QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 04, 2002 9:51 pm

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
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
Guest

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 04, 2002 10:20 pm

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.
 
Scotty
Posts: 1846
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 1999 10:51 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:53 pm

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
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:55 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:01 am

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??????



I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Guest

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:22 am

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
 
Guest

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:55 am

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.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 5:12 am

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
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 5:38 am

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
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 6:15 am

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
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 7:41 am

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
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Tue Nov 05, 2002 8:00 am

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

QANTASforever
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 2:49 am

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
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 4:14 am

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?
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:45 am

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

Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 9:14 am

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.


I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:55 am

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.

Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:58 pm

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.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
jsmith
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 9:26 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 2:03 pm

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!



 
G-KIRAN
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2000 1:55 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 3:40 pm

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?
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 3:51 pm

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
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
G-KIRAN
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2000 1:55 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 4:04 pm

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.
 
palmjet
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2001 2:35 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:04 pm

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
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:10 pm

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
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:46 pm

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
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 12:34 am

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 comments does not undermine the republican sentiment felt within Australia. An alien concept to The Apathetic Commonwealth of Canada - who feels very impartial toward a republic. It is a shame that Australias Imperial cousin is not as passionate as it is itself.

In response to the rest, I refer you to my original post to GDB.

Happy Reading,

QANTASforever
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
Guest

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:29 am

QANTASforever wrote: "...The Apathetic Commonwealth of Canada - who feels very impartial toward a republic."

This is a familiar issue to me, since I once ran a web page in the mid-'90s arguing for a Canadian republic. I'm now rather indifferent on the issue, perhaps as part of my own depoliticisation, having gone from ideologue and participant to detached observer of the political scene.

Canadians have mixed views on the monarchy: polls in recent years have shown about half preferring to keep it, half preferring to renounce it. But I've come to the conclusion that a campaign for a republic is not viable for several reasons.


  1. Lack of strong feelings on the issue: Among those two halves I mentioned above, relatively few Canadians have strong views either way. This deprives both monarchists and republicans of political capital.

  2. Difficulty of constitutional reform: The Canadian Constitution requires that any major change to the country's political institutions, including the monarchy, be unanimously ratified by the federal parliament and all 10 provincial legislatures.

    With everyone wielding a veto, it would be impossible to legislate a republic without legislating distinct society for Quebec, a Triple-E senate for Alberta, perpetually guaranteed financial assistance for the Atlantic provinces, better House and Cabinet representation for Ontario, and so on. It gets even worse when you consider that each of the these things is bound to be resented elsewhere in the country.

  3. Public hostility to constitutional reform: Canada has experienced two attempts at constitution reform in 15 years. Both rounds were dramatic failures, a searing experience which left Canadians bitter and demoralized. Every trial balloon sent up since then has confirmed that there is no market for constitutional reform of any sort -- even for more worthy causes such as senate reform.

  4. Lack of urgency: The current set-up is not perfect. Even the occasional monarchist might suggest that a more ideal arrangement would be to have a British or European royal move to Canada and start their own dynasty, such as Prince Edward or the Netherlands' Princess Margriet, who was born in Canada during the Dutch Royal Family's WW2 exile. But, given that the current set-up functions reasonably well, there's no pressing need to go to the trouble of making constitutional changes.


Nobody knows what the future will bring. The secession of Quebec, for instance, could cause a crisis severe enough to force a total rewriting of the Constitution. But until such a crisis occurs, there is no market for constitutional reform.
 
toady
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 2:36 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 3:08 am

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 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."

The Civil List consists of 2 (yes, two!) people: Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh.
The Queen Mother was also on the list.

Since 1993, there have been no other Royal Family members on the list.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 am

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 God's sake it's up to you! Stop coming on here slagging off Britain for a decision which YOU have failed to make.

If you want a republic, go ahead and have one. What do you think we're going to do? Try to stop you? I'll say it yet again: WE DO NOT CARE! We keep hearing how Australia is a mature country, but on this subject we hear so much bile directed at us! As if we're tried to prevent the march of history towards a supposedly inevitable break with the crown. I'm sick of hearing about it.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:03 am

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.  Big grin

In Arsene we trust!!
 
toady
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 2:36 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:36 am

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.
Australia's independance from the Crown is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of Britons. Do it or don't do it - just shut the f*** up about it.
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:15 pm

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 it is not.

We are fully aware of the sentiment in Britain and the fact that we have complete constitutional independence, however my argument was directed at those people within Australia and also Britain who credit the success of modern day Australia to the fact that the UK was in control of Australia for while.

We should be a republic, it is a decision WE as Australians must make while also acknowledging the massive contribution made to this country from Australians of non-British origin.

Regards,

QANTASforever
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
jsmith
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 9:26 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 7:46 pm

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 time?

What period of time are you referring to?

We do acknowledge the contribution that Australians of non-British origin have made to this country, so much so that many in this country would like to forget the contribution made by those of British origin.

What sort of acknowledgement do you want?
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:17 pm

while also acknowledging the massive contribution made to this country from Australians of non-British origin.

Define "massive".

Given that 9 of 10 Aussies are of British background, their contribution is far more massive that than the contribution of non-British-background Aussies.



I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sat Nov 09, 2002 1:25 pm

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 continually refuse to aknowledge the contribution of non-british Australians.

Do you have something against people who are not British?

Please explain your opinion.
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sat Nov 09, 2002 3:16 pm

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 continually refuse to aknowledge the contribution of non-british Australians.

Do you have something against people who are not British?


Based on your comments, it seems you are trying to minimize (or ignore) the overwhelming British background & influence in Australia.

You start by saying that Australia was built by people from all over the world. This is untrue. 90% of Aussies descend from British immigrants....hence Aussie is (ethnically) largely a British country, even today. As un-politically correct as it is to say that.

You then go on to state the contribution made by non-Brits to Australia. While these contributions are real, they are minimal compared to the contributions by the vastly larger British diaspora.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
jsmith
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 9:26 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sat Nov 09, 2002 7:19 pm

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 australian, yet people from non-anglo backgrounds are encouraged to keep their own traditions and language alive when they come to this country. Fair enough - I think this is a good thing. However, for many 'Australians', their british heritage is still very strong, but they are not encouraged to maintain any remnant of britishness when they come here.

look at qantas and its aboriginal logo jets - why don't they consider painting up one of their aircraft in the design of a well known artist that isn't of aboriginal origin? well that would not be politically correct. There are many talented artists in this country who could do a fine job.
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sun Nov 10, 2002 8:57 am

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 ignore this because it is politically correct to read what other write.  Big grin

Jsmith: for many 'Australians', their british heritage is still very strong, but they are not encouraged to maintain any remnant of britishness when they come here.

Look around you for gods sake, you don't think that this country has a british influence? Give me a break


look at qantas and its aboriginal logo jets - why don't they consider painting up one of their aircraft in the design of a well known artist that isn't of aboriginal origin? well that would not be politically correct. There are many talented artists in this country who could do a fine job.

QANTAS could have painted their aircaft in a scheme that is not aboriginal, but where would the originality be? Non-Aboriginal art is in essence no different to stuff that comes out of the US/UK/Canada etc. QANTAS most likely used the Aboriginal sceme because such designs are exclusively Australian. No political correctness insanity here, pal.

I also want to question just what both of your definitions of 'political correctness' is?

To me, it means a fair and just go for all and I trust you will agree with me. Now for a country like this, with as Yyz717 pointed out - a large anglo-saxon population, do you honetly believe that:

1) Anglo-Saxons are threatened by Non-Anglo-Saxons
2) That Non-Anglo Saxons, their achievements and contributions should not be celbrated because they are a minority?

If so, then you are both wrong. We cannot have an anglo-saxon cultural monopoly in this country. We are all Australian (except of course Yyz717 who is actually for canada Big grin) and as such must celibrate our diversity. To belittle the achievements of some Australians because they are not 'white' or 'british' is wrong. You know that.

QANTASforever

Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
jsmith
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 9:26 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sun Nov 10, 2002 11:51 am

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 are similarities, Australia and Britain are quite different.

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 remarkably similar, but dig deeper and you find many differences.

As for your comments on the aboriginal designs used by QF, are you saying that to have non-indigeneous artwork would not be Australian? I thought the whole tenant of your argument was that Australia is the sum total of peoples from all over the world who have come here to make it their home? Just because the Aboriginal people arrived here first, why does that make them more Australian than non-aboriginals?

Why is their contribution any less significant or original, just because, as you say, this stuff is 'the same' as that which comes from UK/US/Canada etc? According to your original argument, this is still 'Australian' and should be celebrated. Perhaps you don't really believe that after all or that shades of hipocracy have crept into your argument?

Nobody is be-littling the contributions made by non-anglos to this country, YYZ has attempted to put things into perspective, that's all.

 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sun Nov 10, 2002 12:27 pm

Thanks Jsmith.

There appears to be a world-wide trend to dismiss the contributions, background & norms of anglo-saxons particularly in countries with high 3rd world immigration, such as Canada, Australia, the US and the UK......ironically all countries with anglo-saxon majorities.

Anglo-saxons (indeed, Britons) are the LARGEST immigrant groups in Australia, Canada & the US. Without the British diaspora, there would be no Australia, Canada or USA as we know them today. The British made the largest single contribution to nation building in Australia of all immigrant groups.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sun Nov 10, 2002 3:39 pm

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 remarkably similar, but dig deeper and you find many differences.

Yes I have, and I agree.

As for your comments on the aboriginal designs used by QF, are you saying that to have non-indigenous artwork would not be Australian?

Not once did I say that having a non-indigenous design on the QANTAS aircraft would be un-Australian. Indeed you only have to go the NSW art gallery of the Archibald Prize to see world class Australian art. But, as you and Yyz717 have pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a marked British (I.e: western) influence on this country. It stems to the Art world. I was suggesting that the reason QF chose such a scheme is because it is exclusive to Australia but never have I said that having, say a Tom Roberts style painting would be un-Australian.

? I thought the whole tenant of your argument was that Australia is the sum total of peoples from all over the world who have come here to make it their home?

Indeed you are correct, nice to see you catching on.

Just because the Aboriginal people arrived here first, why does that make them more Australian than non-aboriginals?

It doesn't. You cannot be more Australian than anyone else nor have I suggested otherwise.

Why is their contribution any less significant or original, just because, as you say, this stuff is 'the same' as that which comes from UK/US/Canada etc?

I challenge you to show me a style of non-indigenous Australian artwork that is exclusive to this country.

According to your original argument, this is still 'Australian' and should be celebrated.

Of course it should be celebrated. I love this country and like to celebrate all things that make it up. This includes the huge contribution made by non-British Australians, despite what you may say.

Perhaps you don't really believe that after all or that shades of hypocrisy have crept into your argument?

I think that you are leveling that tag of hypocrisy as a cheap attempt to undermine my argument. Sorry, its not going to work. My opinions are stronger than that.

Nobody is be-littling the contributions made by non-anglos to this country, YYZ has attempted to put things into perspective, that's all.

I know exactly what he has done. He has attempted to belittle the contribution made by non-British-Australians by suggesting that because the British population is so high here that we should disregard the contribution of others. I do not agree with him, but as I have pointed out - it seems that you are coming around to my arguments. Thanks.

Yyz717:

My Canadian friend, nice to know you have such a vested interest in our country. I wonder how you would feel If I began belittling the contribution made by Canadian aboriginies and the non-British-canadians. Something tells me you would probably agree with me. Quelle Surprise.

There appears to be a world-wide trend to dismiss the contributions, background & norms of anglo-saxons particularly in countries with high 3rd world immigration, such as Canada, Australia, the US and the UK......Ironically all countries with anglo-saxon majorities.

You really should go into stand-up comedy. What a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. You have continuously dismissed the contributions made to Australia by those not from Britain yet here you are claiming that it is now the great minority of the non-British that are dismissing you! What a dismissive bunch we are. Give me a break, I think it is only fair that minorities have a voice, just as the British did and have. Don't act like you are a minority, you have NO idea what you are talking about. It is a hard world, and it seems to me that until all of those who are non-anglo-saxon go back to where they came from you will continue to dismiss them.

Anglo-saxons (indeed, Britons) are the LARGEST immigrant groups in Australia, Canada & the US.

Indeed, Anglo-saxons don't sound as fragile there as you earlier made them out to be.

Without the British diaspora, there would be no Australia, Canada or USA as we know them today.

Indeed, but you just see how much of an Australia, Canada or USA there would have been without Chinese, Greek, Italian immigration and the existence of Aboriginies.

The British made the largest single contribution to nation building in Australia of all immigrant groups.

Correct, do you want to know why? I quote an earlier post of mine:
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, Anglo-Saxons have done much good for Australia, but don't disregard or conveniently forget all the bad.


I also take not of the fact that in all of your posts, you have never actually said whether the contribution made by the UK to such realms as the US/CA/AU/NZ were for the better? Is your subconscious trying to tell you something?

It is quite evident to me that you both can sit there in your comfortable chairs and type away, quoting history and conveniently skimming over sections, but I bet none of you know the reality. Things are not as equal as you think that they are. Whites are not as vilified as you believe. 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 shops - it was not a happy time. Eventually and against all odds she managed to begin a very successful business. She had trouble getting clients, even the rest of the Asian population didn't want to deal with her because she wasn't Chinese or Vietnamese. Things were hard yet she succeeded. I merit her success to the multi-culturalisation of this country. If the colonial British back-hand was still in complete force, I guarantee you she would not have had the success that she did. I know that the British did a lot for this country, but I challenge Yyz717 to admit the same for non-British Australians.

Are you up to the challenge?

QANTASforever
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
jsmith
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 9:26 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Sun Nov 10, 2002 5:18 pm

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 country would rather 'forget' about the contributions that have been made, just in case they dredge up moments of history that 'would rather be forgotten'.

Discussions about our national day, January 26, in recent years, have centred around whether we should still celebrate it because of its controversial significance. Well, unfortunately, history cannot be changed no matter how 'unpopular' it might be.

How about remembering just for a minute about those people who were banished from their home and travelled thousands of miles at sea during a time when even the shortest of journeys were particularly perilous? How about the fact that they survived and laid the foundations for an Australian society? Why shouldn't we celebrate this? Because it offends non-anglo australians?

Qantasforever - In relation to your question about non-indigeneous art - how about works by Prohart or Ken Done or Arthur Streeton? Why does it have to be like nothing else on earth for it to be Australian when, for the vast majority of Australians, Aboriginal art does not represent their perspective of Australia? Do you think Aboriginal art represents your view of Australia?

You talk about the experiences of your mother in Australia. Sorry to read that. You also however, need to bear in mind the reverse situation. Asians are pretty skilled at treating foreigners with contempt in their own countries. I have seen it and read about it. No matter how long a 'westerner' has lived in taiwan, for example, he or she will always be viewed as a foreigner - never Taiwanese. Sadly, Asians in this country like to make a big deal about racism in Australia, but having lived in an Asian country, I can tell you that racism is alive and well in Asia. At least people from non-anglo backgrounds have the opportunity of being considered 'australian'.





 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 11, 2002 12:08 am

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 shops - it was not a happy time.

Well, she chose to voluntarily stay in Aus.....so things must have been worse in Bhutan. I'm tired of hearing how hard 3rd world immigrants have it in Aus, the US, Canada.....given the conditions they came from. Clearly, if conditions were that bad.....many would return home.

Hopefully your mother is grateful for the opportunity that Australia gave her by allowing her to immigrate.

Don't act like you are a minority, you have NO idea what you are talking about. It is a hard world,

Oh please.....non-whites in Aus have it pretty good. They're living in a democratic 1st world country. I'm sure many Bhutanese would trade places with you.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 11, 2002 11:31 am

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 make was all this teeth-gnashing about the Republican debate jars with the image somewhat.
You can argue all you want about the British contribution to Australia, but let's face it, the country is stable, lawful, prosperous.
If another bunch from Europe had colonized Australia you might have not had the stability for a start.
But having a serious debate about the Republic is fine, no one here really cares, it's seen as inevitable.
However, the last attempt to go for a Republic failed, spin it all you want, but the Republicans clearly failed to provide a creditable alternative that the people wanted.
So after all that effort, they could not get the basic question answered, namely what replaces the current arrangement, which says a lot about them.
It isn't the Monarchy that's arrogant, it's the Republicans who clearly thought that those they say they represent would just nod it through-no questions asked.
I think it's fair to say that most in the UK who followed the events were surprised at the result.
But I'd be surprised if Australia is still a Monarchy in 20 years, from the Republican point of view maybe practice will make perfect.
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 11, 2002 11:52 am

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 country would rather 'forget' about the contributions that have been made, just in case they dredge up moments of history that 'would rather be forgotten'.

I agree.

Discussions about our national day, January 26, in recent years, have centred around whether we should still celebrate it because of its controversial significance. Well, unfortunately, history cannot be changed no matter how 'unpopular' it might be.

Indeed history cannot be changed, nor can it be forgotten no matter how bad it is. Whether we need to celebrate it is a whole other issue.

Qantasforever - In relation to your question about non-indigeneous art - how about works by Prohart or Ken Done or Arthur Streeton?

Good point. I'll email QANTAS so they can look into it. There is no reason that those styles, which as you have pointed out are exclusivley Australian, should not adorn the side of a 747.

Why does it have to be like nothing else on earth for it to be Australian when, for the vast majority of Australians, Aboriginal art does not represent their perspective of Australia? Do you think Aboriginal art represents your view of Australia?

It has nothing to do with what we consider relevant to our group. This does represent us because we are ALL Australian. And this ancient artwork is exclusive to Australia. Now whether we happen to be aboriginal or not, this design represents the indigenous Australian culture to which we all are part of as Australians. I consider that when one becomes a citizen of a country they cannot refuse to accept certain parts of the country. Its the whole baby and the bathwater.

Asians are pretty skilled at treating foreigners with contempt in their own countries. I have seen it and read about it. No matter how long a 'westerner' has lived in taiwan, for example, he or she will always be viewed as a foreigner - never Taiwanese.

I agree, but the fact that it happens in other places doesnt mean that asians have no right to complain about it. We are all Australians after all - a fair go and all that.

Sadly, Asians in this country like to make a big deal about racism in Australia, but having lived in an Asian country, I can tell you that racism is alive and well in Asia.

Asians make a big deal about racism in this country because it is alive a kicking. I am well aware that racism is alive and well in Asia, I know that. It is alive to a much greater extent than it is here. But why become complacent just because things are better here than there? We should be continually trying to better ourselves. Such comparisons such as those you have highlighted, simply empower the need to be the shining example of good governance and social cohesion in our region.

At least people from non-anglo backgrounds have the opportunity of being considered 'australian'.

Indeed, and this is proof of how advanced we are. It is a shame that such a view is not shares with all of my countrymen and women.

Yyz717,

Well, she chose to voluntarily stay in Aus.....so things must have been worse in Bhutan.

Yes indeed things were worse and you are correct in stating that she volutarily stayed in Australia

I'm tired of hearing how hard 3rd world immigrants have it in Aus, the US, Canada.....given the conditions they came from.

That is a flawed argument. Are you saying that immigrants should settle for second best just because they came from worse? I think not.

Clearly, if conditions were that bad.....many would return home.

This country is not perfect and there are still major injustices within it. Conditions were that bad, but I think that it reflects well on my Mother as opposed to badly on this country in relation to her decision to stay here.

Oh please.....non-whites in Aus have it pretty good.

No, they do not. Although Australia does have an advanced, forward thinking, developed society, there is still racial discrimination. Going on the list of Government legislation in relation to the persecution of non-whites then I think it is fair to say that in history Australia was legislated in such a way that non-whites were not welcome. Although the legislation may have been changes, the mind fame among some in society exists.

They're living in a democratic 1st world country

True.

I'm sure many Bhutanese would trade places with you.

Perhaps they would, I have no way of telling such a thing. But although I was born in Bhutan I have lived 99% of my life in Australia. 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 of different racial origin.


Regards,

QANTASforever
Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 11, 2002 12:57 pm

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 of different racial origin.

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 prosper in, thereafter) to. I don't see many Brits or Aussies emigrating to Bhutan.

Those "rights and entitlements" are ironically only guaranteed in largely anglo-saxon countries such as the US, Aus, NZ, Canada, the UK and Europe. Ironic eh????






I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
jsmith
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 9:26 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 11, 2002 1:16 pm

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 email me your email address (if that's OK)? Have a few questions to ask you.

Many thanks
 
QANTASforever
Topic Author
Posts: 5794
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:03 am

RE: The Republic Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland

Mon Nov 11, 2002 3:45 pm

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 prosper in, thereafter) to.

You have presented nothing new. I have agreed with that from the start. The entire crux of my argument concerned not dismissing the contribution of other groups other than anglo-saxons. I have never sought to undermine the fact that the British have had a major influence on this country.

I don't see many Brits or Aussies emigrating to Bhutan

True, but I fail to see what exactly you mean by that comment.

Those "rights and entitlements" are ironically only guaranteed in largely anglo-saxon countries such as the US, Aus, NZ, Canada, the UK and Europe. Ironic eh????

I think that is a bit dismissive of other democracies but indeed it is an indisputable fact that I as an Australian can enjoy the benefits of a democracy. I have never sought to undermine that either.

Regards,

QANTASforever



Fighting for the glory of the Australian Republic.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests