Queen is above nationalities, but in practice, she is English (and British).

Exactly - legalese is not the point. A Primary Schooler can point out that the Queen of England is Australia's Queen.

The best argument against doing it is that it isn't necessary - it's symbolic. A very expensive new hat for Australia. But if we have another referendum to do, then why not ask to alter this too? Because the best argument for changing it is that it is symbolic. The Queen herself knows that and accepts that we may become a Republic (as she said before the 1999 referendum).

I think we need a referendum for Section 44. If there's a good legal re-wording to acknowledge the indigenous that can be done too. And so we add the Republic question too. Suddenly the nice new hat isn't expensive.

 

[The Speaker]

Exactly - legalese is not the point. A Primary Schooler can point out that the Queen of England is Australia's Queen.

The best argument against doing it is that it isn't necessary - it's symbolic. A very expensive new hat for Australia. But if we have another referendum to do, then why not ask to alter this too? Because the best argument for changing it is that it is symbolic. The Queen herself knows that and accepts that we may become a Republic (as she said before the 1999 referendum).

I think we need a referendum for Section 44. If there's a good legal re-wording to acknowledge the indigenous that can be done too. And so we add the Republic question too. Suddenly the nice new hat isn't expensive.

And why would we need to become a republic in order to have a 'fully' Australian head of state?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

And why would we need to become a republic in order to have a 'fully' Australian head of state?

We wouldn't. Once again illustrating how Roylion has confused people with his spam, his constantly copy-and-pasted point exactly related to that. We technically, legally have a Queen of Australia. So you should know that we could have an Australian Monarchy. If that's what you're into.

But bugger all people think it's a good idea to decide heads of state based on blood-line. Hence why we have the idea that we should become a Republic when she dies, because they think Charles aint as classy. An idea which I think is indirectly pretty offensive to the Queen, because that's her first-born son.

 

[The Speaker]

We wouldn't. Once again illustrating how Roylion has confused people with his spam, his constantly copy-and-pasted point exactly related to that. We technically, legally have a Queen of Australia. So you should know that we could have an Australian Monarchy. If that's what you're into.

But bugger all people think it's a good idea to decide heads of state based on blood-line. Hence why we have the idea that we should become a Republic when she dies, because they think Charles aint as classy. An idea which I think is indirectly pretty offensive to the Queen, because that's her first-born son.

I wasn't referring to Roylion's stuff. This is the question I was asking earlier. There is no evidence that most people don't like the idea of constitutional monarchy, as evidenced by the fact that a majority are relatively happy with the current system even though the monarch is not an Australian. If there ever comes a time when a majority of people are unhappy with having a 'foreign' monarch, there is no reason why we couldn't simply change our monarch instead of changing our whole system of government.

 

[Malifice]

No, my complaint - as specifically made multiple times - is he is filling the thread repetitively and disingenuously. The grand total of his point is avoiding saying that the Queen of Australia is English.

The Queen of Australia is not English. Neither is the Queen of Canada, the Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of New Zealand, PNG etc.

The Queen of the UK is English. Sort of. She's technically not a British subject, and doesn't have a Passport. She is the personification of the British Crown in the UK.

The Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia (the British and Australian Crown) are legally distinct people. There is case law on this (Sue v Hill I'm pretty sure).

To be totally accurate Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia as the personification of the Australian Crown is 'sui jeneris' (in her own category) neither a citizen of Australia, nor a foreign alien.

 

[Malifice]

Exactly - legalese is not the point. A Primary Schooler can point out that the Queen of England is Australia's Queen.

No, she is not. You're talking about States (legal entities) here. The Queen of the UK is not the Queen of Australia. They are legally separate and distinct.

The British Crown is not the same thing as the Canadian Crown or the Australian Crown or the NZ Crown.

You don't pledge allegiance to the Canadian, British or Kiwi Crown when you enlist in the Australian Army (and take the oath) for example. Parliamentarians don't swear to uphold the British Crown when they make their oath, and Australian Parliamentarians are not beholden to the British Crown (only to the Australian Crown). They are legally separate entities.

Her Majesty is referred to (and becomes) as the Queen of Australia in Oz, and not the Queen of Canada or NZ or the UK.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I didn't pledge allegiance to the Queen of the UK, PNG or Canada when I joined the Army, I swore the oath to the the Queen of Australia.

Corps?

 

[Malifice]

Corps?

RAAC

 

[Baltimore Jack]

RAAC

Bucket?

 

[pazza]

Republican all my life. Let's just get on with it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The Queen of Australia is not English. Neither is the Queen of Canada, the Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of New Zealand, PNG etc.

The Queen of the UK is English. Sort of. She's technically not a British subject, and doesn't have a Passport. She is the personification of the British Crown in the UK.

The Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia (the British and Australian Crown) are legally distinct people. There is case law on this (Sue v Hill I'm pretty sure).

To be totally accurate Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia as the personification of the Australian Crown is 'sui jeneris' (in her own category) neither a citizen of Australia, nor a foreign alien.

No, she is not. You're talking about States (legal entities) here. The Queen of the UK is not the Queen of Australia. They are legally separate and distinct.

The British Crown is not the same thing as the Canadian Crown or the Australian Crown or the NZ Crown.

You don't pledge allegiance to the Canadian, British or Kiwi Crown when you enlist in the Australian Army (and take the oath) for example. Parliamentarians don't swear to uphold the British Crown when they make their oath, and Australian Parliamentarians are not beholden to the British Crown (only to the Australian Crown). They are legally separate entities.

Her Majesty is referred to (and becomes) as the Queen of Australia in Oz, and not the Queen of Canada or NZ or the UK.

**** me. You reply to Speaker and I agreeing that 'legalese is not the point', by pointing out the legalese. Stupid.

Just because I had a go at a Mod for spamming, no need for you to pretend like I'm being unreasonable out of solidarity.

 

[Power Raid]

Why is this a reason to be a republic? A President would have the same reserve powers to dismiss the government. One elected by a popular vote and therefore able to claim a mandate from the people is possibly more likely to exercise such an option.

Kerr was Australian by birth, exercising the powers of the Head of State as Governor General (appointed on the recommendation of Gough Whitlam) and he consulted the person holding the position as Queen of Australia in whom the reserve powers are vested.

Kerr made it very clear that he viewed the Governor-General's position (as the representative of Australia's Head of State) as having wide-ranging powers which were set out very clearly as per the Australian Constitution including the power to appoint and dismiss ministers and to dissolve Parliament.

100%

And importantly he didn’t appoint a new government (other than Care taker) rather all that happened was the people were asked to decide and they chose a different direction to Whitlam.

 

[Admiral Byng]

No, she is not. You're talking about States (legal entities) here. The Queen of the UK is not the Queen of Australia. They are legally separate and distinct.

The British Crown is not the same thing as the Canadian Crown or the Australian Crown or the NZ Crown.

You don't pledge allegiance to the Canadian, British or Kiwi Crown when you enlist in the Australian Army (and take the oath) for example. Parliamentarians don't swear to uphold the British Crown when they make their oath, and Australian Parliamentarians are not beholden to the British Crown (only to the Australian Crown). They are legally separate entities.

Her Majesty is referred to (and becomes) as the Queen of Australia in Oz, and not the Queen of Canada or NZ or the UK.

You and Roy miss the whole point. We want the person who takes the Australian Crown (or Republican equivalent) to not take up any other similar role for any other country. We want that person to be exclusively ours as head of state.