 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / January 2008Time for an Australia Republic is ripe now!
The ouster of Howard is a good sign. Now that there are two party leaders who champion the cause of a Republic, it should be incumbent to further this cause: More than 60% of Australians, and more than 90% of young Australian citizens, back the removal of this "peculiar institution" that has no place in a modern, egalitarian society, and switch back into a Republican mode. (By Republican I do NOT mean a George-Bush-Republican by any way!). Howard botched the majority's will by deviously undermining the Republican campaign. It should be noted that it should be learned from the mistakes made and either: 1. Kevin Rudd go two stages - first "Yes" or "No" to the Republic concept. OR 2. Primary ballot question in that regard, followed by sub-questions in order to determine: a. Do you want a symbolic head of state elected by Parliament. b. Do you want to switch to a Republican executive mode as in the USA. c. Do you want to popularly elect a figurehead president like in Ireland? OR d. Do you want Parliament to elect an executive president (as in Italy)? This time, with an avowed Republican at the helm, do not repeat past mistakes. David Huang P.S. With Turnbull possibly winning the Liberal Party's ensuing primaries, maybe it's going to turn out for the best. Two Republican party leaders. On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > b. Do you want to switch to a Republican executive mode as in the USA. Presumably with a continuing parliamentary system in each of the states? > On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > b. Do you want to switch to a Republican executive mode as in the USA. > > Presumably with a continuing parliamentary system in each of the > states? No. Make it more like the US system of federalism. On Nov 27, 8:43 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No. Make it more like the US system of federalism. Good, that will complicate matters no end and lead to a lovely bun fight for decades. Of course, one wonders how you are going to sell your little plan of banning those born outside Australia from becoming Australian head of state, to sundry Vietnamese, Filipinos, Chinese and the like. Turkeys voting for Christmas? Oops, sorry, Thanksgiving? On Nov 27, 3:43 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No. Make it more like the US system of federalism. I thought CJ was asking about the structure of State government. In the US 49 states have an elected Governor, and an elected bicameral legislature. Nebraska's legislature is unicameral. Most of the legislatures are part time. Which is not ideal in a time of crises, because there are three people who can blame each-other for inaction, and a part-time legislature can't really do much. In my state (Michigan) the legislature is full-time, but we still have fun with the blame game. Every year for the past 5 or 6 we've had a budget crises, early this year the leader of the state Senate announced he had a miraculous plan to save the state, without raising taxes. But it was secret so he could only tell the governor personally, and goshdarnit he just had no time to meet with her in the next three months. of course the crises is still unresolved, but it's kinda fun watching the politicians scramble for a new "solution" every month or two. Australia's states use a Parliamentary system. There's one house of the legislature, which elects the Executive branch, It makes the blame- game much harder. Note that under US-style federalism just about anything would be legal for the states to try, the trick is convincing the American people that something else is better. Nick On Nov 28, 2:55 pm, "Nicholas...@gmail.com" <Nicholas...@gmail.com> wrote: > Australia's states use a Parliamentary system. There's one house of > the legislature, which elects the Executive branch Australian state governments are not elected by their respective parliaments; they're appointed by the state's governor (acting on behalf of the Queen). -- AGw. On Nov 28, 11:33 am, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2:55 pm, "Nicholas...@gmail.com" <Nicholas...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > AGw. Are you sure about that? I did a little research on Wikipedia, and Queensland apparently uses the system I described. Nick On Nov 28, 6:39 pm, "Nicholas...@gmail.com" <Nicholas...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 28, 11:33 am, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Are you sure about that? I did a little research on Wikipedia, and > Queensland apparently uses the system I described. I don't have time at the moment to look into it properly, but you might have me on Queensland; if I recall correctly, they pretty much overhauled their entire constitution in 2006 or so, but I'm not sure of what actual changes were made. I think I've got a copy of the new legislation somewhere, and will try to look at it later. -- AGw. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >No. Make it more like the US system of federalism. > Yes and create republic where any twit can be president :) >>>On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Yes and create republic where any twit can be president :) Gosh, that was clever. With such rapier wit, perhaps you should stand for elected office. steveo > david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes and create republic where any twit can be president :) That of course is possible but is not the point here. How many twits have been King or Queen in the past ? Australia has just got rid of twit who has been PM for the past 11 years. The point is that Australia, like any other country deserves it's Head of State to be a local. On Nov 29, 7:56 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have been King or Queen in the past ? Australia has just got rid of > twit who has been PM for the past 11 years. Well, isn't there a whole lot of difference between choosing a twit to represent one than having nature provided one for you? What does that say about those who do the choosing? What does that say about the likelyhood of choosing twits, again and again? > The point is that Australia, like any other country deserves it's Head > of State to be a local. Nobody, apart from a handful of people anywhere in the world ever get a chance to see a local as Head of State. The larger the geographical entity, the smaller the chance. Of course, there are exceptions, but most Heads of State will come from a narrow political or economic group and live in an exclusive area. Given that most Heads of State come from the majority ethnic, religious or cultural background, many will "never" see a local as Head of State. The chances of Jo Bloggs down the road, will hardly ever happen. Should Australia ever become a republic, of course, the first chappie or chappess will be the usual window dressing. Perhaps a nice old lady of 82. But thereafter, it will be the grey suits, the almost successful and the political hasbeens, given the job in some back room compromise dressed up as an "election". Nobody in the rest of the world will ever remember him and even when he in office, few will not be able to tell you his name. Perhaps one ought to point out that Perth and Darwin are closer to Singapore and Jakarta than to the major Australian capitals. Perhaps an Indonesian, Singaporean or Malaysian would be in your mind, a local. On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > Howard botched the majority's will by deviously undermining the > Republican campaign. It should be noted that it should be learned from [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > d. Do you want Parliament to elect an executive president (as in > Italy)? I don't see how your option 2 could form a viable basis for a referendum that would comply with the requirements set out in the constitution. Unless there was an enormous level of support for one of the alternative models you've listed, the pro-republican vote would almost certainly be split between at least two of them, with the almost inevitable result that the entire vote would fail due to an insufficient majority... especially when taking into account that pro- monarchists would almost certainly engage in co-ordinated tactical voting! Having accused Howard of scuppering the last referendum, what you've suggested here seems likely to scupper a new one. Unfortunate as it might be, the only realistic option in my view is for the vote to be a straight choice between a particular model and the status quo. -- AGw. On Nov 27, 5:08 pm, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote: > On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > monarchists would almost certainly engage in co-ordinated tactical > voting! Republicans too unintelligent to engage in tactical voting. Deary me! Surely you wouldn't want to deny them a public squabble about which particular type of republican option should go first on the ballot paper, which second and so on? > Having accused Howard of scuppering the last referendum, what you've > suggested here seems likely to scupper a new one. > > Unfortunate as it might be, the only realistic option in my view is > for the vote to be a straight choice between a particular model and > the status quo. But surely that would deny each type of immigrant the ooportunity of voting for their pet type of republic? Mr Huang generously caters for the Irish, the Italians and the Americans, but why has he missed out the Vietnamese type of republic, I wonder. Surely not because I frightened him over his earlier Freudian slip? On 27 Nov, 18:08, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote: > On Nov 27, 4:00 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > for the vote to be a straight choice between a particular model and > the status quo. I don't think that it is unfortunate at all. The form of government is a far too serious business to be decided on the basis of what people are dead against. And most Australien republicans aren't republicans in thre true sense, just anti-monarchists. However, there is no form of government called anti-monarchy. As soon as the Australian people have found a specific form of government that they like better than the current one, they of course should adopt it. But scrapping the monarchy because a a majority of the Australians are in favour of something else, although none of the mutually very exclusive "something elses" is even remotely as popular as the status quo, is a travesty of democracy. Jan Böhme In alt.talk.royalty Jan B0hme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote: : On 27 Nov, 18:08, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> : wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] : as the Australian people have found a specific form of government that : they like better than the current one, they of course should adopt it. The idea that people should feel entitled to choose their form of government is a republican one,and as an ideological Monarchist I must reject it...every nation should ideally be a Monarchy. : But scrapping the monarchy because a a majority of the Australians : are in favour of something else, although none of the mutually very : exclusive "something elses" is even remotely as popular as the status : quo, is a travesty of democracy. Not that democracy is necessarily a virtue. : Jan B0hme -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > On 27 Nov, 18:08, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > exclusive "something elses" is even remotely as popular as the status > quo, is a travesty of democracy. But of course.. Far be it for sheeple to rise up and bleat in a most unseemly and ennervated manner against their titluar lord and master whenever er majesty deigns to pass gas in their general direction. Back to your pens, sheeple. On 28 Nov, 18:58, lorad...@cs.com wrote: > > As soon > > as the Australian people have found a specific form of government that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ennervated manner against their titluar lord and master whenever er > majesty deigns to pass gas in their general direction. You just proved my point. You're entitled to hold any view on the monarchy, but the important thing politically is what form of government that you want, not what you don't want. If the type of government you prefer is preferred by the majority of the Australian voters, no problem. But as long as no republican system has even a plurality of the Australian voters, anyone who proposes an open-ended referendum on the monarchy vs absolutely everything else, shrouded in the smoky veils of the word "Republic", is either a complete twit, or an undemocratic schemer dead set on getting the people of Australia where it doesn't want to go. Or, possibly, both. Jan Böhme On Nov 28, 3:00 am, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > The ouster of Howard is a good sign. Now that there are two party > leaders who champion the cause of a Republic, it should be incumbent [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > primaries, maybe it's going to turn out for the best. Two Republican > party leaders. Hopefully Prime Minister-elect, Mr. Rudd will have more important matters on his mind rather than bring up this old warhorse again. Mr. Huang, I don't know where you get this figure of 60% in favour of a republic when the question was overwhelmingly voted "No" in a majority of the states in 1999. I presume also that you and your republican cohorts are to fund the cost of putting the vote again? Last time it cost over $5 million. Why waste the taxpayers money putting this question over and over until you may think you will get the result you want? In Australia we have a healthy disrepect of politicians and the "No" vote in the 1999 referendum clearly indicated that Australians were not prepared to vote in more politicising in the highest office in the land. Whilst some Australians might not be too keen on the monarchy, they certainly would prefer something that they know works rather than try something they are not too sure about. In closing I think there is something unique about Australia, Canada and New Zealand in the way our systems work and we should be proud of it rather than wanting to abolish it. Regards Donald Binks In alt.talk.royalty Donald4564 <dbinks@aapt.net.au> wrote: : On Nov 28, 3:00 am, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: :> The ouster of Howard is a good sign. Now that there are two party [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] : waste the taxpayers money putting this question over and over until : you may think you will get the result you want? That's the republican way...vote on it as many times as necessary to get a "Yes" and then treat that "Yes" as settling the matter for all eternity with no possibility of reversal. : In Australia we have a healthy disrepect of politicians and the "No" : vote in the 1999 referendum clearly indicated that Australians were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : and New Zealand in the way our systems work and we should be proud of : it rather than wanting to abolish it. Ideally,the various "modernizations" of recent decades should be rolled back as well. A GG should preferably come from anywhere in the Commonwealth BUT the Dominion over which he presides,in order to be truly impartial. : Regards : Donald Binks -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. In alt.talk.royalty david_huang2007@hotmail.com wrote: : The ouster of Howard is a good sign. Now that there are two party : leaders who champion the cause of a Republic, it should be incumbent : to further this cause: More than 60% of Australians, and more than 90% : of young Australian citizens, back the removal of this "peculiar : institution" that has no place in a modern, egalitarian society, and Then "modern,egalitarian society" needs to be abandoned, and a society more firmly founded on loyalty to the Monarchy built. : switch back into a Republican mode. (By Republican I do NOT mean a : George-Bush-Republican by any way!). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] : This time, with an avowed Republican at the helm, do not repeat past : mistakes. To have an avowed Republican at a helm IS a mistake. : David Huang : : P.S. With Turnbull possibly winning the Liberal Party's ensuing : primaries, maybe it's going to turn out for the best. Two Republican : party leaders. There's nothing good about republics. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > There's nothing good about republics. what about israel reppublic, epsztain? b'wahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! btov haifa, israel > > In alt.talk.royalty david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > btov > haifa, israel The important detail here for Australia is ensuring that the country ends up with a local as Head of State regardless of their ethnic background. At present they have a foreigner in that role, a "state" of affairs I am sure everyone would agree the majority of other countries would not stand for. On Nov 28, 10:52 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > > In alt.talk.royalty david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > of affairs I am sure everyone would agree the majority of other > countries would not stand for.- Hide quoted text - Indeed you would be perfectly correct. Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner. Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State? > Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant > of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner. I was under the impression that the High Court of Australia had ruled in recent years that British citizens (without concurrent Australian citizenship) were foreigners. However, legal arguments in either direction are a bit beside the point; people don't judge such things on the basis of what the law says, but rather how they think things *ought* to be. -- AGw. On Nov 29, 3:14 am, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote: > > Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant > > of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > AGw. You are right and CJ Buyers is wrong regarding the foreigner debate. On Nov 28, 4:14 pm, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote: > > Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant > > of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner. > > I was under the impression that the High Court of Australia had ruled > in recent years that British citizens (without concurrent Australian > citizenship) were foreigners. See my reply to Donald elsewhere, for my comments on that matter. > However, legal arguments in either direction are a bit beside the > point; people don't judge such things on the basis of what the law > says, but rather how they think things *ought* to be. In which case the solution is even simpler. It does not require the overturning of the entire political system. A simple Act of Parliament could declare the Queen a citizen tomorrow. > On Nov 28, 10:52 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such > foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State? That is simply not true. Members of the commonwealth are subject to the same Australian immigration laws as anyone from other countries. Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue here at all. In alt.talk.royalty jellore@bigpond.com wrote: :> On Nov 28, 10:52 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: :> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] : have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue : here at all. More to the point... Her Majesty the Queen is by definition THE MOST Australian, MOST Canadian, MOST Jamaican, MOST Barbadian, etc. person in the world...as all those nationalities are properly defined through allegiance to Her person. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. You would have trouble trying to convince the majority of Australians of that. In alt.talk.royalty jellore@bigpond.com wrote: :> In alt.talk.royalty jellore@bigpond.com wrote: :> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] : You would have trouble trying to convince the majority of Australians : of that. This indicates a disastrous weakness on the part of the Australian educational system. :> -=-=- :> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, :> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > :> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, > :> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. Oh please we are living in the 21st century, the time of absolutism is over. I have no problem with monarchy at all, if it is merely symbolic in style. >> In alt.talk.royalty jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > Oh please we are living in the 21st century, the time of absolutism is > over. I have no problem with monarchy at all, if it is merely symbolic > in style. You won't get anything with this sensible argument. He is obsessed with the idea of divine right etc :-) Allan In alt.talk.royalty jellore@bigpond.com wrote: :> In alt.talk.royalty jell...@bigpond.com wrote: :> [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] : over. I have no problem with monarchy at all, if it is merely symbolic : in style. The lack of popularity of theoretical absolutism can never affect its status as the ideal system of government. That's true in the 21st century AD,as it was in the 21st century BC, and will be in the 121st! :> :> -=-=- :> :> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, :> :> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > Alas, in this as many other things, republicans are largely ignorant > > of Australian law. Nobody from a Commonwealth country is a foreigner. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That is simply not true. Members of the commonwealth are subject to > the same Australian immigration laws as anyone from other countries. Not that I know anything about the issue, but the immigration laws are not the only laws that might discriminate between different types on non-citizens. Are there any other situations than immigration where the Australian law provides a special status to citizens of a member of the Commonwealth? One silly little thing might be enough to justify Christopher's assertion. > Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not > they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I > have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue > here at all. The issue Christopher wanted to raise was that of dual nationality, which is quite distinct from the issue you seem to have imagined - and highly pertinent for the discussion. Surely the Queen of Australia as of today must be technically Australian - even though she also is quite a lot else besides? Jan Böhme >On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >of the Commonwealth? One silly little thing might be enough to justify >Christopher's assertion. I believe that both Canada and New Zealand allow Commonwealth citizens to serve in their armed forces without requiring them to be naturalised. Does Australia do the same?  SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > Incidentally, since those of French or Greek descent remain nationals > > of those countries for eternity, will your republic be banning such > > foreigners from being eligible to become Australian Head of State? ><snip> > Anyone with an Australian passport is an Australian, whether or not > they were born overseas or can claim 6 or 7 generations born here. I > have no idea why you would raise such an issue. It is not an issue > here at all. The actual issue that Christopher raised is different from the one you imagined. It's about dual nationality: If the Queen won't do as an Australian because she holds other nationalities as well, why would another Australian with dual nationality - say, being both an Australian and a Greek national - be eligible as Head of State? Jan Böhme > On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jan Böhme I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all. The Queen does not hold dual citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British. That was my point. On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On 28 Nov, 22:34, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I did not misunderstand Mr Buyers at all. The Queen does not hold dual > citizenship, she is not Australian, she is British. That was my point.- Hide quoted text - And the legal basis for this is? > On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > And the legal basis for this is? Are you seriously trying to say that The Queen is an Australian citizen ? On Nov 30, 11:18 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On Nov 30, 9:12 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Are you seriously trying to say that The Queen is an Australian > citizen ?- Hide quoted text - I am simply asking you to justify your claim. > On Nov 30, 11:18 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I am simply asking you to justify your claim. I think it is perfectly clear that The Queen is not an Australian citizen. It is clear she is not Australian. It is clear that she is in fact British. Therefore Australia has a foreigner as it's Head of State. That is galling to the majority of Australians, just as it would if an Australian were the Head of State of the UK. On 30 Nov, 22:47, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On Nov 30, 11:18 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > State. That is galling to the majority of Australians, just as it > would if an Australian were the Head of State of the UK. The majority of Australians are then morons. Secularist, 'egalitarian' scumbags. In article <66c51925-2622-44ce-a913-0543fdcb71af@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > I think it is perfectly clear that The Queen is not an Australian > citizen. It is clear she is not Australian. It is clear that she is in > fact British. Therefore Australia has a foreigner as it's Head of > State. That is galling to the majority of Australians, just as it > would if an Australian were the Head of State of the UK. Your clarity is as clear as mud. The Queen is *not* a citizen of the UK (she is Queen and head of state) and being British doesn't exclude citizens of Australia. Whilst you're free to reject it, 'British' is a valid description of any citizen of any country that is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. As a member of a comparatively recent immigrant family the Queen is as foreign to some people here as she might be to you. That doesn't matter except in pub arguments as her ancestry is irrelevant to the role she plays. Channel 4 last night re-ran the programme about our 'true' (Plantagenant) King. I'd have no quibbles about him taking up that post. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > The Queen is *not* a citizen of the UK (she > is Queen and head of state) and being British doesn't exclude citizens of > Australia. You appear to be assuming that what is true in the law of the UK must be exactly mirrored in the laws of the other Commonwealth realms, which is simply not the case. > Whilst you're free to reject it, 'British' is a valid description > of any citizen of any country that is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. I cordially suggest you buy a more recent dictionary than one published in the 1930s! -- AGw. On Nov 30, 1:33 pm, "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote: > > Whilst you're free to reject it, 'British' is a valid description > > of any citizen of any country that is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. > > I cordially suggest you buy a more recent dictionary than one > published in the 1930s! Actually, he need not do so at all. He may simply refer to the Australian Citizenship Acts prior to 1984 and to the existing Australian Commonwealth Electoral Law. In article <bd93bbb8-b163-4ce9-a7c5-b01a30f85a30@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, AGw. (Usenet) <frederick@southernskies.co.uk> wrote: > > The Queen is *not* a citizen of the UK (she is Queen and head of state) > > and being British doesn't exclude citizens of Australia. > You appear to be assuming that what is true in the law of the UK must be > exactly mirrored in the laws of the other Commonwealth realms, which is > simply not the case. The assumption is international. The Head of State does not act as a citizen whilst Head of State and that is recognised by all countries of all Heads of State. > > Whilst you're free to reject it, 'British' is a valid description of any > > citizen of any country that is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. > I cordially suggest you buy a more recent dictionary than one published in > the 1930s! Your choice if you reject it. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > In article > <bd93bbb8-b163-4ce9-a7c5-b01a30f85...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, AGw. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Your choice if you reject it. Alas he has no choice in the matter, it is the law of his land. According to Australian law, "British Subject" has precisely the meaning that you gave to it in your earlier message. All Commonwealth citizens of those states that recognise HM as their Head of State, those who have their own monarch or those that are republics, are deemed "British Subjects". That is the case in all the Citizenship Acts until 1984. It is the same with the current Commonwealth (i.e. federal) Electoral Law. >> In article >> <bd93bbb8-b163-4ce9-a7c5-b01a30f85...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, AGw. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Acts until 1984. It is the same with the current Commonwealth (i.e. > federal) Electoral Law. The term 'British Subject' has an entirely different meaning in Britain. However it is a bit of a silly thread. The Queen isn't a citizen of anywhere but it is clear that she and her family are British. Allan > > In article > > <bd93bbb8-b163-4ce9-a7c5-b01a30f85...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, AGw. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Acts until 1984. It is the same with the current Commonwealth (i.e. > federal) Electoral Law. Are you saying that all Australian citizens are in fact "British subjects" ? If so you are wrong, both ethically and legally. On Dec 1, 2:03 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > > In article > > > <bd93bbb8-b163-4ce9-a7c5-b01a30f85...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, AGw. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Are you saying that all Australian citizens are in fact "British > subjects" ? If so you are wrong, both ethically and legally.- Hide quoted text - I do not draw up Australian legislation so "I" am not saying anything. It is Australian law which defines the meaning of "British Subject" in a certain way and then proceeds to state that Australian Citizens are British Subjects. I have cited the legislation and provided a direct link elsewhere. You are free to read them yourself, and pronounce on their legality, if you enjoy that power! > On Dec 1, 2:03 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > link elsewhere. You are free to read them yourself, and pronounce on > their legality, if you enjoy that power! Your politics stand somewhere between Robert Menzies and John Howard, that is roughly the 1960's. Try telling the average Australian that they also happen to be a "British subject". You quote outdated legislation in defence of a Briton being Head of another State. On Dec 1, 10:44 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2:03 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Your politics stand somewhere between Robert Menzies and John Howard, > that is roughly the 1960's. You haven't got the slightest idea what my politics are or who I vote for. > Try telling the average Australian that > they also happen to be a "British subject". > > You quote outdated legislation in defence of a Briton being Head of > another State.- Hide quoted text - I am afraid you are woefully missinformed. If you cared to follow the link that I gave elsewhere, you may have just noticed that the law was current as of October 2007. Are there any pieces of legislation or court cases you care to quote which have overturned them in the last month? > On Dec 1, 10:44 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > any pieces of legislation or court cases you care to quote which have > overturned them in the last month? Surely someone being or not being a British Subject has very much to do with how Britain views it - in the modern world Australian Citizens are not British Subjects. You can't be both a citizen of a country (the UK, Australia or whatever) and a British Subject. Allan > > On Dec 1, 10:44 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > British Subjects. You can't be both a citizen of a country (the UK, > Australia or whatever) and a British Subject. In the modern world, the fact of the matter is that Australian legislation defines what a British Subject is for its own purposes and for its own laws. It actually has nothing to do with how British law defines the term. The issue basically boils down to this. Each of the Australian states is older than the state known as the Commonwealth of Australia. They were self governing long before "Australia" came into being. A good many of the rights, priviledges, duties and obligations that the residents of the individual states enjoy, derive to them as British subjects under the laws of those states. When the Commonwealth (federal government) did away with the status of British subject in its citizenship legislation, the states had to rush through legislation reversing the decision in respect of their own laws or saying that the status would continue as if the federal law remained in place. Even the federal government itself made a similar provision in regard to the federal electoral law. Each of the states has done so in a slightly different way. Some say that British Subjects are Australian Citizens (e.g. Victoria), some that Australian Citizens are British Subjects (e.g. New South Wales), and some saying that the two terms are interchangeable (e.g. Western Australia). >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >> Surely someone being or not being a British Subject has very much to do [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > legislation defines what a British Subject is for its own purposes and > for its own laws. It actually has nothing to do with how British But your posts state quite openly this person or that person is or isn't a British Subject. You are obviously talking about something else other than the usual more common idea of what a British Subject is and this seperate thing doesn't even relate to the UK or Great Britain. I'm left thinking it would be far less confusing for Australia to find a seperate term for whatever is being described here? Allan > >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > >> Surely someone being or not being a British Subject has very much to do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > would be far less confusing for Australia to find a seperate term for > whatever is being described here? The discussion here is about Australian plans for a republic or otherwise. The claim was made that a recent court case in Australia, which relied upon a 1984 change in the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948, made the Queen a foreigner or alien in Australian law. That is plainly not the case. >> >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> Surely someone being or not being a British Subject has very much to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 1948, made the Queen a foreigner or alien in Australian law. That is > plainly not the case. Law can say anything! I'm not really addressing that.The other poster also said that the Queen is British which in reality she obviously is. Allan > >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Law can say anything! I'm not really addressing that. Indeed, laws can say anything. After all, it is laws which tell us that someone is British or not British. It is laws which define who is an alien and who is not. It is law which gives us a Queen. Quite what you are addressing, of course, is difficult to follow. Apart from bluff and bluster, there does not seem to be very much there. > The other poster also > said that the Queen is British which in reality she obviously is. That she is British, is beyond question. Unfortunately for you, several Australian laws also say that for their purposes, British subjects (including British citizens) are Australian citizens, or vice versa, or the terms are interchangeable. >> > The discussion here is about Australian plans for a republic or >> > otherwise. The claim was made that a recent court case in Australia, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that someone is British or not British. It is laws which define who is > an alien and who is not. It is law which gives us a Queen. Yes but a dog is dog. You could give a pet owner a piece of paper to say his dog is a cat. But it is still a dog. Likewise the Monarch isn't a Brtish Citizen, because she's the Monarch, but she's still British. Born in Britain from a long list of British monarchs on her paternal side and Scots/English nobility on her maternal side; lived in Britain all her life; and brought up all her family in Britain. You can argue about this or that law or declaration but it doesn't change the fact that Betty is as British as fish and chips. It is clearly absurd and self deluding to suggest otherwise. > Quite what you are addressing, of course, is difficult to follow. > Apart from bluff and bluster, there does not seem to be very much [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > subjects (including British citizens) are Australian citizens, or vice > versa, or the terms are interchangeable. They can only be interchangeable if it is agreed by all sides. It isn't! The UK doesn't recognise Australians as British Subjects or British Citizens - and in fact the UK doesn't even recognise British Citizens as British Subjects so your above bracketed statement doesn't make sense. Allan > >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes but a dog is dog. You could give a pet owner a piece of paper to say his > dog is a cat. But it is still a dog. Alas, it sin't me who is giving the owner a piece of paper. Parliament is sovereign and can make a law on virtually anything. A dog of a particular dangerous breed may be as placid and calm as a lamb, it may have just three legs, all its teeth may have fallen out, but Parliament still defines it as a dangerous dog to be destroyed. >Likewise the Monarch isn't a Brtish > Citizen, because she's the Monarch, but she's still British. She is "still" British what? > Born in Britain > from a long list of British monarchs on her paternal side and Scots/English [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and chips. > It is clearly absurd and self deluding to suggest otherwise. Do they eat fish and chips in Australia? Are there any fish and chip shops left? I remember one near my old school in Coburg - run by Greeks. > > Quite what you are addressing, of course, is difficult to follow. > > Apart from bluff and bluster, there does not seem to be very much [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > They can only be interchangeable if it is agreed by all sides. > It isn't! The > UK doesn't recognise Australians as British Subjects or British Citizens - > and in fact the UK doesn't even recognise British Citizens as British > Subjects so your above bracketed statement doesn't make sense. Could you please point me to the particular Australian law which states that Australian laws have to be agreed with other nations? >> >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Could you please point me to the particular Australian law which > states that Australian laws have to be agreed with other nations? Again this a completely ludicrous thread. The Queen is British because she is British. She was born in Britain; with British ancestors going back over 1000 years; she's lived all her life in Britain; her family were all born and raised in Britain. Because she is monarch of Austraaia she may basically be regarded as an honorary Aussie but she is still actually British. Apart from the fact that she became monarch does she have any real connection to Australia at all? It doesn't make one bit of difference to me what Australia does regarding the monarchy I'm only stating the obvious that the Queen is British. All you are doing is pretending that your Head of State is Australian. There may be many arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy but that seems to be an illogical one. Allan > >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > 1000 years; she's lived all her life in Britain; her family were all born > and raised in Britain. She is British what? If she isn't a British citizen, what is she? Is she stateless? Is she a refugee? You still haven't told us. If it is British by race that you mean, have the courage to say so. > Because she is monarch of Austraaia she may basically > be regarded as an honorary Aussie but she is still actually British. What Australian law does uses the terms "basically" or "honorary"? > Apart > from the fact that she became monarch does she have any real > connection to Australia at all? Well, there is also the small matter of her being heiress to that throne, and before that Australia being a fully paid up and enthusiastic member of the empire. In short, her entire life. As for the small matter of being Head of State, she has only been that for more than half the time Australia has been a single state. She has more experience and knowledge of Australia than just about any Australian politician in active life. She has probably visited more parts of it and met people from more walks of life than your Prime Minister (wasnt't he a diplomat who spent much of his working life abroad?). > It doesn't make one bit of difference to me what Australia > does regarding the monarchy I'm only stating the obvious that the Queen is > British. All you are doing is pretending that your Head of State is > Australian. There may be many arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy > but that seems to be an illogical one. Sorry old, chap, you add and change nothing by your post. The fact remains that various Australian laws state that a British subject (British citizen or citizen of another Commonwealth country) is Australian, vice versa, or the two terms are interchangeable, as far as Australia's own laws are concerned. They stand on their own, whether or not the Queen is monarch of Australia. If Australia became a republic tomorrow, those laws and their definitions will still remain. I have given you four references. I can give you a few more, if you wish. To prove your point you need to show us laws or legal decisions overturning those specific acts. The Australian Parliamentary website has now been updated and those laws are still current as of 3rd December 2007. So you will have a hard time of it. Now, I am sorry that your politians have told you something else. I am sorry if labor republicans have proudly proclaimed that they have changed the law making the Queen an alien. As I have shown, all of the laws referenced were passed by Australian Labor governments, after the changes in the federal citiznship laws. So they were done delibrately and intentionally, not "inherited" due to some subtefuge behand closed doors and pistols held to their heads by nameless officials in the "Foreign" Office in London. Some of those governments, like that in NSW, were avowed republicans. Wake up to the real world; politicians lie. >> > Could you please point me to the particular Australian law which >> > states that Australian laws have to be agreed with other nations? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If it is British by race that you mean, have the courage to say so. I never mentioned race. She isn't a citizen because she is the monarch. She is still British though. As I said she was born in Britain; from a family with British ancestors going back hundreds of years; she's lived in Britain all her life and her family were born and brought up in Britain. It is as straightforward as that. Pure logic. >> Because she is monarch of Austraaia she may basically >> be regarded as an honorary Aussie but she is still actually British. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > throne, and before that Australia being a fully paid up and > enthusiastic member of the empire. In short, her entire life. And in short she has no real connection with Australia apart from the fact that the Brtish monarch is still monarch and Head of State in Australia. That was of course the point of jellore's posts! > As for the small matter of being Head of State, she has only been that > for more than half the time Australia has been a single state. She has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Minister (wasnt't he a diplomat who spent much of his working life > abroad?). Well Tony Blair the ex-PM lived in Australia for a while when he was a child. I don't imagine Gordie has any connection with Australia but what relevance is that anyway? >> It doesn't make one bit of difference to me what Australia >> does regarding the monarchy I'm only stating the obvious that the Queen [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > NSW, were avowed republicans. Wake up to the real world; politicians > lie. Wake up to the real world and face facts. A foreign country can't decide who is and who isn't legally British, a British Citizen, or a British Subject. They may call people that but it isn't talking about the same thing. Of course as far as the Briitsh Nationality Act is concerned it wasn't done by Labour or republicans. It went through parliament when Thatcher's Conservative government were in power. Besides I have said several times that it doesn't affect me whether Australia goes Republican or not. I enetered the thread because of your absurd suggestion that the monarch wasn't British. Allan . Besides I have said several times > that it doesn't affect me whether Australia goes Republican or not. Well, except for the time-serving crooked politician who gets the job, who does care? It's not as if anything much will change anywhere... I imagine a number of freeloaders will get some extra free and very big dinners in Australia on a fairly regular basis if there's a resident head-of-state, and I also imagine there'll be some employment opportunities for security men and domestic staff prepared to be obsequious in all circumstances, but that's about it. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:53:23 -0000 from allan connochie <allan@noemail.co.uk>: > She isn't a citizen because she is the monarch. She > is still British though. True, but to say that she is British does not exclude the possibility of her *also* being Australian. You keep repeating "She is British, she is British", and I can't tell whether you mean that to counter "she is not British" (clearly false) or "she is Australian" (not so clear either way). Many, many people are citizens of two countries. The Queen is not a citizen, but she could nonetheless be "of" more than one country. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Royalty FAQs: 1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html 2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm Yvonne's HRH page: http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/ ~canyon/prince.html more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm > Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:53:23 -0000 from allan connochie > <allan@noemail.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Many, many people are citizens of two countries. The Queen is not a > citizen, but she could nonetheless be "of" more than one country. That is true but one poster was suggesting that Australia should have an Australian as Head of State, Mr Buyers countered that by saying legally the monarch is Australian, and what I'm saying is that argument doesn't make sense. If the monarch legally becomes Australian then it would be impossible to ever have a non-Australian HOS as all that is happening is there are 'honorary Australians' being created because of their position as monarch. It still doesn't counter the original poster's argument that there should be a real (for want of a better word) Australian as HOS. By real I mean someone who has some actual connection to the country other than happening to be the monarch or heir to the British throne. As I've said on several occassions it is easy to give reasons as to why she is British. She was born here as were her parents and she has numerous family lines going back hundreds, some more than a thousand years; she has lived here all her life; her family were all born and brought up here and all still live here! It is patently obvious that she is British. On the other hand apart from her title (I say apart from because the point of the original poster was it shouldn't extend to Aus) what actual concrete connection does she have with Australia? All Buyers could come up with is she's visited the country a few times which is hardly concrete and again it's mostly, possibly exclusively, been through her position. She wasn't born in Australia; as ar as I know she has never lived in Australia; and again as far as I know she has no Australian ancestors. It doesn't make sense for one person to suggest that a non-Australian shouldn't be HOS and for that point to be countered by saying that whoever becomes British monarch is automatically Australian anyway. I'm not entering the actual argument myself on the principle of who should be HOS just suggesting that Buyer's argument in that case doesn't work. Surely there are arguments to put for keeping the status quo without going to the lengths of pretending the Queen is actually a real Australian? Allan Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:58:26 GMT from allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com>: > On the other hand apart from her title (I say apart > from because the point of the original poster was it shouldn't extend to > Aus) what actual concrete connection does she have with Australia? She's one of the most recognized faces in that country. Nevertheless... > I'm not entering the actual argument myself on the principle of who > should be HOS Nor am I. > Surely there are arguments to put for keeping the status quo > without going to the lengths of pretending the Queen is actually a > real Australian? I don't think there's much agreement going to be found in this newsgroup on the meaning of the word "real". :-) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Royalty FAQs: 1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html 2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm Yvonne's HRH page: http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/ ~canyon/prince.html more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm > Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:58:26 GMT from allan connochie > <conncohies@noemail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > She's one of the most recognized faces in that country. > Nevertheless... >> I'm not entering the actual argument myself on the principle of who >> should be HOS [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't think there's much agreement going to be found in this > newsgroup on the meaning of the word "real". :-) That is true but I couldn't come up with a better word. By 'real' I mean someone who has some concrete association with the country. That is born there, relatives or ancestors there, or even just lived there. Allan > > Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:58:26 GMT from allan connochie > > <conncoh...@noemail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > someone who has some concrete association with the country. That is born > there, relatives or ancestors there, or even just lived there. You have not addressed the basic question posed to your line of argument. What makes the Queen British? You have ruled out her being British by citizenship or nationality, so are these the criteria by which she is British? > > "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You have ruled out her being British by citizenship or nationality, so > are these the criteria by which she is British? By birth and of course by the fact her parents and 4 grandparents were born there.....oh dear me was that so difficult ? On Dec 6, 8:29 pm, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > > "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > By birth and of course by the fact her parents and 4 grandparents were > born there.....oh dear me was that so difficult ?- Hide quoted text - I am afraid a good many "Australians" would be British, Chinese or Greek, on that score. The trouble with personal definitions, such as yours, is that they are worthless. > On Dec 6, 8:29 pm, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > The trouble with personal definitions, such as yours, is that they are > worthless. I was talking specifically about Australian citizens Mr Bookseller, which has nothing to do with their place of birth. I am an Australian citizen, however I was born in Scotland. The Sudanese family down the street (yes the ones you refuse to acknowledge) are also Australian citizens. You are barking up the wrong tree Mr Bookseller. These are not personal definations Mr Bookseller. I do think you have lost the plot entirely. On Dec 7, 8:25 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On Dec 6, 8:29 pm, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > These are not personal definations Mr Bookseller. I do think you have > lost the plot entirely.- Hide quoted text - I do not quite understand all this fixation about books? What's the problem you have with them? Did someone make you read when you were a child? Perhaps the lack of reading explains why someone who proceeds to explain that the Queen's status is defined "By birth" (quote) has "nothing to do with their place of birth" (quote). I have certainly lost that particular plot, as I am sure, many others here would vouchsafe. > On Dec 7, 8:25 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > lost that particular plot, as I am sure, many others here would > vouchsafe. No problems with books at all. Why I am surrounded by them as we talk. On Dec 7, 11:59 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On Dec 7, 8:25 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > No problems with books at all. Why I am surrounded by them as we talk.- Hide quoted text - Of course you are dear chap. How else would you be able to reach the desk? I don't know about you, I am writing? Who exactly are you talking too? Don't tell me, there's a mad man in your room. > On Dec 7, 11:59 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > I don't know about you, I am writing? Who exactly are you talking too? > Don't tell me, there's a mad man in your room. I have asked myself that question since the beginning of this thread, who on earth can this madman be that I am talking to ? >> > Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:58:26 GMT from allan connochie >> > <conncoh...@noemail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You have not addressed the basic question posed to your line of > argument. What makes the Queen British? Eh yes I have. I've posted it already several times. She was born in Britain; from British parents and from a long list of British ancestors going back hundreds and sometimes a thousand years or more; she has lived in Britain all her life; her family were born, brought up in and all still live in Britain. The only thing which makes her not a citizen as such is her position as monarch. On the other hand she has no real concrete connection to Australia apart from her position as monarch. Put simply regarding someone as Austrlalian just because they succeed to the British throne is not the same as really having an Australian as monarch. Allan > >> "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > someone as Austrlalian just because they succeed to the British throne is > not the same as really having an Australian as monarch. I am afraid, no, you have not properly explained anything. Many, many Australians were also "born in Britain; from British parents and from a long list of British ancestors going back hundreds and sometimes a thousand years or more". I am also pretty sure that there are lots of Australian citizenss living in Britain, at the last count there were over 500,000 Australian, who have had children who were born here and were brought up in and all still live in Britain, and have done so "all their lives". None of that necessarily means they are not Australian, does it? >> >> "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > "all their lives". None of that necessarily means they are not > Australian, does it? As I said she was born in Britain to British parents, and has 'lived all of her life in Britain' as well as having all her children born and raised here. You are just now being silly. Allan > >> "CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Allan- Hide quoted text - Alas, it is your definitions which are silly. If I am silly, you should have no trouble at all in being able to show otherwise. You are silly, you are mad, you are not inteligent, unfortunately do not cut the mustard. They simply confirm that you are unable to answer the question posed. If applied to the Queen, your definition can be applied to quite a number of people including Australians. It does not rule any of them out as being Australian, one way or the other. That has been the case since you made your very first post. Nothing has changed since. > > Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:58:26 GMT from allan connochie > > <conncoh...@noemail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > someone who has some concrete association with the country. That is born > there, relatives or ancestors there, or even just lived there. Of course, the difficulty with such a definition is that the current Australian Prime Minister would be Chinese. Idi Amin would have been Saudi Arabian, Mengistu a Zimbabwean and Napoleon III would have been British. Conversely, we would have few, if any, "real" citizens of Israel. > > "Stan Brown" <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > British. Conversely, we would have few, if any, "real" citizens of > Israel. This latest post proves you are |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message