Australian Monarchist League -

HOME

FAQ

Answers

Do you believe there will be a resurgence of the Australian Republic debate in the wake of Mr Turnbull's appointment as Liberal Leader?

Whilst Mr Turnbull has discounted any involvement in a bipartisan approach to a republic on the basis that a referendum could not be won whilst The Queen is alive, Monarchists cannot depend on this assurance and must be prepared for any moves, particularly to introduce republicanism by stealth. In April of this year, the Prime Minister had indicated that there would be one or more plebiscite questions put to the people at the next general election expected in 2010. Nothing has changed to delay or revoke this programme.

FAQ

	Do you believe that Australia should become a republic?
	What do you think are the main reasons for Australia to become a republic?
	Do you believe it is important for Australia to maintain a link with the Queen? Why?
	Do you think that there are any problems in Australia due to our current constitutional monarchy system?
	Do you believe that our constitutional monarchy restricts Australia's freedom or national identity?
	In 1991 the High Court declared Britain to be a ‘foreign power’. Do you think there could be problems associated with becoming a republic? i.e. altering the constitution, altering currency
	Do you feel that running a referendum, and becoming a republic is a waste of valuable money and time?
	If you are for becoming a republic, do you think it should be prioritised? i.e. please list 1-5 what you feel the priorities of the Government should be: -inflation -fuel prices -the environment -increasing global links, particularly with Asia -becoming a republic
	Why do you think the 1999 republic referendum failed? Could the main reason be that John Howard was a monarchist?
	Why do you think the people of Australia who previously voted against a republic would decide to vote for a republic in the next referendum or would this not be the case?
	What type of republic system do you prefer? -American -1999 model -Not Sure/Other
	What are the disadvantages of adopting a republican system of government?
	Why was the 1999 Australian referendum for a republic unsuccessful?
	Do you think that a new referendum for a republic in Australia would be supported? If not, why?
	Do you think that a new preamble should be created accurately reflect Australia's status as an independent nation? If not, Why?
	If Australia is an independent nation, why should we include a British Queen in our political and legal system?
	Do you believe there will be a resurgence of the Australian Republic debate in the wake of Mr Turnbull's appointment as Liberal Leader?
	Do you believe Mr Turnbull’s past as campaigner for the Republican movement will affect the public’s perception of him (adversely or otherwise)?
	Do you think there has been a shift in public opinion since the referendum of 1999?
	The Republican’s main argument seems to be a need for an Australian Head of State. Comment?
	With becoming a republic being a waste of valuable money. What amount of money would be needed? And what are more important issues the money should be spent on? thank you for assignment
	I do not wish to see the Governor General replaced by a politically motivated President. Then we have to have a vice president. The monarchy as it stands in Australia has no influence on Australia's constitution, or politics or legislation and to me a Republic will give more powers to the politicians, the courts and police. The Queen her decendants and the Governor General are a political. The people's umpire if and when, rarely required. Above politics. An emotive Republican agenda, do you want a head of state that is Australian born. Well - there is no terminology for Head of State, it is a Republican concept. Malcolm Turnbull is trying to gain votes. But he does not fool us all. OK. What advantage to the Australian citizenship will a Republic bring? Bugger all I feel.
	My father was born in England and I have been told by him and my grandfather in Scotland that we have direct relation to Robert the Bruce. I was wondering if you are able to assist me with tracing back my history?
	I'm interested in how the Crown is capable of protecting the Australian people from Australian politicians. In which circumstances may the Crown do this, how, and if Australia were to become a rupublic, what control over the Australian people would the politicians, or, President have?
	I'm interested in joining the Australian Monarchist League, however I'm not sure if I should get a trial or standard?? What information are we given in our membership pack??
	In becoming a republic would it pose any outstanding threat to Australian national security or safety?
	Do you as I do suspect a link between a republic (desired from the top rather than the bottom) and multiculturalism, that is, that hard-core multiculturalists will not believe their objective truly accomplished until all vestiges of Australia's British heritage eliminated, thus relegating so called Anglo-Australians to just another ethnic group?
	Do you have any arguments against the republic that DON'T rely on the 'it was the Australian people who decided to go against the republic and keep the Queen' argument? ...for a monarchist group you don't seem to have many reasons for Australia not to become a republic.
	Why isnt there a political party based on monarchism preserving the Crown. We have the Liberals, Labour, Nationals, Greens, Christian Democrats why not a Monarchist Party a political party with MP's and senators or even one day a PM.
	Hi, I came across your website as I'm looking for a t-shirt and spare wheel cover that has the flag and words like "Save the flag" - do you know where I can find such items ? Incidentally I previously voted to retain the constitution and won't waiver on this question, however this website and cause is very monarchist and the crown which is not quite where my loyalties lay, I'm thinking you may be doing a diservice to the cause by not broadening your message, for example the store sells items not referring to the constition or flag directly but to the crown. These are items the Ulster Loyalists would love but as I say it seems to have your cause and that of the Governor General a lot narrower than it needs to be regards Antone Homan (a brit by origin)
	Australia is no longer a federation?
	As most republicans are only republicans because the Queen lives over seas do you believe it is possible to have an alternative to a republic put forward. That being that Australia have a resident monarch (not shared) who will take office of king/Queen after the current Queen passes.
	Do you believe that Australia could adopt its own resident monarch (i.e. replacing the GG with a monarch) after the Queens reign?
	Do you believe suppourt for a republic is increasing or decreasing within Australia?
	The WA separation act 2003/4 removes Her majesty QE 2nd her heirs and successors and subjects, Removes the Crown of the UK and removes and substitutes the oath of allegience..... No referendum was held. What does the preamble say about indissoluble part. The constitution seems pretty well fractured to me.
	If a member of the royal family came and lived in Australia, and built a special bond with the people of Australia, do you feel its possible to alter Australias act of succession to allow that member of the royal family to become Australia's next King or Queen. Thus giving us a resident monarch as well as allowing Australia to maintain its current constitution.
	How could Australia become a republic, when the EXECUTIVE are under an Oath of Allegiance which binds them to promises made by the Queen in her own Coronation Oath? In order to become a republic, they would have to "secede from allegiance"... is the Oath constitutional or not? If so, they cannot remove the Crown without committing treason. Moreover, any move towards becoming a republic is NOT AN OPTION, because there is no power to commit treason. A proposal to become a republic cannot be lawfully put to a referendum, as the PEOPLE cannot be asked for "permission" to commit treason and to violate the Constitution. The referendums are surely illegal and should be contested as such. Participating in a "NO" option is the trap! Do not participate. CONTEST THE REFERENDUMS directly as unlawful. Referendums introduce the illusion of an OPTION where the Constitution is absolute and there is NO option. As the Sovereign's PERSONAL responsibility is to protect the people from Executive abuse of power, and these referendums are apparently such an abuse, the person who proposes to exercise the Crown should be called to account PERSONALLY for why she is doing nothing to stop these abuses. Perhaps it has something to do with CHATHAM HOUSE, of which Her Majesty is the Royal PATRON. Chatham House is a globalist think-tank preparing world government, which obviously requires the removal of the CROWN from those nations whose Constitution provides it. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American branch of CHATHAM House. In 2005, the CFR sponsored the "Building A North American Community" plan to annex Canada to the USA and Mexico... on the pretext of 9/11. We are all in such horrendous danger from supposed outside terrorists that our nations must fall under a continental parliament. There has been no proper independent investigation of 9/11, but a growing number of people are aware that it could be nothing other than an INSIDE job: http://www.ae911truth.org/ The role of Patron of Chatham House appears to conflict with the role of QUEEN of the sovereign nations that must be dissolved into the European Union, Asian Union, and North American Union, in order for the new world fascist order to be completed by merging the hemispheres into a world union. Moreover, take a close look at the forced dissolution of the former Yugoslavia by the secessions of Croatia and Slovenia. The BADINTER COMMISSION redefined the meaning of "people" and "self" determination, terms contained in major international instruments such as the Charter of the United Nations, Can. T.S. 1945 No. 7, Arts. 1(2), 55 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, Art. 1. The BADINTER Commission MERGED the concept of "a people" with the concept of "territorial integrity" to produce the idea that the existing territorial borders of a state or province comprised in a larger nation were to define ALL those living there as THE "people" entitled to "self" determination. This amounts to conferring "self" determination on a territorial unit, not on a "people" -- I think it doubtful that those who penned these instruments ever considered "people" to be assimilated to fixed territories. Clearly, some sort of ethnic lineage was contemplated, as divisive issues have tended to arise along those lines. Badinter's merging "self" determination of "peoples" with "territorial" units, effectively places full control over "self" determination -- forced referendums, for example -- and over natural resources (control deemed in the same international instruments to be the exclusive privilege of "a people") into the hands of any "government" leading a state to secession... that government can then transfer that full power, at will, in the name of the people, to anyone it likes, including supranational affiliations such as those now forming in Europe, and in North America. The BADINTER Commission also selected a group of "principles" to account for its refusal to allow ethnic groups within such a territorial boundary to also "secede". Those principles ultimately became the Copenhagen Criteria for the Admission of Candidate States to the European Union... and if you carefully verify the PREAMBLE which your Executive attempted to trick you into adding to your Australian Constitution in 1998 -- you will find... none other than the BADINTER/COPENHAGEN standards, which are now the political criteria for EU admission: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm "stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities" The idea being, that if you obey these criteria as a formula for dismantling your sovereign country by "secession", including "respect for and protection of minorities" (minorities denied the right to secede despite clearly deeming themselves "peoples") -- you are immediately entitled to admission! You have fulfilled the "political criteria". And at the same time, you have retained your "seceding" territory (under hidden corporate power), intact, in the hands of those who took it out of the sovereign nation which was targeted for DISSOLUTION by this method. In 1992, an attempt was made to impose the BADINTER Standards on Canada -- they put them into a new PREAMBLE for the Constitution on 28 August 1992, but Canadians voted NO to the entire package, so they didn't succeed at that time. Scroll down to the second print-screen at the bottom of this government web page and note the PREAMBLE called the "Canada Clause" on date of 28 August 1992: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp406-e.htm "2.(1) The Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the following fundamental characteristics: (a) Canada is a DEMOCRACY committed to a parliamentary and federal system of government and to the RULE OF LAW; (b) the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, being the first peoples to govern this land, have the RIGHT to promote their languages, cultures and traditions and to ensure the integrity of their societies, and their governments constitute ONE OF THREE ORDERS of government in Canada; [[[THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO Badinter's: respect for and protection of minorities]]] (c) Quebec constitutes within Canada a "distinct" society, which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition; [[["Distinct society" is one of five known categories of criteria ever applied to sanction international state recognition of a seceding people.]]] The Charlottetown preamble of 28 August 1992 -- the one that was in the massive list of proposed constitutional alterations -- is nothing less than the BADINTER STANDARDS as they then were. In effect, Badinter rules in late 1991, early 1992; the new standards for secession SUDDENLY appear in the Charlottetown Accord on 28 August 1992 -- with no prior consultation whatsoever, no historical paper trail to explain who proposed them or how they got there. I know this, because I had it verified by researchers at the National Library and Archives of Canada in Ottawa. Despite the NO in 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada FORCED the BADINTER Standards (which by then had also become the Copenhagen Criteria) into the Constitution in the 1998 Reference re the Secession of Quebec, but without mentioning Mr. Badinter and his commission. Canada has therefore finally been HARMONIZED with the Badinter "precedents" for dismantling Yugoslavia, thus assuring rapid international 'state recognition' when Quebec is forced to "secede" so that ALL the provinces can follow the example... only to be re-federated under a continental parliament that has been in planning for years and the head office of which is here in Montreal, Canada. The Badinter/Copenhagen criteria are: Democracy Rule of law Respect for and protection of minorities [stability of institutions] The Supreme Court of Canada's 1998 Secession Reference harps on all these things, including 'stability' of institutions and 'orderly' transfer of power: Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 Here are the Badinter Standards, perversely interpreted into Canada's Constitution in this masterpiece of sedition and treason: "It is necessary to make a more profound investigation of the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution, including the principles of federalism, DEMOCRACY, constitutionalism and the RULE OF LAW, and RESPECT FOR MINORITIES. Those principles must inform our overall appreciation of the constitutional rights and obligations that would come into play in the event that a clear majority of Quebecers votes on a clear question in favour of secession." Nowhere in the Secession reference is the break-up of Yugoslavia mentioned, although it's "the" major secession case and should have been looked at as a precedent, if secession were LEGAL in Canada, which it is not. The Supreme Court simply declared that the Constitution had a "gap" in it -- someone forgot to PLAN for secession -- and they themselves proceeded to FILL it with apparent "western policy" (see below): the Badinter/Copenhagen criteria. There is no "gap"; secession is expressly illegal in Canada, though you would never know it because the Supreme Court IGNORED THE TEXT of the Constitution in the 1998 Reference. The Supreme Court then got incidental help from the Ontario Courts, who, being Superior Courts of Record, merely rubber-stamped the un-named Badinter Standards into "law" by a supposed "decision": http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2001/2001canlii21164/2001canlii21164.html Federalism Democracy Constitutionalism and the rule of law Respect for and protection of minorities Tossing in "federalism" comes in handy, when your goal is to force a province to "secede" out of Canada and into a FEDERAL North American Union, EU-style. The Lalonde case is literally the first rubber-stamp applied to the Badinter Standards for Canada... why did this have to be done? Because the Supreme Court in the Secession Reference DID NOT PROVE the existence of their so-called "principles" which .they used to create their formula to govern secession of a province. Moreover, the Secession "Reference" is not a judicial proceeding; it is a non-judicial bench composed of erstwhile judges, handing convenient opinions to the Executive who coneniently formulate the questions to get the answers they need. Lalonde is literally the first "judicial" use of the Badinter Standards, but it's no more valid than the Secession Reference, because the Ontario Divisional (Superior) Court did not prove them, and neither did the Court of Appeal, the Judges merely ASSUMED their existence as part of Canada's Constitution. However, the jurisdiction being judicial, and a superior court of record, the rubber-stamp of a decision makes the Badinter Standards prima facie a part of the Constitution! Which is no doubt why the Executive failed to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Ontario Court of Appeal, otherwise the Supreme Court would have found itself in the embarassing position of having to review its own fraud and treason, and that of its colleagues in the Courts of Ontario. If the precise words "Respect for and protection of minorities" don't appear in your draft preamble of 1998, worry not, they are represented in essence -- as they were in Canada's flushed Charlottetown Accord -- by the inclusion of a mention of some key minority, i.e., aboriginals. The push for aboriginal "self" government at the same time as Badinter Standards are being forced into national constitutions as a matter of "western policy", is simply to ensure that the First Nations -- generally sitting on the richest deposits of natural resources in untapped wilderness -- all acquire the Badinter tools to "secede" and hand the power over those resources to the supranational level... making it all look nice and tidy and democratic... when it isn't. Read about Canada's Badinter "principles": http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117906358cc8a03be And see: "The Role of International Community in Conflict Situation. Which Way Forwards ? The Case of the Kosovo / A Conflict", by Enika Abazi* [sic, sic, and sic] -- Balkanologie VIII ( l ) , juin 2004, p. 9-31 / * Ph.D. Candidate, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. (abazienika@hotmail.com) [1] This analysis considers the international efforts since the moment of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Download that article, free online: http://balkanologie.revues.org/index511.html That article notably states: "In this way, the model offered for Yugoslav self-determination was defined in a way that avoid major discrepancies form the concept of territorial exclusivity while assuring order and stability through the promotion of democracy and human rights values. Democracy, rule of law, respect of human and minority rights was offered to all Yugoslav republics as a precondition for recognition. These values were sanctioned in the constitution of all successive States and this policy REPRESENTS a continuous general trend of Western policies towards succession cases in general". The Badinter Standards were forced into Canada's Constitution in 1998, after we voted NO to a massive constitutional overhaul (totalitarian) in 1992. Have Australia's courts done your people a similar favor? You had better check your case-law closely. Kathleen Moore HABEAS CORPUS CANADA The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union www.habeascorpuscanada.com -- see my GROUNDS page, and my Statement of Purpose. --http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117902cd601fc48fe Come and see me in Facebook: Facebook Groups (videos, photos, blogs): * Habeas Corpus Canada * Constitutional Clubs of Canada My profile page: * http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1777851356

Ask us a question: