Talk:Republic Advisory Committee

Archives: Talk:Republic Advisory Committee/Archive 1

Hi PML, technically the relationship between all the dominions and the UK Crown underwent a complete revolution in 1927. I am currently studying its impact in the Irish Free State, where, for example, the 'King in Ireland' became the King of Ireland, with the British Crown ceasing to have any constitutional role in the internal governance of the IFS. The Irish Governor-General ceased to hold three roles (representative of the British King, representative of the British Government and Irish resident head of state) and became (i) Representative of the King of Ireland; (2) Irish resident head of state). British ministers could no longer instruct the GG on the granting or otherwise of the Royal Assent. To their fury, King George excluded them when he met with his Irish ministers, ignored their complaints when they demanded a right to comment on international treaties he signed as Irish king, and in a historic move, granted the IFS its own state seal (with him on it as 'Ri na hÉireann (king of Ireland) ) to replace the British state 'Great Seal of the Realm' which all dominions used up to then. (The Statute of Westminster coperfastioned that independence, by giving each state complete control over its law-making.)

In strict law, Ireland became completely independent at that point, as did all other dominions, with the Commonweath moving from a shared crown to shared monarch wearing different crowns. Hence changes in the monarch and right of succession belong to each state individually. In 1936, then Irish head of government Eamon de Valera planned to ignore the abdication crisis, until warned that as each dominion had ownership of its monarchy, unless the IFS changed its law to recognise the abdication, Edward VIII would remain 'King of Ireland' irrespective of what the UK parliament did, with Mrs. Simpson when he married her becoming 'Queen of Ireland'. Hence de Valera recognised the abdication in Section 3 of the External Relations Act, 1936. It is simply not correct to say that the Prince of Wales will become king of Australia because he inherits the throne, anymore than George VI would have become Australian king simply by virtue of Edward VIII's British abdication, as enacted in British law. Edward VIII's abdication had to be explicitly recognised by Australia, for it to take effect in Australia. Prince Charles will become king because he is heir to the Australian throne. In theory the British monarchy could be abolished tomorrow and it would only impact on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As with Edward VIII's abdication, for that status to be extended to Australia (New Zealand, Canada, etc) it would have to be recognised in each kingdom's law. Finally, in 1952, the Union of South Africa accidentially included in the current queen's title the claim 'Queen of Ireland'. They made the mistake. They had to rectify it. It had no impact in any other of the Queen's realms. Because since 1927 each realm is separate, with its own (shared but technically individual) monarch and its own (shared but technically individual) heir.



Back at work...

It is my understanding that while "It is simply not correct to say that the Prince of Wales will become king of Australia because he inherits the throne, anymore than George VI would have become Australian king simply by virtue of Edward VIII's British abdication, as enacted in British law", formally in law, yet the Australian succession - currently - does not have a separate piece of machinery. That is, currently Australian law effectively specifies that "the Australian Monarch shall be whosoever accedes to the British throne". The result is that even though the authority for the Australian succession derives from Australian law, nevertheless the outworkings of that law do lead to an automatic result that matches the British one - at any rate for now. Which is what I was getting at.

I did actually go into this issue myself in my constitutional pages, which are now back up. The place to start for this matter is http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/const001.html#PMLART01 etc. PML.

We are actually at an interesting point where we almost agree. Australian (not British) law decides who sits on the Australian throne. Furthermore, it indicates that the person on that Australian throne shall be the whomsoever accedes to the British throne, ie, the person. What this means is that But that is not the same as saying that both thrones are one and the same, or that the British monarch is monarch of Australia as British monarch. Charles will inherit the Australian throne in accordance with procedures that are as laid down in the law of the Commonwealth of Australia. The mechanism means that the succession to both thrones is at the same moment, with one inheritance (to Britain's) validating his succession to the other (Australia's), though Australia has complete freedom to change that, which it would have to if Parliament in the United Kingdom abolished the monarchy. But beyond inheriting it through an intertwined machinery, there is no other link joining the thrones except the shared person, wearing different crowns. It all sounds complicated and technical but it is important in the strict constitutional sense to try to make sense of the complexities. The Queen, for example, is quite strict in separating the two, to the extent of only accepting advice from her government in whichever of her kingdoms she is in, on occasion meeting someone, for example, who that kingdom's govt want her to meet, even if the government in London has a policy of not meeting that person. Glad you are back at work. (I've got a bad chest infection here, and so am confined to bed most of the time!!!) (PS - As I write this, my eMac (which is playing a selection of music at random) started playing England's 'national hymn', Parry's Jerusalem. Ironic timing, huh! ) JTD 02:57 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Australian not British law decides the succession to the Australian throne (and is entirely the property of Australia, not Britain, so Australia can freely change it!);
 * The same person who sits on the Australian throne also sits on the British one, with the succession mechanism intertwined.



The words I would choose here would go something like "Australian (not British) law determines but does not decide, while British events decide". Essentially, at the point of "deciding" there is only the Council of Accession, while the law in each country determines the framework for that country. To me, the "deciding" is a much more active part of things, and while necessary it has more to do with channelling force than providing a background framework. Interestingly, until last time around there was Australian involvement via the Privy Council, a remaining element of imperial federalism; in this respect Gough Whitlam achieved less independence for Australia in regard to the succession.

Technically, each state here has a separate monarchy, mainly so as to allow public servants to work in ways that would otherwise be prevented by their already holding or having held "an office of profit under the Crown". Their personal interest in the matter is that they can move their careers around and still keep bundles of pension rights from various places. But this has produced wider constitutional ramifications...

Different monarchies' systems have allowed united Crowns to separate in the past (one source of inspiration for my ideas). Never mind Shakespeare, the Salic Law turned up again and allowed/caused Hanover to separate from the UK when Victoria came to the British throne - even though earlier statesmen chose to regard Hanover as being as English as Hampshire. (Heligoland, separately seized from Denmark quite late, was only transferred to Germany much later.)

I don't have a cold or similar, I have a horrible sunburn. You can't bloody win. PML.

I should have added, "Australia has complete freedom to change that, which it would have to if Parliament in the United Kingdom abolished the monarchy" isn't strictly true either. It is simply something that would be necessary to regularise matters, if people chose to - but history is full of irregular arrangements that went on for a long time. Of course there is no reason to expect them to be viable, but that is hardly the point; there is no reason to suppose a panic response to regularising would lead to a viable solution either. PML.

Good I wish I could have sun-burn instead of this cold (but here you are more likely to get frost-bite right now. We just 'look like we have sunburn, our faces are so cold and red right now!) Just one thing, you mentioned allowing 'united crowns to separate'. Except for the moment of accession, where under Australian law the inheritance of the Australian crown in effect piggybacks on the accession of the United Kingdom Crown, there are no united crowns anymore. The British Crown, for example, has no say as the British Crown in Australia, just as His Majesty's Government in London ceased to have any say in the Irish Free State from the late 1920s, with the 'King-in-Parliament' losing its role in Irish affairs under the Statute of Westminster.

I know it sounds really technical (but as I am currently writing about the role of the Crown in the Irish Free State at the moment, it is something I am pre-occupied with) but the concept of monarchy within the Commonwealth of Nations (I've recently corrected its site to get the name right!) is of a shared monarch wearing different crowns, not a unified crown, which would imply an interlinked governmental system, which there is no longer. The link is personal. Mrs. Liz Windsor having two distinct jobs (or rather more than two!); Queen of the UK; Queen of Australia. Culturally the links between Australia and the UK may be different, but in a strict constitutional sense, they are separate crowns. This could be seen in the issue of changing the Royal Title in 1927. Britain wanted a reference to 'Great Britain and Ireland, but Ireland said no way, for it implied they were joined. We insisted and got 'Great Britain',' Ireland' marking separate identities and separate crowns with the one shared king as a mere personal link. Similarly, Hanover didn't separate from the UK, because it never was part of it (unlike say Scotland since 1707 or Ireland (1801-1922). It simply shared a monarch. Salic law meant that the two successions could not take place identically. Victoria was heir presumptive in the UK, her uncle in Hanover. When William IV died, each state followed its separate assession path. Under William IV, there was a personal union, but not a constitutional merger or linking of the states. That's why, for example, in 1707, England and Scotland went from a personal union under a shared but different sovereign (Hence James II of England, James VII of Scotland), to a merger of states and crowns, producing Great Britain, with one state not two, one government not two, and one crown, not two.

One other bizarre angle. The Coronation. I wonder is it (not that it strictly matters, as the coronation doesn't mark the entry of a monarch onto the throne, unlike say the Irish president's inauguration, which is the means by which one assumes office!) But I don't think Charles would be too happy if they keep having to plonk St. Edward's Crown on his head over and over again. The archbishop standing over him: 'There, you are King of Australia. . . there, King of New Zealand. . . there, King of Canada. . . have I done them all yet?' Apparently the thing weighs a bloody ton (not literally!) and is damned uncomfortable. Unlike the Imperial Crown, which weighs something like a bag of sugar, and for which Her Majesty gets ready for the state opening of parliament by wearing around the palace to get used to the weight. (Can't you just see her, in her slippers, with the Imperial Crown on her head, eating her toast or brushing her teeth. Yet that's supposedly what happens, so she is used to it and doesn't get a severe migraine like some past monarchs!) JTD 02:50 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)
 * the coronation of a sovereign to each separate throne similtaneously, or
 * a merely UK coronation, with no constitutional significance for any other Commonwealth crown?



I have heard the expression "Union of the Crowns" used to distinguish the constitutional position of England and Scotland between 1603 and 1707 from that applying later. In other words, the expression refers to just precisely what you are describing - not to any constitutional linkage. (The Irish situation is odder still; Spenser records the Tudor position that the English Parliament could legislate "for" Ireland, so there was already a union of sorts over and above that of the Crowns.) Thus, Hanover did separate from the UK - the error lies in supposing that connection was ever a formal and constitutional one over and above the Hanover/Hampshire incidental but real connection Pitt the Elder was thinking of.

There is a risk in constitutional matters of mistaking the subject matter for simply a subset of law, when it is actually the intersection of law and force, codification and effective practice. I suspect you have fallen victim to hearing legal terms of art when I was referring more widely, like someone saying "the police don't have the power to do that".

I have somewhere heard that the problem of a heavy physical crown came up in the ancient world, and that they solved it by having a wire carrying some of the weight by means of a counterweight arrangement well out of the way of ceremonies.

Large yellow blisters under my right arm, difficulty sleeping, skin too taut to have full arm and leg movement... you want that? PML.


 * The situation between the Kingdom of Ireland the English kingdom was complex. The English Parliament (congrats, btw, on using 'English'; I am SO fed up of Wikipedians using British when they mean English, and English when they mean British. At last, someone who knows history!!!) could legislate for the separate Irish kingdom; it also could control what legislation the Irish Parliament could pass through Poyning's Law of 1492!

I understand your point regarding the danger of too compartmentalising history. However there is a danger in not doing so too. I am currently writing a lot about the Irish Free State and the monarchy. Part of the trouble I have is that, by not understanding the meaning of the relevant bits (constitutional law, commonwealth theory, political culture, perception, etc) separately, before joining the all together, you actually can get your overall analysis disastrously wrong. Unless, for example, you understand in strict legal terms what the changes in the Commonwealth implemented in the 1920s were, you can't understand what the perception was of the 1922-1932 Cumann na nGaedhael Irish government was, given that they shaped many of those changes. Peception, as formed in the 1930s, doesn't give credit to that government for those changes. So in writing history, you need to know (a) what those changes were, in a strict technical sense; (b) how contemporary leaders saw them; (c) what public and historical perception was subsequently, and (d) together overall what it all means in analysing Anglo-Irish reliations of the period.

Similarly, in Australia, contemporary perception of the Anglo-Australian relationship is vital, but we must also know the constitutional niceties as applied by the Crown, the monarchy and the Governor-General, all of whom may take into account those complexities in a way the public perception may not understand or comprehend. While our argument may seen overly technical, it is aimed at clarifying one aspect of the general debate on the relationship between Australia and the Crown. On its own, it is not enough. But without it, the analysis would be superficial and misleading, having lost one part of the bigger jigsaw puzzle. While some people may talk about the British monarchy in Ireland in the 1920s, for example, the Irish Free State had re-invented the relationship between itself and the Crown through the Commonwealth in a way actually denied Britain any part in the governance of the IFS, and made the link personal with King George. In Australia, talking about the British monarchy or the British crown may express the perception, as well as one strand of the political culture and identity, but one must also understand the full constitutional nuances, so that when put together with culture, identity, perception, etc you get the whole picture.

re the sunburn: I'd take sunburn in your climate any day than being here right now, where it is so cold my nipples are like marbles, I'm coughing and spluttering, chewing anti-biotics (and not helping it at all, smoking too much while working on Wikipedia!).

Btw, I know Ireland featured in the Appendices of the RAC Committee report. What did you think of the report? Was it any help, or mentioned much in the debate?

re- the method of reducing the weight of the crown: should we email this fact to Prince Charles? Or maybe we'll let him walk around with a couple of bags of sugar on his head to let him 'similate' the experience of wearing St. Edward's Crown? JTD 05:21 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)



The report was mainly used as a sort of talisman, to wave around to show that the motions had been gone through, and not for its contents. However I myself prepared a detailed critique with summary notes, to familiarise myself with it and to be able to refute any use of it as an authority by people too lazy to use it properly. In practice, I also worked up a set of criteria to hold up against any proposal, based on what had actually turned up.

I used this work to help set up a workshop. There was only one piece of laziness, from Cheryl Saunders. She resorted to repeated unsubstantiated assertion of "it won't happen", which is no answer to a question about "what if anything would prevent...".

I also used these insights to prepare the thought experiment models I outline in my consitutional materials, that the Constitutional Centenary Foundation suppressed.

For your edification, I will paste in the body of the test criteria and the summary of the notes on the appendices. Here goes...

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS FOR THE REPUBLIC WORKSHOP - P.M.Lawrence, 30.8.95

1. Wouldn't a parliamentary election of a president guarantee a "crony" or "mateship" president? Wouldn't that be a recipe for producing smoky-room, personal level politics even if it did prevent a party-political presidential race? In fact, wouldn't it guarantee the sort of president Graham Richardson would be comfortable with?

The criticism is not of having a non-party president, but of the calibre of individual it would produce.

2. Does a republic tend to increase centralisation indirectly and unintentionally?

Federation was achieved in a bottom-up way, by motivating each state then bringing them all together. The republican movement is working in a top-down way, trying to convert Australia as a whole then bring about constitutional change at a Federal level, with the states falling into line.

Sir Max Bingham's advice to the Tasmanian government implies a bottom-up method. That would produce individual state republics, one by one, with each change providing a learning process, an example to laggards, and a chance for republican customs, traditions and institutions to grow in organically. It would not require 100% consensus in an instant, as each state would come to it at its own pace and success would breed success; a Federal referendum would then only be a formal recognition of an achieved change.

The top-down method would achieve a republic at the earliest moment technically possible. That would guarantee around 30% of the population against it and one or two states against it. That is not a formula for the health of the new arrangements, which would not yet have the backing of tradition and precedent. It would mean more central influence being imposed on the states.

3. What, if anything, would be wrong with working to undercut a republic in the same way that republicans are currently undercutting the monarchy?

If a republic were pushed through by the ALP white-anting the monarchy, would the remaining monarchists be justified in saying "Why should I try and make this work? I'll give them the same kind of fair go they gave us."?

Could a white-anted republic survive, let alone thrive? Even short of that, could it flourish without the active support of this sector of Australia? And would it deserve to, if it was born in ALP deceit?

4. It is not certain that a republic could be achieved against the wishes of the states: whether you approve of it or not, secession remains a realistic third option for at least two states. Forcing a republic might actually be giving these states the choice of republic or secession.

What, if anything, prevents this?

5. In an article in Time of the 31st of October, 1994, the ARM communications director Simon Lock is quoted as saying "It will be the first time a country has become a republic without civil war or bloodshed." Also, few republics continue without some material violent upheaval every generation or so, and few survive three generations. These observations give rise to two related questions:-

- Can you identify any common themes or underlying patterns to these outbreaks of violence?

- Apart from not having a republic in the first place, can you suggest any realistic precautions to take against any such troubles? That is, leaving aside any contingencies which you have positively identified as utterly remote, can you think of any precautions that would make a difference?

Any answer like "I have confidence in the good sense of the Australian people" is just buck-passing.

6. How would the actual loyalty of the armed forces be maintained across any transition? That is, if oaths of loyalty mean anything, what loyalty would you really have until you had a new batch of personnel with real commitment to a republic?

7. How would the concept and reality of a "loyal opposition" - central to the Westminster System - be maintained without a Monarch? Many people find it hard to focus on abstractions. So, how could oppositions respect governments no better than they were, without a notional superior they could focus a shared loyalty on?

8. What, if anything, would stop a different republic being substituted in practice for the one people were led to expect before a referendum? For instance, could a republic have a transitional method of having the Prime Minister appointing a president until direct elections took place, and then just never get round to them?

This is a sort of trades descriptions question.

9. Would there be any barrier to members of the Royal Family being eligible for the presidency?

This includes indirect barriers, e.g. preventing them entering the country or taking out citizenship.

10. How could a president and his secretariat have enough financial independence from the government to carry out their functions effectively? Also, how could a president make a government consult him enough for him to be able to warn and encourage properly?

11. What would prevent either a president or the Prime Minister taking on other positions that would concentrate more power in their hands? That is what Hitler did in 1933.

12. What would prevent either a president or the Prime Minister using the power to pardon to carry out improper actions, the way Nixon was pardoned for Watergate or the Tudors set up their absolutism?

And from the appendices...

SUMMARY.

These appendices are intended to be used in support of the main body of the report of the republic advisory committee, so it is appropriate to check them in case people might place undue reliance on them. They might have had errors and/or omissions in areas of fact and/or interpretation. FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED, i.e. to support this specific enquiry, they appear to contain no material errors of either fact or interpretation, although they do contain some material omissions which I have endeavoured to supply. I may not have supplied these omissions completely. My notes include certain groundwork and interpretation which specialists would be expected to know of, but which laymen might not, and which may or may not be correct. They form an alternate view which should itself be tested, and whose main value is to show up areas which are not definitely established, such as the possible continued availability of British constitutional machinery. (As noted above, this was obliquely referred to at the end of the Indian appendix, and is contemplated by Sir Max Bingham QC in his advice to the Government of Tasmania.)

It is possible that this material might be used for other purposes, in which case it does contain errors, for instance where the Solicitor-General claimed erroneously that an external monarch for part of a federation was inconsistent with true independence. That was not a legal view but merely an aside, but it is possible that someone might attach some weight to it in a different context; yet history shows that this claim is completely without foundation. Similarly various contributions assume a republic, which is quite an appropriate assumption within the terms of reference of the republic advisory committee, but would lead to circular arguments if anyone ever tried to use the material in support of the advisability or otherwise of a republic. For instance, the appendices on various countries' experiences do not amount to commendations of a republic - the Mauritian experience is too scanty, the Austrian and Irish contain some dubious practices, and if the Indian experience were widespread that would amount to a condemnation rather than a commendation. There may well be other possible uses for the material for which its errors would actually be material. But used appropriately, cross-checked further and supplemented where necessary, these appendices could still be used constructively for other purposes, e.g. as reference material for a constitutional convention. However it would not be safe to use the material as is, even with the additional notes I have provided.

I am afraid if you want more you will have to get your email address to me, via mine which you can find at my pages but which I won't throw around here. PML.

- removed neutrality dispute tag.
 * It dates from last year without generating up a debate;
 * the person who placed it did not, as is required, explain what he or she was disputing.

As per wikipedia policy, tag removed. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 22:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Essay at the end is inappropriate
This article starts well and has information about the committee and its report. After that, its just a long opinion about what someone thinks and what might happen. The information has several problems.
 * Little to do with the committee or its report
 * Subject covered elsewhere eg Australian Republicanism
 * It is certainly someone's point of view
 * Predictions about the future
 * It is disorganised

I propose that the words from "In 1999, in a referendum carried out throughout..." to the end of the section be moved to the talk page. --Dlatimer 16:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose that it be removed altogether. It is not about the subject of the article, even the parts that aren't completely POV. In fact, I'll remove it now. The only thing worth adding to this article is something about the content of the reports of the committee, and possibly how their recommendations were (not) acted on. JPD 14:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)