Here we are in the 21st century and our nation has changed
so much over the decades. I thought it may be interesting to
see where do we belong in the 21st century. Are we still
tied to Britain as strongly as we once were? And where does
our future lie - with Asia, the US, the UK or a combination
of all three?

Let's see. The Queen of England is also Queen of Australia; we are in the British Commonwealth; we have the Westminster (mainly) parliamentary system; we were settled by Britain; our history is firmly British; our language is English, and the country hasn't changed, just the population as has the population in England itself.

Yes. Australia just still tied to Britain and it always will be. Our British background, values, freedoms and rule of law is what attracts migrants from less pleasant cultures.

Hi Foxy, thanks for the discussion.

Yes and no, its not something most Australians think about all that much these days. Pre war with the white community of Australia very much of British stock, England was viewed as the mother country. Britain had a huge empire, it was easily our largest trading partner and the dominant world power. America pre war was viewed as foreign (in the words of my Old Man), other than little New Zealand across the ditch, we had no friends in this part of the World, there were nothing but hoards of savages to the north of us, kept in check by the colonial powers of the day. Pre war it was official policy both in Australia and England, the defence of Australia (and NZ) was primarily the responsibility of Britain. Pre war Britain was everything to white Australia, our biggest market, our biggest investor our only source of foreign capital, in those days we were tied to the British bond market, Britain was our source of European heritage. We were British to our boot laces. thus the calls to the European imperial war in 1914 and the war for the control of Europe in 1939 and the imperial war in Asia in 1941, Australia's involvement from the outset was not questioned, Britain's interests were Australia's interest, and the support at home was universal.

WWII changed thing, the economic defeat of Britain and the resultant lost of its empire, the rise of US military dominance in our region and its economic power, the outbreak of the Cold War these all had overwhelming influences on Australia and its outlook. Post war we realised we could no longer rely on the safety of the British Empire, we were in a vulnerable position, militarily, economically, strategically, the catch cry become "populate or perish" and post war immigration began in earnest.

People of English descent were by far the single most
influential ethnic group in Australia and the founding
of Australia by English people is still evident in
place names, buildings, street layouts, and even suburbs
in Sydney are derived from English counties. English is
the nation's mother tongue.

But that's talking about the remnants of the past to a
certain degree. How does a young Australian feel about
England in the 21st century?

Are the ties as strong as they once were?

Foxy,
How do you think that the town of Home Rule in NSW got its name? Paul

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Yes, Australia is still tied to Britain. We never really grew up and left our mummy’s apron strings – psychologically speaking, of course. Still a lot of nostalgia here.

Nine generations later, we still feel a bit lost in the Pacific Ocean, so far from the mother country in a hostile world, so different from ours – psychologically speaking of course.
How sad it is to see the state of our relationship today with our leading trading partner, China, which represents 43% of our total exports. And to think that 78.2% in all go to our neighbours in Asia, while only 4.9% go to the UK.

Yes, Australia is still tied to Britain. Though it’s been nearly half a century since Britain turned its back on us and joined the European Union.

Our dear English queen is growing old now. Britain is growing old. Britain is no longer in the European Union.
Perhaps Britain needs us now. As an aging parent needs her long-lost child. As a loving mother, or are we just a trading partner ? Do we need her protection, or does she need ours – as in the past ?

No matter. Let’s forget and forgive. Welcome back mum. Nice to see you again. Glad you’re back. How’s our future king and his second wife getting on ? Sorry about the first one. She really was nice wasn’t she ?

Tough job, royalty. Pay your taxes in the UK now, do you ? Good for you. Have to keep up with the times. The - times - are-a changin ! But not here. Not in good old Aussie. We’re still the same. No taxes, and loyal to the bone !

Here’s a welcome back poem written by Robert Burns in 1788 and set to the tune of a traditional folk song. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. Let’s all sing it together :

Here we go. Altogether now !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7ONqrdscY&ab_channel=VisitSapphireValley

.

Hi again Foxy,

Continuing from where I left off. Pre war the White Australia policy had worked to "invite in the clean and keep out the dirty" as some politician whose names escapes me once said. Immediate post war, Labor under Chifley had great expectations of building a better Australia with broader post war immigration, but still restrictive, the White Australia Policy lingered till 1958. Added to that immigration push was a drive for "Australia for Australian Citizens". The launching of nation building projects like the Snowy, and new investment in manufacturing industries had needs. This new economy would need labour, and European refugees would be an ideal source of the skilled and unskilled workers required. The arrival of post war Europeans in large numbers was the first real shift away from ties with Britain and the beginning of multiculturalism in Australia. That shift has continued to this day.

The silliest notion is that immigrants want to change Australia. They come knowing the set up, and they come here because it's a better place than the one they left. It's only a few malcontented Marxists already here who who constantly carp about our history and traditions.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the link.
Loved it.

Stirs back so many wonderful memories.

I came across the following link that you might
enjoy:

http://www.theconversation.com/no-longer-tied-to-britain-australia-is-still-searching-its-place-in-the-world-70407

Paul,

Check out the make up of the First Fleet, that’s when multiculturalism really began in Australia and we got our first people of immediate African descent.

Dear Paul,

The link I've cited to Banjo tells us that:

"British Australia was the creation of an imperial
decision. (a dumping ground of British outcasts).
This meant that strong links to Britain and the
British monarchy continued well into the 20th century.
There were occasional republicans who advocated a
so-called independent Australia particularly in the
19th century but if anything enthusiasm for the
British Empire increased in the first half of the
20th century."

"Australians were Australians, but they were also
"British." There was the proud boast that Australians
were more "British" than the inhabitants of London."

"This of course, was probably true given that London
attracted people from all over the empire and was
cosmopolitan in a way that Australia was not."

"The early settlers were British in a very Australian way."

"Australians know their future is linked with Britain, not
only by ties of race and kinship, but because of hard, practical reasons."

No, the speaker was not Robert Menzies but Ben Chifley in
1948.

The link reminds us to :

"Witness the massively popular reception of the new monarch
Queen Elizabeth when she visited Australia in 1954."

And we are also reminded that in the 1950s a strong connection
between Australia and Britain made a lot of sense.

Whether that link is as strong today - remains to be seen.
Or will it with time inevitably weaken because Australia
is changing in so many ways.

Foxy,
You seem to be forgetting the Irish who have had an impact on Australia’s development far exceeding their minority status.

Is Mise,

There's quite a few other minority groups who have
also had an impact. But this is about our ties to
Britain - and how really are they relevant to
Australia in the 21st century? Or are they waning?
And will they continue into the future when (and if)
Prince Charles ever becomes King?

Foxy
But no impact like unto the Irish; you mentioned place names; now that is only area where the Irish have had a big impact.

Paul it was not only after the war, but during it we learned our place in the empire. Churchill wanted India defended at all cost, it was a source of real wealth. His words were, we'll take Australia back if it falls to the Japs. He didn't want to give us back our troops fighting in the middle east even when the Japs were at our door step.

Still my navy in the late 50s was very much a Queen & Country operation. We sailed British built or designed ships & submarines, we flew British aircraft, & our thoughts were commonwealth.

My sons navy in the 2000s was a different animal. Most of the ships & weaponry were American, although becoming more international all the time, & the attitude was Australia first last & in the middle.

It is however becoming far too Spanish & French at this time. Surely anyone with just a little history would recall the Spanish Armada, & the total lack of fighting ability of Spanish, & for the French, the white flag being their most important bit of equipment.

Still today all our armed forces are really just a token, for humanitarian missions & supporting the yanks in bush fire arguments, to garner US protection. I expect there would be no more help coming from that direction than Churchill offered in our time of need, unless it was in the Yanks interest to use us as a base, or fighting venue.

Is Mise,

So tell us about the Irish.

I grew up with Irish priests and nuns.

Foxy,
Your emphasis on the English is misleading as the Irish had an enormous impact on the formation of Australian society.
The Castle Hill rebellion and the Eureka Stockade spring to mind.
Then there is the opposition to conscription when the conscription referendums returned a no vote during WW1, the NO campaign was ably led by Daniel Mannix Catholic Bishop and Irish to the core.

Then there is the State school systems which are based on. the Irish system which Governor Bourke had tried to introduce in to the colony of NSW.
Law, whilst derived from England has been modified by much Irish influence for example rent under English law was a recognition of the landlord’s right whereas in Australia, as influenced by Irishmen, acceptance of rent was a recognition of the tenants rights

.

Dear Hasbeen,

.

That’s a pretty gloomy picture you paint, Hasbeen, but it certainly seems realistic to me in the current ongoing context of worldwide cynicism – or has it always been like that, as your reminder of Churchill’s betrayal of Australia eighty years ago tends to suggest ?

You indicate that we no longer purchase our warships and weaponry from traditional suppliers in Britain and America and regret that we now purchase them from Spain and France – pointing to the debacle of the Spanish Armada (1588) and deploring that “the white flag [is France’s] most important bit of equipment”.
.

Here is what historians have to say about the Spanish Armada :

[ By fending off the Spanish fleet, the island nation saved itself from invasion and won recognition as one of Europe’s most fearsome sea powers. The clash also established the superiority of heavy cannons in naval combat, signaling the dawn of a new era in warfare at sea.

While the Spanish Armada is now remembered as one of history’s great military blunders, it didn’t mark the end of the conflict between England and Spain. In 1589, Queen Elizabeth launched a failed “English Armada” against Spain.

King Philip II, meanwhile, later rebuilt his fleet and dispatched two more Spanish Armadas in the 1590s, both of which were scattered by storms. It wasn’t until 1604—over 16 years after the original Spanish Armada set sail—that a peace treaty was finally signed ending the Anglo-Spanish War as a stalemate. ]

http://www.history.com/topics/british-history/spanish-armada
.

And here is what British historian Niall Ferguson says about the military history of France :

[ France is the most successful military power in history. The French participated in 50 of the 125 major European wars that have been fought since 1495; more than any other European state. They are followed by the Austrians who fought in 47 of them, the Spanish in 44, and the English (and later British) who were involved in 43. Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49, and drawn 10. ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France

.

It was a tongue in cheek reference Banjo to the Spanish armada, particularly as during my naval training we studied it. Considered opinion is that the British fleet did very little worthwhile damage to the Spanish ships, most of their problems were with incredibly poor leadership, & a couple of opportune storms.

This has a familiar feel, when you look at some of our recent top brass.

Thanks Hassy and Issy for a bit of history on Churchill and Mannix. Very true.

Ah! Foxy the old Irish priests and nuns. I can still remember Sister Mary, god rest her soul. a decrepit Irish nun, who came to Australia in the early days of the 1900's, chase and virginal till her death, something she regretted till her dying days I'm sure, just as she missed Ireland. She told us children we Catholics were bound to go to heaven, be with the saints and all the angles. BUT! not those heathens, especially the godless devils of the Church of England, PROTESTANTS were beyond salvation and would feel the rath of the every lasting fires of Hell. As long as we loved Jesus and the Holy Father in Rome salvation was ours. Sister Mary was not big on forgiveness, but she did very much believe in "spare the rod and spoil the child" and put her strap to work on many an occasion, on my hand and legs.

Reading David Kemp's, 'A Liberal State' at the moment, which given an account of the Menzies years 1926-1966 in Australian politics Kemp being a liberal politician (Liberal party federal MP), I wouldn't call him a conservative, although a great admirer of Menzies, he does paint Menzies in a very favourable light. Kemp's insights into the Australian political ethos of the time is fascinating.

Just on Menzies, he was a monarchists and a conservative and did much to hold Australia back, in my opinion, failing to build on the earlier post war work of Chiefly an allowing the country to realise its full potential.

Just as a side did you know Menzies in 1966 wanted to call the new Australian currency "ROYALS" not dollars, 100 cents to the Royal, Big Mac today would cost 5 Royals, what a joke. AND Menzies on the Queen; "There is a Lady Sweet and Kind: I did but see her passing by, And yet I love her till I die." The words were penned by Thomas Ford, but 'Pig Iron' Bob liked them as well.

Hi Foxy,

Just on your question, and todays young Australians. In my family I can't find any affinity from those under 40 for Britain. I suspect that is the general attitude of both young Australians and Australians from a multicultural background and some older Australians like me. Other than for a few old glue pots I don't think many Australian get up in the mornings and sing 'Rule Britannia' or "God Save the Queen", maybe a few from this forum do, but not the majority.

My 15 year old granddaughters comment was like; "Maybe we were all for that kind of stuff in the olden days, like before 2010, but not today."

Dear Paul,

I remember Father Tim Kennedy and Sister Mary Virgilius
so well growing up during my school days in the
Western suburbs of Sydney. I remember my mum's admiration
for Queen Elizabeth and mum wanting to live to 100 so
that she could get a letter from the Queen. Mum didn't
make it - she lived to 96. I guess Britain has a special
place in more than our history. We still share a head
of state and with more than 12 million Aussies having
been born in the UK - our country hosts the largest
number of British expatriates.

The ties remain strong but perhaps they're weaker than
they were. And like any long term relationship they
continue to change and develop.

I think that Brexit further amplified the case that
Australia's future lies not in our established ties with
the UK but in strengthening the new economic, diplomatic,
and political relationships in our own region.

We've got China already accounting for more than a quarter
of our exports. We've got a free trade agreement with
Indonesia - so clearly these are relationships that our
country needs to focus on and develop to enhance our
economy and position in the world.

We rely on the US for our defence. Our population mix has
changed and continues to change greatly.
What the future hold - who knows - but it
certainly won't be the same as it once was.
That's for sure.

Thanks to everyone for giving us such great histories.
I loved reading all your posts. They are deeply appreciated.
And we learn so much from them.
My days would be so dull without the forum.
Thank You.

Australia should tighten ties with as many Nations who will have the patience to wait for our drug problem to ease !

Individual,

Not sure what you mean by your post about our "drug"
problem. Australia faces quite a few challenges in
it's future - as the Intergenerational Report 2021
tells us - including our ageing population.

sure what you mean by your post about our "drug" problem.
Foxy,
You plain & simply can not be serious ? Your query smacks of the ultimate ignorance.
If I somehow misread your words I apologise unreservedly !

individual,

Could you at least give us some specifics.

Hi Foxy,

All I can say is Australia like a truculent child is still tied to Britain's apron string, but its only one string and its very loose. With the demise of Elizabeth Windsor. which given her age is not that far off, Australia can then take its rightful place as a fully independent nation in the world. But Unfortunaly we have a few other strings attached which are holding us back as well. Not the least, in my view, the insanity of the ANZAS Treaty.

Dear Paul,

I don't understand why you object to the ANZAS Treaty.
We surely need the security that it provides?
Where would we be without the US and NZ in times of
crisis and attack?

Foxy,
Where would we be?
Up the well known creek without a paddle and with the caulking coming out of the seams.

Could you at least give us some specifics.
Foxy,
WHAT ?? I hope you're just playing with me !

Hi Foxy,

As a pacifist, in principle I disagree with all military treaties and alliances. History shows such things have led to many more wars and deaths of the innocent than they have prevented. In Australia's case I believe we should be a nonaligned nation. Since the introduction of ANZAS in 1951 more than 1,000 Australians have died while serving US interests in such places as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Middle East, but not one US life has been lost during this time in the defence of Australia. ANZAS is an insurance policy that we may find that the insurer doesn't honour when we try to collect.

Dear Paul,

You've raised valid points however, I don't think we have
a choice - what with the looming threat of China. Who knows
where we'd be on our own without our allies to help.

1,000 Australians have died while serving US interests in such places as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Middle East, but not one US life has been lost during this time in the defence of Australia.
Paul1405,
The people who died prevented even greater human-made catastrophes but so tragically they paid with their lives for what people like you take for granted. Judging by your comments over the years you must be torn by rage that your idealism drew the shorter straw !
You haven;'t even got the decency to acknowledge that had it not been the way it was you couldn't call the Nation that feeds you -Home !

Hi Foxy,

I think we are doing as much to make China a looming threat as China is doing that itself.

Not wanting war, does that make me a disloyal Australian Indy in your eyes, well if it does so be it. The false mantra that only through war can peace be achieved is ridiculous. The catch cry during WWI was "The war to end all wars", how wrong that was, WWI brought continuing war ever since.

Not wanting war,
Paul1405,
What a stupid & ignorant statement in the context of the thread. There's just no comparison to wanting war & to defend oneself !
You of course cower somewhere safe while others risk everything to keep the place safe including hypocritical you !

"The war to end all wars", how wrong that was,
Paul1405,
It wasn't wrong, it just didn't work out because of too many stupid people which you appear to openly support !

Hi Indy,

Since 1951 when has Australia engaged in a war of self defence. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Middle East, take your pick. It seems your conviction for war never extended to you personally becoming involved when having the opportunity. As you have said on the Forum in the past, you dodged national service, when you could have enlisted, what a hypocrite. Are you John Howard, as a young bloke Howard supported the war in Vietnam, but pee o'ed off to London to avoid national service in Australia, another hypocrite. Menzies the founder of the Liberal party, supported WWI but like Howard refused to enlist, didn't want to get shot at I suppose.

As you have said on the Forum in the past, you dodged national service,
Paul1405,
If you can show me that I'll give you a Grand ! No need to BS when you don't have an answer.
No matter what you try & deflect, you're a hypocrite of the highest order ! You can't shake that title !
Australian soldiers get involved overseas to prevent problems coming here & their efforts aren't helped by home-grown anarchists kept at the expense of decent folk !

Hi again Indy,

I was due to turn 20 in the first half of 1973. I was required to register for national service by 31st Dec 1972, get the papers from the post office. Having not registered by the due date I would be automatically drafted for failing to register, a crime in its self. How could i protest a unjust war, and then go and fight in it. Based on birth dates a young blokes chances of being conscripted were about 1 in 8. The soft option would be to register and take the odds of not being call up. I had chosen the braver option of not registering and becoming another one of the warmongers cannon fodder. Fortunately, the great and noble Gough Whitlam came to power, 2nd Dec 1972, and immediately abolished the disgusting Liberals killing lottery of national service.

When did you become eligible for military service (Australian citizen)? Did you attempt to enlist? Me thinks not, now who is the hypocrite. Call me what you like, but I have always stuck to my principles. What about you, can you say the same.

Paul,
At the time I asked a prominent Liberal if his disability was painful or in anyway disabling.
He looked at me somewhat askance and asked what I was talking about, so I said that as he was of military age I wondered why he’d been rejected when he volunteered to go to Vietnam.

If sour looks could kill he’d have been a great military asset.

I had a lot of army mates who served in Vietnam and I supported them and the rest to the best of my ability but I openly opposed the Government policy, a stance that was not popular in the Commonwealth public service and particularly not in the Dept. of Defence!!

Paul1405,
I wasn't allowed to go because I had to wait till they let me become a Citizen & by then the Goaf & Co had sold Australian patriotism & values & a promising future for votes from the drug-ridden hangers-on Dole brigade !
Part of the reason so many young Australians & Americans lost their lives then was because they had no support from the likes of you who were safely protesting & disrupting whilst receiving the Dole !

Hi Issy and Indy,

Issy I had a cousin, a conscript killed in Vietnam. In a Michael Moore doco, he asked Washington politicians who had sons eligible for military service, was their son in the military, only one said yes. Donald Trump avoided call up, George W Bush was supposedly in the home guard. The Old Man said many sons of the rich avoided conscription during WWII by "working" in daddy's protected industry, or if they were called up, the only front line they were sent to was south of Wollongong. During Vietnam the rich put their sons into Uni to obtain a dispensation from national service. The bit about Howard is true.

Indy you are eligible for military service in Australia from ages 17 to 55. Assuming you were 56 in 1973 and become ineligible for service that would make you about 104 today. So after becoming an Australian citizen and before reaching the age of 56, how many attempts did you make to join up? None I assume.

Paul1405,
The situation simply wasn't as you so desperately try to portray it ! By the time I became a citizen, Vietnam became a reverse role by moving downunder.
Your arguments here are not about trying to make our society better, you're just exercising your insipid hatred of anything non-Aborigine ! As I said before, you're not helping their cause, you're hindering it ! I'm sure many of them feel rather embarrassed about the hate-filled such as you in their midst !

Foxy- "Is Australia Still Tied To Britain?"

Answer-

Underlying question perhaps is- "Are nations" or "should Nations" be tied to their heritage and their ethnicity?

A related question is regarding the relevance of the UN's Right to self determination of peoples in the contemporary era.

This question seems to question the integrity of the fundamental construct of the British-Australian entity- hardly an act of a friend- likely a foe. It wasn't the Aboriginal Peoples that allowed Foxy's relatives into Australia- but certain groups within the British Australian diaspora- you could argue that they betrayed the British Australian people with their "Populate or Perish" propaganda- perhaps it was because of genuine empathy with the hardships felt by Western Europeans such as Lithuanians to give them some respite. Perhaps they used the fear of WWII against the Australian people- for business advantage- to use this legitimate fear against the Australian people was perhaps a sociopathic act- or it could be a legacy of the pre-atomic pre-consumer-flight age.

Foxy seems to hide behind the claim of family atrocities by the Communists in order to promote what seem to me to be plainly Communist policies.

Foxy reminds me of the Red Brigades in Post War Germany- the young who judged the old as guilty without understanding- that's how Adam Curtis presents them. Didn't Foxy say in previous posts that her mother was a Royalist.

Asimov talks of Psycho-History and anthropologists talk of Psycho-Sociology- a thousand year cycle of civilizations. I'm sure that serious Communists are aware of this and hope to be the heirs to British Civilization and the Holy Roman Empire- look forward to the rise of the "Pharaoh's of Communism" worshipped in blindness, fear, and death.

Ayn Rand- Communists are death worshippers.

Despite it's faults "Roman autonomous provincial governors" adopted by The Catholic Church and The British Empire. On the other hand is the monolithic model such as that used by the UN- sadly the US's Locke Liberal beginnings allowed the corruption of the UN's structure and the US itself.

God help the world if Australia should lose it's ties to Britain.