The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Weaning ourselves off the 'mother country' > Comments

Weaning ourselves off the 'mother country' : Comments

By Peter van Vliet, published 2/11/2005

Peter van Vliet argues even Britain is acknowledging Australian ties are not what they once were.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I deeply respect your right to hold and to express your opinion. But frankly I think this is a dead issue - who cares? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Meddling just causes grief. There's plenty of real and serious issues to worry about, other than this antique Irish gripe, at the moment.
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an appeal for an Australian republic, this is a fizzer. That we have to line up in slow immigrations lanes in the UK, that we have also treated UK citizens no differently from other foreigners in immigration and citizenship for decades, has no relevance to a harmless piece of our history and heritage.

Britain should abolish ancestral visas and permanent residence after four years for people who can’t make up their minds whether or not they are Australian – just as we should abolish dual citizenship here.

Peter van Vliet freely acknowledges the difficulties republicans are up against in the continuing (‘rising’ he says) fascination for anything royal, so why he and his fellow republicans bother is a mystery, particularly after their trouncing in a referendum.

Perhaps, though, there is no mystery. There is a tendency among some Australians to tear down what they hate and can’t control in favour of something they can control
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:30:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course we should become a republic - it can be done with only trivial disruption to our democracy. A sensible case for our retention of the British monarchy is yet to be made. Of much greater concern is the rising power of the executive with its associated contempt for parliamentary process and now the erosion of our traditional legal freedoms. Dopey TV programs are irrelevant.
Surely we are slowly becoming a de facto colony of the USA.
Debating our ties with the UK seems outdated in comparison.
Posted by Henery, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 12:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just cannot understand these forelock tugging, grovelling, snivelling, cowering, cringing royalists, unless they are 'playing' for a knighthood.
Britain very nicely forgot us colonials, forgot our fighting on their behalf in four or so wars, forgot that we thought of ourselves as British.
Yes my first passport was coloured blue and I was described as a British subject and an Australian citizen.
Then Britain joined her old enemies in the common market and dumped her friends and fellow Brits.
From a once loyalist now I cannot stand this dis-functional, sick royal family. Now they are the archetype parasites and bludgers.
Queen eliz.11 of england, not Britain, not Scotland, Ireland, Wales nor any of the Commonwealth nations in these nations she would be QE1 congratulated the english cricket team on their victory over the colonials - us. NOT ONCE! did the queen of Oz congratulate her Australian team on their many successes.
Yet the 'bellies on the ground'compliant royalists continue worshipping this odd family. I think only one of eliz's children are married to their first partner now - only one. What a fantastic example.
The sooner we become a republic the better.
I have a dream of turning 100 years of age and receiving a telegram from Her (an Aboriginal for preference) Excellency the President of Australia. numba
Posted by numbat, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 3:50:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the term "Australian" now can mean somebody born in Jordan, who can not speak English good enough to get a job, and who dreams of putting a bomb under an Australian train seat in order to murder as many of his fellow citizens as possible. Then I would put it to Mr van Piet, that British descended Australians are now more likely to be drawn towards maintaining links to the monarchy as a means of maintaining their own identity.

ANZAC day has now become the "Australia Day" for non hyphenated Australians, and it is becoming more important for us every year as the increasing crowds at cenotaphs bear witness. Other than rap music, nothing is more guaranteed to curle the lip of a non hyphenated Australian more than another "Australia Day" festivity where a bunch of ethnics dressed in "their" national costumes dance around singing "We are one, but we are ma-a-an-ny."

I would also put it to Mr van Fleet, that the concept of Multiculturalism is entirely to blame for the fact that Australians are now being discriminated against in Britain. The Brits figured out long ago that giving priority to Her Majesty's subjects in obtaining visas and immigration to Britain, meant that Britain had to accept some pretty undesirable nationalities who were former colonial subjects. Therefore, Britain had to disciminate against people of their own kith and kin in order to fend of the usual screams of racism from their own noisy, crime prone and welfare dependant ethnic minorities.

But the best thing about showing deference to royalty is that it really gets up the noses of trendy lefties like Scooper9 and Mahatma Sitting Duck. So that is another great reason to be an unreconstructed monarchist.

By bowing to the Queen, non hyphenated Australians "confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks"

And, "On thee our hopes we fix."

God save the queen.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 3 November 2005 3:32:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, like most people I regard our ongoing ties to Britain as little more than an anachronism that will inevitably be severed when we grow up sufficiently as a nation. Meanwhile it's a bit of a non-issue - unlike our slavish acceptance of and dependence upon American neocolonial ideologies.

Unlike certain correspondents, I was happily weaned from my mother's breast as a toddler, and therefore am not burdened with an ongoing mother fixation. Australia will wean itself off 'Mother England' when it's ready, but I fear that it's too late for some individuals who seem to get their jollies from picking fights and killing defenceless animals.
Posted by mahatma duck, Thursday, 3 November 2005 7:16:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's not true, Mahatma Sitting Duck. I cry every time I pull the trigger.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 3 November 2005 6:47:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have not watched the show, so I cannot comment on its content.

As an active republican, I am not in the least concerned about this show nor concerned by the interest in Princess Mary. I've made this point before. If anything, Mary is kind of an example of what we can all be - no longer subjects but sovereign in our own right as citizens.

Australians do not make up their minds about major constitutional issues based on a reality TV show or a new Danish prince. They are interested in what's best for Australia.

Voters rejected the last republic because the majority because they thought a directly-elected Head of State was appropriate and democratic. They look to republicans like me to put in the many hours to propose a safe, practical, fair and beneficial system.

Real and positive progress is being made. Ordinary citizens like myself are researching and developing models and concepts, collaborating with other republicans and being listened to by parliamentarians and decision makers. The movement is broadening, working together and steadfastly confident. A republic is inevitable because our commitment is unceasing.

For examples my contributions read The Copernican Constitution:
http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=1125
or the Honorary President Republican Model
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/

Thanks to everyone who posted comments when an abridged version of The Copernican Constitution was posted at Online Opinion.
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 5 November 2005 11:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too late, Republicans:

You should have thought about it earlier - when I, as all other immigrants, on becoming an Australian citizen, was required to swear allegiance to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors: I had no relation to England before, but this oath should not be taken lightly and so I will remain loyal to my Queen and love Her till my last day!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 6 November 2005 1:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too late? The following is the citizenship pledge which came into effect in January 1994:

"From this time forward, [under God,] I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

The bracketed section is optional.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 7 November 2005 3:25:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

unfortunately for you, I became an Australian citizen in 1991, when the wording of the oath/pledge were:

I [swear by Almighty God/solemnly and sincerely promise and declare] that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen.

This of course does not mean that I am not anyway loyal to Australia and its people, share their democratic beliefs and respect their rights and liberties, but it does place the Queen first, doesn't it?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 November 2005 3:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a world where many countries are working towards closer integration, it is sad that our important ties with Britain are being severed or frittered away. Sad and foolish, but not irreversible. A wiser path would be to work for equivalence of citizenship, not only between Australia and the UK, but also with other British countries, like New Zealand and Canada.

The benefits are quite clear. At present, all the bright young things who go off to the UK to further their careers essentially have to choose between the two countries, but if we had mutual recognition of citizenship rights, such a choice would not be necessary. Careers could more easily be built in both countries, and we would have a far more flexible and highly-trained population as a result. Who could fail to see the advantages of adding the University of Edinburgh or the London School of Economics to the options available to Australian school-leavers? The number of British tourists that come to Australia suggests that the advantages are far from invisible to them too.

We tend to treat the old country like the family home: we like to be all independent and critical, but then we complain when we can't turn up unannounced on a Sunday and expect a roast. Sulking in the corner and demanding an elected "Australian" head of state does not lead to international respect: it is just embarrassing. We share our history, our institutions, our basic values and culture, and our sovereign. The sooner Australia starts behaving like a grown-up country and accepts these historical ties, the better.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 7:37:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian: When I was a youngster any citizen of any country member of the British Empire could go to one another's country and be treated as a local. Yes and even vote in that country.
Britain changed this not us and we ,in consequence, had to make changes.
One day I was a British Subject and an Australian citizen, the next I was an Australian only. My passport was blue not green and it had a crown on the front.
We did not leave the 'mother' country we were booted out, the common market countries took our place. Suddenly we had to find new customers for our butter and wool, wheat etc. As a member of the Empire our produce was previously favoured in Britain.
All we did to "deserve?" this was to ally ourselves in all Britain's wars and in doing so lose a lot of service men/women. Then after WW2 we sent "Bundles for Britain" for years to stop our kith and kin in Britain from starvation. These Bundles were free and all Australians contributed.
Yes had we as a Commonwealth remained united or one we would/could have been a force for good. Just as you commented in your letter. Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 12:23:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding the earlier citizenship oath taken by Yuyutsu, the words are "Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors".

It is not in any way unfortunate for the proposals of the Copernican Republican Group that many citizens have taken this oath.

For those who are unfamiliar with our models, the new Head of State would be a successor to the Queen. This is entirely consistant with the oaths made by parliamentarians, commissioned officers and new citizens such as Yuyutsu.

I commend Yuyutsu for taking the oath seriously, but I can assure him that it's no barrier to supporting a republic.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 1:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Numbat, I agree that the decision made by the UK to join the European project put a severe kink in relationships between Commonwealth countries, but it hardly seems to have been a popular move among British citizens. Perhaps one day the majority will get their way and get out of the EU, perhaps not.

Regardless of that, I think Australia, New Zealand and Canada have nothing to lose and everything to gain by working towards a common citizenship. Our current governments have their differences, but our populations are extremely compatible. Together we would have a much more significant place in the world.

I am not mad keen on the royal family, by the way, I just think the shared monarchy provides a convenient link between countries that I would like to see moving closer together rather than further apart
Posted by Ian, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 1:22:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"ANZAC day has now become the "Australia Day" for non hyphenated Australians, and it is becoming more important for us every year as the increasing crowds at cenotaphs bear witness."

I have mixed feelings about ANZAC day. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the ANZACs were slaughtered like sheep at Gallipoli fighting for an ungrateful British Empire. If our national identity was forged from an act of blind subservience to the British, then is it really a day of nationalism?
Posted by Oligarch, Monday, 14 November 2005 12:38:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oligarch,

If you had asked the ANZACs what their relationship with the British Empire was, they would have said that they were part of it: they did not sign up to defend a foreign country, but to defend "their" British Empire. It is somewhat meaningless, therefore, to talk of the Empire as being "ungrateful", as if it was somehow external to what Australia meant at the time.

Look at WWI memorials: they will say that men fought for their country or that they fought for the Empire, but never both at once. Why? because "country" and "the Empire" were basically the same thing at the time, so there was no need to say it twice.
Posted by Ian, Monday, 14 November 2005 1:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy