Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland  
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

What would be the implication involved (hypothetically) of Britain becoming a republic. What would the effect be on realms whos head of state is the British Monarch like Canada or New Zealand? What kind of system would be in place? Would England change spritually, emotionally, socially, economically??

So many hypotheticals running through my head right now. I do think that one of the most important aformetioned points was the case of realms whom rely on the British Monarch to serve as their head of state. If GB became a republic would that mean that all other realms would become republics? Would the British President then be the head of state of these places? Would they pick a royal to be HOS of one country or get the queen to be on a timetable like a kid whos parents have divorced?

I'm keen to hear especially from informed Britons but, as always, I welcome all other users to entrall me with their acumen and look at an issue that has been running a marathon in my brain all week!

Regards,

QANTASforever

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2164 times:

It would put Canada into a sort of limbo because, other than recognizing whoever happens to be the British monarch at any particular moment as Canada's head of state, we don't have any other laws on the subject.

For instance, the succession laws are controlled by London, even though there's an unwritten rule that the British government would have to consult Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the others if they wanted to change it.

If the change were seen coming up the road, it would presumably force the Canadian government to prepare for it. If it came more suddenly, they would probably ask the Supreme Court for an interpretation of who the official head of state should be.

The political system would still function as normal, though, since the Governor-General is already the de facto head of state. It would only be a matter of resolving who officially holds the position.


User currently offlineScotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

It would mean that we would all pay less income tax because we wouldnt need to support the unaffordable cost of running a huge monarchy with a civil list which stretches back to the Greek aunts of imported princes with manufactured titles or the daughters of former Nazi SS officers who currently pay rental on london apartments at a fraction of their going rate.

And it would mean the break up of the "United Kingdom" which, by definition, can only be a Kingdom and not a republic.

Scotty


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

and why should it break up, there is no logical argument to suggest that constitutionally something better than the monarchy could come along.

we have a prime minister with ditactorial powers, his has the privilages and preogatives that the monarchy used to have until parliament took them through a gradual change in the centuries all in the name of democracy and freedom.

The queen brings in as much tourism as it costs to upkeep her, further more with the prospect of a slim lined monarchy occuring im perfectly happy to have the queen rather than mr blair has a president providing she brings in money and investment to britain.

The queen stood up for justice in her name and once she realised that mr burrell hadnt done anything wrong she made people aware.the fact sit hat she wasnt briefied by the prosectution nor the defence and furthermore the police misled her son and her grandchildren into believing mr burell had sold items over the internet when in fact they had no proof.

as tony blair said today, the queen did nothing wrong.

god save the queen.

ps-the uk could be the united republic, you forget even under cromwell scotland was still with the english, in fact you might like to remember that throughout history its often scotland who is tryign to raise a new monarch to the throne.



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

It would mean that we would all pay less income tax because we wouldnt need to support the unaffordable cost of running a huge monarchy

Actually, the monarchy has bene found to cost mere pennies per Briton. If you include the incremental tourist income enabled by foreigners visiting royal sites, the Royal family arguable makes money for the Uk treasury.

Speaking of unaffordable cost, how much longer can the English expect to continue to have to support the Scottish economy??????






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2109 times:

Who gives a shit?

The sooner we ditch the old bitch and get a head of state of our own the better. She means absolutely nothing to modern Australia and couldn't pull a decent crowd for a ten pound note.

Oh, and her children / grandchildren have proven to be nothing more than a disgrace.

mb

clowns=jesters=monarchy


User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

I agree that the Monarchy is well past its sell-by date. This lot aren't even really British - they are German with bits of Russian, Greek and French for luck.

Oh, and Yyz ... as North Sea oil is Scottish, it's actually Scotland which has been subsidising England for the last few decades.  Big grin The SNP believes that not only can Scotland be self-sufficient, but that it could also be a tax haven.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Why is it so that a whole bunch of the most prosperous and least troubled nations in the world are kingdoms? Great Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. And to some extent we might add Canada, Australia and NZ.

And why is it that Spain has prospered enormously like hardly no other country in the world since they got their king back?

And why does Greece continue to be the weak and poor EU sister 29 years after they expelled their royal family to an apartment block in London?

Could is be very important to have a totally impartial person to tell us once every year in the New Year speech how to behave during the following year?

Every Dane - including me - pays roughly $4 per year for royal support, and it supports both the Danish and the Greek royal families since the Greek Queen is a sister to my Queen, and her lovely princes and pricesses are of course 50% Danish and ill supported from Greece.

$4 - that's 8 minutes hard work for me every year. I think that they are well invested. How much could I save? A substantial part of my $4 goes to castles "owned" by the royal family - those castles would have to be maintained anyway. No president could do that from his own pocket.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Dear SAS23, why do you want to share the whole wealth of the British (aeh, Scottish) oil fields with the whole Scotland? Why not just the city of Aberdeen? Aberdeen could become enormously rich.

And BTW, why is it that coastal countries automatically assume that the resources of the seas belong to them? In the perfect world the North Sea oil would be just as much Swiss or Austrian as British (Scotch), Danish and Norwegian.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2078 times:

Prebennorholm,

Seeing as you guys will eventually have a Queen of Australian descent (Mary Donaldson!) we as a country would be more than willing to subsidize her. lol

QANTASforever


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2066 times:

Thank a lot Qantas, but we would be able to support Mary Donaldson ourselves. Just take good care of her while we wait ... and wait ... and wait.

Sure she would make this country a more beautiful place  Big thumbs up (if only Fedde - the Crown Prince - could make up his mind).



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

So you guys would be happy about having a queen who is not a Dane?

QANTASforever


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Dear Qantas, oh yes, our present monarch, HM The Queen is maximum 25% Danish, since her mother was Swedish and her father had a German mother. The Crown Prince is maximum 12.5% Danish since his mother is max. 25% Danish and his father 100% French.

The younger brother of our Crown Prince is of course also max. 12.5% Danish, and he married a girl who is 50% Austrian and 50% Hong Kong Chinese. Their two small boys, who may become King of Denmark one day, are consequently max 6.25% Danish.

But those max. 6.25%, 12.5% or 25% Danish values, they are in reality much smaller, perhaps 0% if we go back a few generations beyond great grandparents. Then it is perhaps mostly German blood.

When your country Australia becomes a real kingdom on its own, are you then sure that your king will be a 100% aboriginal?



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

Harte to disappoint you MX-5, but the Queen still seems to draw decent crowds down under.
Actually we don't give a shit if Australia goes republic, the lessening of the Anglo-Saxon population makes it likely anyway.
In fact the Queen has said as much.
If it stops you all whining (which we are always accused of!) good thing.
But the last referendum didn't go quite your way did it?
Why, apart from the official line that no decent alternative was proposed?
Could it be that many in Oz saw the obsessive Republicans, with a few conspiracy freaks amongst then and though 'what a bunch of no-life, bitter saddos'.
Still, if it happens fairly soon enjoy President Hawke, or Keating, (why not Paul Hogan or Kylie!?)
But could you end up with Pauline Hanson?


User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

GDB,

Why, apart from the official line that no decent alternative was proposed?
Could it be that many in Oz saw the obsessive Republicans, with a few conspiracy freaks amongst then and though 'what a bunch of no-life, bitter saddos'.


Nice try but we won't be stirred up that easily. If you knew anything at all about Australian politics then you would understand that we rejected the model of republic offered, but not the republic idea itself. Even the 'no' campaign was based around the want for a rejection of the model presented but not on the whole idea of a republic.

Harte to disappoint you MX-5, but the Queen still seems to draw decent crowds down under.

I would like to note that on Her Majesties and His Highness recent journey here, Sydney and Melbourne were conveniently left off the itinierary. It seems that HM and HH can only pull crouds in places with a big English illegal immigrant population like Adelaide. BTW, Pauline Hanson is long gone from politics.

Actually we don't give a shit if Australia goes republic

If you didnt 'give a shit' then why such an emotive reply to this post?  Big grin


Prebennorholm,

Dear Qantas, oh yes, our present monarch, HM The Queen is maximum 25% Danish, since her mother was Swedish and her father had a German mother. The Crown Prince is maximum 12.5% Danish since his mother is max. 25% Danish and his father 100% French.

The younger brother of our Crown Prince is of course also max. 12.5% Danish, and he married a girl who is 50% Austrian and 50% Hong Kong Chinese. Their two small boys, who may become King of Denmark one day, are consequently max 6.25% Danish.

But those max. 6.25%, 12.5% or 25% Danish values, they are in reality much smaller, perhaps 0% if we go back a few generations beyond great grandparents. Then it is perhaps mostly German blood.

When your country Australia becomes a real kingdom on its own, are you then sure that your king will be a 100% aboriginal?


In Australia, we believe that if you are born here, then you are Australian. We don't delve into the percentages of nationalistic heritage.Regards,

Regards,

QANTASforever

P.s: And I doubt that Australia will become a Kingdom anytime soon. lol



User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

Who gives a shit?

The sooner we ditch the old bitch and get a head of state of our own the better. She means absolutely nothing to modern Australia and couldn't pull a decent crowd for a ten pound note.


That's rather harsh, and disrespectful. Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of Aussies are of British background who (upon settling Australia) brought with them British traditions such as democracy, parliamentary rule, rule of law, separation of church & state, that made Aus the 1st world nation it is today (and hence, attractive to non-British immigrants such as yourself).

Some gratefulness to these British traditions that were (and are) forefront in Australia's make-up might be a good idea.





Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

Yyz717,
Some gratefulness to these British traditions that were (and are) forefront in Australia's make-up might be a good idea.

Uh, look. The British didn't single handedly make Australia the 1st world nation it is today. People from all over the world, including myself came to this country from somewhere other than Britain and built this country based on common goals and aspirations. I simply cannot agree with your simplistic view of the building of the Australian legal system. I suppose that you think that indigenous Australians should be grateful to you for the doctrine of terra nullius ?

I would like to know how you would even expect us to be grateful to you. Are you saying that Australia would hurt your feelings and make us seem ungrateful if we became a republic? Whatever.

QANTASforever.



User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Uh, look. The British didn't single handedly make Australia the 1st world nation it is today. People from all over the world,

Don't exaggerate. Australia is over 95% white, and over 90% British stock. The British influence in Australia FAR outstrips that of all other contributing nations.

In other words, more than 9 of 10 Aussies originated in the UK. It may not be politically correct or "sexy" to state this, but it's a fact.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineJsmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1987 times:

Oh but you are forgetting - Anglo Saxon Australians are not permitted to be proud of their heritage in this country at present. It is not politically correct to be like this.

OK, so many different nationalities have contributed to what makes Australia great, but I don't see why I have to be ashamed of my heritage and what my ancestors have done.

Many people think of the British in history as nothing more than a bunch of invading landgrabbers, when many people also forget that Britain herself was invaded for centuries by foreign powers. Sure the British have done some terrible things in history, but they have also done some great things as well. We tend to forget that.

Half English and proud of it!





User currently offlineG-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

The British didn't single handedly make Australia the 1st world nation it is today.

Without Britain, Australia in its present form would not exist and immigrants only came to Australia after the "Whites Only" immigration rule was abolished.

As for Australians being of British stock-there is no real British ethnic group.The Anglo Saxons actually came from modern day Denmark and Northern Germany, and there is no way that any Australian can be considered to be British because most of them have never experienced the British way of life nor have they lived in Britain. So in the end who is more British: a non white person who was born in Britain and has lived there all his life or someone whose is white in Australia but who is never even lived in Britain?


User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Don't exaggerate. Australia is over 95% white, and over 90% British stock. The British influence in Australia FAR outstrips that of all other contributing nations.

According to the CIA website, quote: Caucasian 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1% End quote. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all of that 92% Caucasian population are from the UK? If so, then you have proven that you have no knowledge of Australias population.

And also, what does this have to do with anyway? To us, we are Australian, when someone asks where they are from in this country they don't say: "Well, my father was from Bedfordshire and my Mother was from South London". They say "I'm from Ballarat" etc.

In other words, more than 9 of 10 Aussies originated in the UK. It may not be politically correct or "sexy" to state this, but it's a fact

As I have just stated above, no it is not a fact, it is mere conjecture.

I also not that you have conveniently skated around the issue of terra nullius and the British influence there. As you claim your knowledge of Australia is so broad, then please enlighten me on how we are meant to feel grateful for that one.

Jsmith said,
Oh but you are forgetting - Anglo Saxon Australians are not permitted to be proud of their heritage in this country at present. It is not politically correct to be like this.

I nor have anyone else said that you should be ashamed of your Anglo-Saxon heritage, nor has anyone suggested that it is politically incorrect to do so. The Anglo-Saxon community has done amazing this for this country and I doubt it will ever be forgotten, however those in other communities would also like to be remembered for their vital contribution to the country they love.

OK, so many different nationalities have contributed to what makes Australia great, but I don't see why I have to be ashamed of my heritage and what my ancestors have done.

I don't pretend to claim to know what your ancestors have done, but I know what the British/Anglo Saxons have done to many people in Australia. Ever heard of Terra Nullius? The policy of dispersal and dispossession? The Era of 'protection'? The Pre-WWII policy of Assimilation and Integration? The White Australia Policy? The Genocide of Indigenous Tasmanians?
Sure, Angie-Saxons have done much good for Australia, but don't disregard or conveniently forget all the bad.

Many people think of the British in history as nothing more than a bunch of invading landgrabbers,

Britain was intent on increasing its empire in the 17th century. They acquired much land (5% of the earth in fact) through either treaty, military conquest, or terra nullius (land of no people). Australia was claimed as terra nullius despite Indigenous Australians being people who have a beliefs system and a recognizable legal system. In fact, James Cook was given secret orders from the admiralty to claim Australia before the French got there! One of the results of applying the doctrine of terra nullius was that the only legally-recognized scheme of land ownership was that recognized by the common law of England - that all land ultimately belonged to England

when many people also forget that Britain herself was invaded for centuries by foreign powers.

That is both irrelevant and proves that they should have known better.

Half English and proud of it!

Good for you, Bhutanese-Icelandic-Australian and proud of it!

Regards,

QANTASforever


User currently offlineG-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Opps I forgot an assumption for the question I put forward. Assume that both the non white person in Britain and the white person in Australia intregrate and mingle with the local population.

User currently offlinePalmjet From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1223 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Qantasforever says:

"I don't pretend to claim to know what your ancestors have done, but I know what the British/Anglo Saxons have done to many people in Australia. Ever heard of Terra Nullius? The policy of dispersal and dispossession? The Era of 'protection'? The Pre-WWII policy of Assimilation and Integration? The White Australia Policy? The Genocide of Indigenous Tasmanians?
Sure, Angie-Saxons have done much good for Australia, but don't disregard or conveniently forget all the bad."

Yes - I am quite familiar with Terra Nullius, having studied native title and land law as part of my undergraduate law degree. I never intimated that I was disregarding or conveniently forgetting the events that you list above. However, my point is that these things are constantly shoved in our faces to remind us of the negatives in Australian history, and for what? So that it will never happen again? Every country has a history that its current generation would like to hope never happened. Each generation considers itself more enlightened than the previous.

* * * * * ** * *

AND


"Britain was intent on increasing its empire in the 17th century. They acquired much land (5% of the earth in fact) through either treaty, military conquest, or terra nullius (land of no people). Australia was claimed as terra nullius despite Indigenous Australians being people who have a beliefs system and a recognizable legal system. In fact, James Cook was given secret orders from the admiralty to claim Australia before the French got there! One of the results of applying the doctrine of terra nullius was that the only legally-recognized scheme of land ownership was that recognized by the common law of England - that all land ultimately belonged to England"

Britain's territorial expansion reflected events in Europe at the time. Spain, Portugal and Holland had already claimed significant territory long before Britain did. Cook's orders were secret not only because of a potential French threat, but also because at that time, Spain and Portugal had divided the world into half. Heard of the Pope's Line?

Following white settlement, there were numeous British commentators who were aware of or had some understanding of the fact that the indigeneous peoples did have a system of land ownership. It is a shame that this was ignored by those in power. Arthur Phillip's orders were that the local population was to be treated with respect and that they were the king's subjects just as the british settlers. The settlers were ordered not to interfere with the locals or harm them in any way. The original intentions seemed quite reasonable and it is a shame that race relations in this country turned so drastically sour in the years following 1788.

* * * * * *

As Britain had been invaded, why does this PROVE that they should have known better?

My point was that the British had been accustomed to foreigners invading, imposing their rules and their society on local populations so my history has been characterised by invasions and destruction of culture just as the indigeneous populations of many countries have been.

Be proud of your heritage, wherever you come from but no matter how much you want to, you cannot change history nor can you discount the contributions that have been made by the UK.

Cheers



Eastern - Number One To The Sun
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Palmjet,

Thank you for joining in this little conversation of ours. Now, onto the nitty gritty:

Yes - I am quite familiar with Terra Nullius, having studied native title and land law as part of my undergraduate law degree. I never intimated that I was disregarding or conveniently forgetting the events that you list above. However, my point is that these things are constantly shoved in our faces to remind us of the negatives in Australian history, and for what? So that it will never happen again? Every country has a history that its current generation would like to hope never happened. Each generation considers itself more enlightened than the previous.

If we are going to be as enlightened as you want us and our children to be then we should make it a priority to highlight human rights atrocities in the hope that they are not repeated. If we only focus on the positives of our history, the lessons we have learned and the sacrifices we have made will be completely in vain. It would be reckless of us to do what you propose.

Britain's territorial expansion reflected events in Europe at the time. Spain, Portugal and Holland had already claimed significant territory long before Britain did. Cook's orders were secret not only because of a potential French threat, but also because at that time, Spain and Portugal had divided the world into half. Heard of the Pope's Line?

My comments that resulted in the above reply were in response to Jsmith who said: Many people think of the British in history as nothing more than a bunch of invading landgrabbers, when many people also forget that Britain herself was invaded for centuries by foreign powers.

Then your comment: As Britain had been invaded, why does this PROVE that they should have known better?

I was trying to point out that indeed Britain DID seek to expand its empire and that because they had been invaded so many times, that they would understand the implications involved for those under an occupation so therefore would be compassionate with the locals. I went on to prove that they learned nothing from their constant invasions and those in power had no mercy toward the aboriginies. This proven by the British settlers in the early 1800s who would feed aboriginial children cookies laced with rat poison because British authorities thought that the Aboriginies were a dying race.

Does that make sense to you?

It does not make sense to me.

Should our children learn about this?

YES.


Following white settlement, there were numeous British commentators who were aware of or had some understanding of the fact that the indigeneous peoples did have a system of land ownership. It is a shame that this was ignored by those in power. Arthur Phillip's orders were that the local population was to be treated with respect and that they were the king's subjects just as the british settlers. The settlers were ordered not to interfere with the locals or harm them in any way. The original intentions seemed quite reasonable and it is a shame that race relations in this country turned so drastically sour in the years following 1788.

Indeed you are right. There was a policy of concilliation implemented by the State governments in the late 18th century, I aknowledge that. But the relationship did turn sour and if you have ever studied human rights and international law in relation to Australia you will know how and why.

Be proud of your heritage, wherever you come from but no matter how much you want to, you cannot change history nor can you discount the contributions that have been made by the UK.

I must stress that I do not wish to undermine the fact that the UK has had a massive contribution toward Australia, but I do not believe in simply praising the UK for all eternity for blessing this little colony of ours.

There have been many wrongs made in the past and unlike yourself, I believe that future generations should know about human right atrocities in Australia.

And I am proud of my heritage, so despite what many Britons may say, I am proud that Australia has taken the initiative and become the nation it is today.

"I am, you are, we are Australian"

Unfortunately there will always be that Robert Menzies element out there quoting his famous line from the 1950's: "WE ARE BRITISH".

No Mr. Menzies, we are Australian.

QANTASforever


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

qantas forever, have u noticed that hardly anyone in the uk has respond to ur triades against the monarchy, in fact it does seem like this is a one person issue, i dont see that many austrialians on here attacking the monarchy with the same strength of feeling, perhaps since austrialia turned down a republic it could be said that theres better things to concern them with than the issue of a queen who u arent paying for.

regards




It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
25 QANTASforever : Go Canada!, The apathy of my countrymen on this forum does not reflect the true feelings of the nation as a whole. Your simple disregard for my commen
26 Mcdougald : QANTASforever wrote: "...The Apathetic Commonwealth of Canada - who feels very impartial toward a republic." This is a familiar issue to me, since I o
27 Toady : Scotty, you wrote: "It would mean that we would all pay less income tax because we wouldnt need to support the unaffordable cost of running a huge mon
28 Banco : I do wish the Australians would get one thing through their heads: We in Britain do not give a stuff what you do over there. Monarchy or republic, for
29 Post contains images Arsenal@LHR : As Banco said, it's up to you folks to decide what your future is. You're a independant country, i'm sure you can stand up on your two feet.
30 Toady : I agree with Banco & the gooner. It seems to me that Australians have more of a sentimental attachment to Britain than Britons do to Australia. Austra
31 QANTASforever : Toady, thank you for your very, uh polite comments. What I would like to get across to those Britons who seem to think that is directed them, is that
32 Jsmith : Who and where has it been said that the success of modern day Australia is due to the fact that the UK was in control of Australia for a period of tim
33 Yyz717 : while also acknowledging the massive contribution made to this country from Australians of non-British origin. Define "massive". Given that 9 of 10 Au
34 QANTASforever : Yyz717, We are not trying to deny the fact that British-Australians have made a great contribution to the Australia we see today. I am curious as to w
35 Yyz717 : We are not trying to deny the fact that British-Australians have made a great contribution to the Australia we see today. I am curious as to why you c
36 Jsmith : YYZ, you hit the nail on the head - it is unpolitically correct to accord recognition to anglo australians these days. we are told that we are all aus
37 Post contains images QANTASforever : I said: We are not trying to deny the fact that British-Australians have made a great contribution to the Australia we see today. Perhaps you guys ign
38 Jsmith : Qantasforever, yes there is british influence here but it is not british - as you like to keep reminding us, what is here is AUSTRALIAN. While there a
39 Yyz717 : Thanks Jsmith. There appears to be a world-wide trend to dismiss the contributions, background & norms of anglo-saxons particularly in countries with
40 QANTASforever : Jsmith, Have you spent any length of time in the UK? If you have, you will understand. At first glance, you may think that the two countries are remar
41 Jsmith : YYZ - perhaps 'dismiss' the contributions of anglo-canadians or anglo-australians is a little harsh....the feeling I get here in Australia is that the
42 Yyz717 : When my mother first moved to rural New South Wales from Bhutan, she was spat on by the locals. She couldn't get a job, people wouldn't serve her in s
43 GDB : Aussies, very successfully, project themselves as laid-back, friendly, irreverent-to pluck a few examples out of the air. The point I was trying to ma
44 QANTASforever : Jsmith, YYZ - perhaps 'dismiss' the contributions of anglo-canadians or anglo-australians is a little harsh....the feeling I get here in Australia is
45 Yyz717 : I am an Australian citizen and consider that my rights and entitlements, as well as ability to critisize government and society, is the same as those
46 Jsmith : Qantasforever, Thanks for your comments and for the spirited discussions we have had. We could argue all day about this issue. YYZ - could you please
47 QANTASforever : Yyz717, Fine, but just acknowledge that it was British traditions that made Aus such a place you (as a Bhutanese) would want to immigrate (and hence p
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pop Idol (United Kingdom Of Great Britain And NI) posted Mon Feb 4 2002 19:50:14 by Singapore_Air
The Republic Of Elbonia! posted Thu Nov 18 2004 04:16:51 by Tbar220
The Republic Of Cascadia! posted Thu Nov 18 2004 03:42:48 by Tbar220
I'm The King Of Sour Jokes And Failed Comebacks... posted Fri Nov 5 2004 06:52:12 by Blackhawk144
The Future Of TVs (HDTV And Plasma) posted Tue Dec 18 2001 01:34:06 by PanAm747
Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Federal Dollars posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:00:11 by RJdxer
And The Winner Of Best Costume Goes To: posted Wed Nov 1 2006 13:55:05 by CV990A
Borat And The President Of Kazakhstan posted Thu Sep 28 2006 22:24:59 by RJpieces
Race And The Limits Of Reason posted Thu Sep 14 2006 12:26:20 by AerospaceFan
Four Children And The Cost Of War (CNN) posted Mon Jul 24 2006 09:15:49 by SFOMEX