Secession- any in favour?

[Ron The Bear]

Plenty of these already, e.g. Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

Look up Hutt River, Atlantium, Avram.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I'm in favour of states seceeding, if the majority of the population are in favour. A state that seceded based purely on ethnic or religious supremacy over others I wouldn't be cool with, though.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A state can only secede in accordance with section 128 of the constitution.

Good luck getting that to work.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

While the problems of centralisation is unanswered and while the impotence of local politicians to address systematic inequalities of distributive justice continue unchecked within a federal scheme whereby federal politicians are beholden to foreign party interests it's unlikely to change. It's placing substantial pressure on the political system and erodes the publics trust in the effectiveness of our system of government. That trust can always degrade further. As the economic mirage left over from mining boom associated horizontal fiscal equalisation disappears and the mal-investment bubbles slow the economy on the east coast, states like WA will be asking for a dividend from the money's that flowed East. They won't be forthcoming.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

While the problems of centralisation is unanswered and while the impotence of local politicians to address systematic inequalities of distributive justice continue unchecked within a federal scheme whereby federal politicians are beholden to foreign party interests it's unlikely to change. It's placing substantial pressure on the political system and erodes the publics trust in the effectiveness of our system of government. That trust can always degrade further. As the economic mirage left over from mining boom associated horizontal fiscal equalisation disappears and the mal-investment bubbles slow the economy on the east coast, states like WA will be asking for a dividend from the money's that flowed East. They won't be forthcoming.

Found the secessionist!

 

[Generalissimo]

A state can only secede in accordance with section 128 of the constitution.

Good luck getting that to work.

Speaking very hypothetically, since it is IMO highly unlikely that a state would ever actually want to secede...

If a state were to hold its own, internal, referendum that came out with a decision to secede, they could just present the rest of Australia with a fait accompli. Which is, I believe, French for "what are you going to do about it?"

It is unlikely that lawyering over the Australian constitution would impress the newly independent nation very much, and going to war to keep hold of it seems a risky proposition at best. That would invite the censure of the rest of the world.

It's an interesting question, since there is a very real chance that Scotland will some day vote to leave the UK. And it's not clear what the UK could do about it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Speaking very hypothetically, since it is IMO highly unlikely that a state would ever actually want to secede...

If a state were to hold its own, internal, referendum that came out with a decision to secede, they could just present the rest of Australia with a fait accompli. Which is, I believe, French for "what are you going to do about it?"

Nope!

It requires a section 128 referendum.

W.A. has already held a successful referendum to secede in 1933 (68% agreed). They sent a delegation to London to petition the British government and were instructed that any W.A. secession grants required the permission of the Australian Government, who were handed control over the Australian Constitution Act via the Statute of Westminster 1931. Britain effectively washed its hands of the matter.

It is unlikely that lawyering over the Australian constitution would impress the newly independent nation very much,

A "nation" isn't a nation until it has lawfully seceded. Politics plays second fiddle to constitutional requirements.

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia
[9th July 1900]

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
   
2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
   
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later that one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

W.A. was locked in to place the moment they decided to join.

......and going to war to keep hold of it seems a risky proposition at best. That would invite the censure of the rest of the world.

States aren't allowed to have armies.

It's an interesting question, since there is a very real chance that Scotland will some day vote to leave the UK. And it's not clear what the UK could do about it.

The U.K. structure is a different constitutional set up.

 

[Generalissimo]

Nope!

It requires a section 128 referendum.

W.A. has already held a successful referendum to secede in 1933 (68% agreed). They sent a delegation to London to petition the British government and were instructed that any W.A. secession grants required the permission of the Australian Government, who were handed control over the Australian Constitution Act via the Statute of Westminster 1931. Britain effectively washed its hands of the matter.

And if, instead, WA had simply said "Nope, we're independent!", refused to contribute federal taxes, refused to cooperate with authorities in Canberra, issued its own passports, minted its own money, and in all matters started acting just like an independent nation? What, realistically, could the rest of Australia have done about it? That's what I meant by fait accompli.

States aren't allowed to have armies.

"We don't care. We're raising an army anyway in case you were considering an unprovoked invasion."

 

[Snake_Baker]

What, realistically, could the rest of Australia have done about it?

It would be an act of war.

We would send in the light horse, retake Perth and put the traitors in chains.

I expect a dozen of them could finish the job.

 

[Generalissimo]

It's a long ride across the Nullarbor.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's a long ride across the Nullarbor.

Really?

Divide 3000km by 1900 km/h

 

[Messenger]

And the ADF have a few assets in Perth.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Really?

Divide 3000km by 1900 km/h

We had the chance to get Gaff when they were going to trade him for Wells. This is taking it too far.

 

[Snake_Baker]

And the ADF have a few assets in Perth.

I expect a single squadron of the S.A.S. could take the entire city of Perth and be back at Campbell Barracks in time for dinner.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

You were a standout poster even in 2006, KV

Standout wouldn't be my word of choice...

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

W.A. has already held a successful referendum to secede in 1933 (68% agreed). They sent a delegation to London to petition the British government and were instructed that any W.A. secession grants required the permission of the Australian Government, who were handed control over the Australian Constitution Act via the Statute of Westminster 1931. Britain effectively washed its hands of the matter...

Just on this. Usually, a secessionist mindset equals a dissatisfation with the current status-quo of the nation involved. A subset of the nation is unhappy, not the nation itself. It kind of defies logic that the dissatisfied portion has to beg permission if a majority of that subset wish to break away and can democratically prove this via referendum.

Just a thought.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Just on this. Usually, a secessionist mindset equals a dissatisfation with the current status-quo of the nation involved. A subset of the nation is unhappy, not the nation itself. It kind of defies logic that the dissatisfied portion has to beg permission if a majority of that subset wish to break away and can democratically prove this via referendum.

Just a thought.

Of course.

Our constitution is colonial in structure and therefore a man trap.

Why do you think the criminals in Canberra wanted the thing rubber stamped for eternity via a republican referendum?

 

[Seeds]

Just wondering if secessionism is still in some people's hearts and minds?

West Australia was pretty keen on the idea in the 1930's, Joh Bjelke- Peterson aired it a few times and Tasmania has had the odd flirtation with 'independence'.

If anyone was to secede then Tassie would seem the logical choice as there is no physical or mapped border with another state.

Or would any of the other 3 states be interested?

Putin and Pauline Hanson love this plan.