While it appears that Australians are completely comfortable with Australia remaining a Constitutional Monarchy and not becoming a Republic, what really riles me up is the insidious practice of creating a fiction to show that we're already an independent country with no legal ties (in reality) to the old country. Oh really? Well without rehashing the whole Republic debate here (the for and against arguments have been done to death over the last 15-20 years), I will just say that the Governor-General is NOT our Head of State, he is the Queen's Viceroy (as I call him), or if you prefer the correct description (as stated on my passport) "the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second". The G-G does NOT receive the full class A diplomatic recognition as the Head of State, indeed he/she gets the B treatment as a mere "representative" of the TRUE Head of State, our glorious benevolent Queen.
But if you think this is no big deal (in reality), what would happen then should the US ask us to be part of a "coalition of the willing" to invade a Commonwealth Country? Sound fanciful? It may've been airbrushed from the public consciousness, but the US invaded Grenada in 1983 (to the public disgust of the Thatcher Govt). The Queen is the "Commander and Chief" of the Australian armed forces, yet we would be invading ourselves under this scenario.
There's so many of these types of scenarios I could point to which show how ridiculous Australia being a Constitutional Monarchy truly is, but is there anything more absurd than invading yourself?
I have heard a similiar phrase before.
ReplyDeleteI think the Iraqi Information Minister ridiculed the notion that the USA was 'defending' itself within Iraq.
Savvas Tzionis
I hate to be picky but Chapter 2 Section 68 of the constitution says " the command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor General as the Queens representatative ..." The important word is vested. No mention of air forces as Orville and Wilbur Wright flew the first practical aeroplane 3 years later in 1903.It was rumoured that Kerr - if Whitlam had told him to bugger off was going to approach the chief of Defence forces to dend a detacrment to Parliament House to enforce the dismissal
ReplyDeleteTherefore ( I forgot to say ) the Queen is not the Commander in chief of the armed forces as it is vested in someone else - the Governor-General.
ReplyDeletebut what does "vested" really mean in a legal sense? If you for example give someone power of attorney over your affairs, can you take it back? Therefore does the Queen have the right to invoke her "divine right" (so to speak) over her "representative"?
ReplyDeleteVested is final in a constitution and cant be compared to power of attorney used in fiddly day to day matters
ReplyDelete