CHAPTER EIGHT - THE CROWN OF THE COMMONWEALTH REALMS

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE CROWN OF THE COMMONWEALTH REALMS
(Delivered at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland in 2005)
Freedom an English subject’s sole prerogative
(John Dryden 1631-1700)⁴⁸⁸

Preamble to The Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act [1900] ⁶⁹

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900]

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania,# humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

# (Western Australia voted to join the Federation on 31^st July 1900 which was too late to be included in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) passed by the [British] House of Commons on 5^th July 1900 and which received Royal Assent on 9^th July 1900)

INTRODUCTION

Although it may appear to be sacrilegious to many, there was a time when I, in my innocence, could have been termed a Europhile.

Many years ago, living in Luxembourg, I found there to be many advantages to living in a borderless Europe, in being able to purchase property and otherwise being able to exist without red tape and apparent bureaucracy.

It was only after becoming involved in the constitutional debate in Australia that I came to realise that my ‘innocence’ was in reality total ignorance of what union in Europe really meant. I would suppose that the majority of people in the United Kingdom would relate to my earlier thinking. Whilst the Euro-Sceptic organisations continuously expose the dictatorial authoritarianism, the immense bureaucracy and the tremendous corruption of the Union, many think only of the illusory benefits of trade, of how simple and inexpensive it is nowadays to go on holiday to Europe and how easy it is to purchase a holiday or retirement home in Spain, France or Italy.

Difficult though it is to believe, Britain has for well over a thousand years maintained a union with Europe. Indeed, right up until the time of George V⁹⁹, members of its royal family were required, like chattels of the Government, to marry into the royal families of Europe for the purpose of creating alliances or cementing existing treaties.

Long before William the Conqueror²⁸ and indeed prior to and following the Roman invasion, early Britons traded extensively and undoubtedly formed a kinship with continental Europe. Roman Britain itself was not peopled exclusively by Italians but by settlers from all over the then known world and was truly a cosmopolitan nation.

When the once occupying but later defending armies were recalled in the fourth century to protect Rome, the remaining population which was unable and unprepared to defend itself brought over Saxon, Jute and Angle mercenaries from the area which is now northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, to fight off Danish and other raiders. Non-payment of bounties and the attraction of fertile lands caused the new ‘defenders’ to themselves become occupiers.

Whilst the Saxons were an intelligent and organised people, they were largely illiterate. Indeed they were relatively unknown until written of by the Roman Gaius Cornelius Tacitus²⁰ (55-120 AD).

They accordingly cared little for – and probably feared - the writings of the Romans, and tended to destroy - or allow to rot - anything to do with their civilisation, and it was not until the visit of the evangelist Christian priests from Rome, especially Augustine¹⁸ in 596, that culture and history were again appreciated and recognised in Britain. It was thus that the period prior to Augustine was known as the ‘Dark Ages⁴⁸⁹’.

Given this background, it is therefore quite remarkable that our constitutional history developed not from the Roman occupation but from that of the Saxons!

THE DEVELOPMENT OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY

Wherever the Saxons came from their blood would have intermingled with that of the Scandinavian and Germanic tribes, and yet by the time of Alfred the Great¹⁴⁹ in the ninth century AD, the English peoples, still somewhat fragmented, were already showing signs of a developing democracy as opposed to the authoritarian regimes of their former homelands. Despite the Norman conquest, this concept of ‘English-ness’ fuelled the principles which encouraged our stoic forefathers to forge out civilisations in distant lands for the motherland which later bequeathed to those of us in the former Dominions our independent democracies under the Crown.

We are ‘under the Crown’ because this was the system of democracy that Britain devised and handed on to us to fashion into constitutions best suited to our own environments. It was this system of benevolent democracy that caused many writers and poets of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to write so enthusiastically about the concept of Empire. Around one hundred years ago the colonial Canadian, William Wilfred Campbell⁴⁹⁰ eulogised in his 1899 poem ‘Beyond the Hills of Dream:

England, England, England,
Girdled by ocean and skies,
And the power of a world,
and the heart of a race,
And a hope that never dies.

Campbell went on to extol in the same poem:

Over the freedom and peace of the world
is the flag of England flung.

Empire, however, was not always so benevolent. Indeed, as Britain commenced its long journey towards world domination the words of Sir Walter Raleigh⁴⁹¹, the original empire builder and explorer, were so very apt:

Whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world, commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself⁷⁶².

And it was thus that the British Empire was founded on greed combined with a thirst for adventure and exploration, and the need for strategic vantage points through which the world could be dominated.

However, it was as it approached the pinnacle of its success in the mid 19th Century that the corporate disposition was replaced by the more humane and Christian instincts that epitomised the Victorian age.

Changing attitudes led latter Empire builders like Cecil Rhodes¹⁸⁷ to fervently believe that the British Empire was the most beneficial influence of the age and it was this belief that gave this sickly man the impetus to carve out what was to be the last major acquisition of the Empire.

Originating in the piratical acts of the first Elizabethan age and essentially ending in the opening years of the second, the nations of the Empire are now joined in a voluntary association called The Commonwealth of Nations³⁵² and the world has become a better place for its creation.

In the fifty-three member nations of the Commonwealth, other than Britain, only fifteen⁴⁹² have retained the Crown and of these, only Australia, Canada and New Zealand were nations populated by the British with British law, culture and the English language.

They are thus true scions, not of Empire, but of Britain itself.

The situation in which these countries found themselves was somewhat explained during the 1926 Imperial Conference:

They are autonomous communities within the British Empire equal in status in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.⁷²⁴

I say ‘somewhat’ because whilst this interpretation, which became the rationale for the later Statute of Westminster and described the sovereign independence of the former colonies such as Australia, it did not really go far enough to protect the interlocking of the Crown into our respective constitutions thus leaving much to legal interpretation.

Modern democracy in Britain and the Realms is based on the four constitutional documents of:

The Bill of Rights 1689¹⁵¹,
The Coronation Oath Act 1688⁴⁹³,
The Act of Settlement 1701⁵⁰⁰ & Annexure 12, and The Act of Union 1706⁴⁹⁴ & Annexure 13

The intent of these documents was both to restrict the authority of the King and to empower that of the parliament and to maintain the supremacy of the parliament through the establishment of a ‘Protestant Succession’ thereby removing the political influence of the Church of Rome on the Monarch.

It was this concept of the supremacy of parliament that was bequeathed to those nations of the British Empire as they attained independence from the Mother or ‘Imperial’ parliament of Great Britain.

Of the four ‘fundamental’ constitutional documents of our modern democracy, two are essential to the working, and indeed the survival, of the Crown we share. These are, of course; the Bill of Rights 1689 and its amending legislation, the Act of Settlement of 1701. These Acts were the result of what is called ‘The Glorious Revolution⁴⁹⁵’, called ‘Glorious’ because it was essentially bloodless.

The line of succession was changed to accommodate only the Protestant progeny of the Stuart Dynasty and it was thus that the second in line to the throne, Mary⁴¹ (daughter of James II³⁹) and her husband and cousin William, Prince of Orange⁴⁰, (grandson of Charles I³⁷ and 4^th in line) became King William III and Queen Mary II. Should Mary have no children, her sister Anne⁵³, the remaining (Protestant) daughter of James II, would succeed.

In the event that William had no children (from a wife other than Mary), the throne would go to the Protestant granddaughter of James I,⁴⁹⁸ Sophie⁵⁴ Electress of Hanover and her issue. The major proviso was that they be Protestant and agree to be in communion with the Church of England.

Over recent years there have been several attempts to amend the Act of Settlement to remove this proviso and to allow marriage to a communicant of the Church of Rome.

Whilst Rome is specifically mentioned, this is only because at the time of enactment, it was recognised as the only threat to the independence of the Crown.

The requirement for the Sovereign to be a ‘communicant’ of the Church of England by implication excludes all other faiths and even other Christian denominations. Whilst the Queen worships at Crathie Kirk of the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, and whilst the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland participates in the Coronation ceremony⁷⁶³, the Queen is a communicant of the Church of England.

There is confusion, much of which is intentionally manipulated, over the Protestant Succession and it should be emphasised that the concept is today not a matter of religious discrimination, but rather the continued protection of the Crown and Parliament from external interference in the affairs of the nation.

Whilst, fortunately, religious differences have greatly diminished, the Vatican⁴⁹⁷ nevertheless remains a political force, often for the greater good of mankind as we saw some fifteen years ago with its intervention in the dismantling of the communist bloc. But it is because there must not be even the slightest possibility of external influence on the monarch in parliament that the Protestant Succession was created and has been maintained for these past three hundred years.

It is, therefore, that regardless of the ‘politically correct’ attitudes of this modern day, I firmly believe that these stabilising forces of our Constitutional Monarchies must be preserved intact.

The Bill of Rights takes it for granted that the Sovereigns (William and Mary) were Protestants. Indeed, had it not been for the fact that Prince William (Duke of Gloucester, only surviving son of Princess Anne and second in line to the throne) died in 1700 at the age of eleven, thereby leaving the succession vacant after the death of his mother, it is possible that the Act of Settlement by which the Protestant Succession was established would never have been enacted.

It is known that Queen Anne did try to negotiate with her half-brother, James⁴⁹⁹, to adopt the Protestant faith and thereby make himself eligible to succeed her, but it is doubtful that Parliament would have agreed to this, preferring to continue with the line established by the Act of the progeny of the body of Sophie, the Protestant granddaughter of James I.

The Act of Settlement requires the Monarch to be in communion with the Church of England. As is stated in Section III of the Act:

Further Provisions for securing the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of these Realms.

And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further Provision be made for securing our Religion Laws and Liberties from and after the Death of His Majesty and the Princess Ann of Denmark and in default of Issue of the Body of the said Princess and of His Majesty respectively Be it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established.⁵⁰⁰

Accordingly, neither the Monarch nor any of his or her heirs can marry a Roman Catholic and remain on the Throne or in succession to the Throne. The intent of the Act and the Coronation Oath of 1688 and all those that followed was that the spouse of an heir should be in communion with the Church of England.

The transfer of the Crown following the somewhat ambiguous ‘abdication’ of James II, to the joint rule of William III and Mary II, established several fundamental constitutional precedents which are themselves not without reservations. As William approached London, James left for safety in France and, hoping to thwart an administration in his absence, threw the Great Seal of the Kingdom into the Thames.

However, on his way he was recognised by loyal subjects and escorted back to London amidst some popular cheering, but it was too late for any accord to be reached with William, who in any event never intended to treat with James, and James was sent to a safe house and ‘allowed’ to escape to France thereby leaving the way open for William to ‘accept’ the Throne.

This ‘abdication’ created a constitutional crisis and was not like any period that had gone before. Kings could not just be killed or deposed by claimants as had occurred earlier in that century, for the parliamentary process had evolved to such an extent that it was the only legitimate authority to legislate for a change in the succession. The problem was that Parliament could only be called by the King and not by any other person! Certain of the Lords therefore called upon the precedent of the Convention of 1660⁵⁰¹ which General Monck⁵⁰² had somewhat arbitrarily arranged to be called for the purpose of formally proclaiming Charles II King, and arranged for a new Convention to be elected.

This met in January 1689, but faced another problem as William, although a grandson of Charles II, was not considered to be an heir; and whilst Holland, the homeland of William, had a practice of electing its rulers, this was not the way that things were done in England.  Consequently, the Convention wisely agreed to a joint rule along with William’s wife, Mary who was the next in line to the throne of England once her professed Roman Catholic father James II and his (Catholic) son, also James, had been excluded.

One of the Peers involved in the process is said to have commented, obviously taking from the thinking of William Purefoy⁵⁰³:

I look upon this day’s work to be the ruin of the Monarchy in England, for we have made the crown elective. But there is an absolute necessity of having a government, and I do not see a prospect of any other than this; we must not leave ourselves to the rabble. ⁵⁰³

The Convention required William and Mary to agree to terms before they were formerly offered the Throne. This was the first time since the Magna Carta of 1215 that a formal Declaration of Rights⁵⁰⁴ was extracted from an English sovereign and in essence, required William and Mary to guarantee the free election of members of parliament and their right of free speech without interference.

Whilst this Declaration was later converted by the succeeding parliament into the more famous Bill of Rights, the legality of the structure and proceedings, which led to the Bill is still questioned to this day.

Whereas the 1689 Convention was not elected by a universal franchise, it could also be said that neither was the parliament of the time.

The authorities, or rather what was left of them, did what they could to bring about a peace and this is what occurred. No constitution in the world could survive a close inspection without producing areas of inexactness, for there are times when actions have to be taken for which there are no precedents.

One such example was the Regency Bill of 1811⁵⁰⁵ which was not assented to by King George III, simply because he was not fit enough to do so, but by Lords Commissioners in the name of the King. The Lords Commissioners were themselves appointed under Letters Patent signed by the Lord Chancellor, again without the King’s assent.

Whilst the Conventions and the bypassing of the King’s assent are acts which had to be done to resolve what could have become constitutional crises or worse civil war, British politicians of today should bear in mind the uncertainly of the constitutional base of the authority of parliament when they seek, in their arrogance, to amend the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement or to subject the Crown to any external influence, such as the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN UNION

When Alfred, Lord Tennyson¹¹⁶ wrote:

Sons, be welded, each and all
Into one imperial whole⁵⁰⁶

he was, of course, referring to Britain, but his words could easily now refer to what will soon become in fact, if not, in name the ‘European Union Empire’. Unlike that of the British, it will not be an empire based on British law and British justice, but one based on the code of the dictator Napoleon - the bogey-man coming home to roost two hundred years after his defeat.

It is quite ironic that that strutting imperialist, who tore up the map of Charlemagne’s remnant thousand year European empire, now has his imprint reigning supreme over a new Empire, this time created by the pen and not the sword!

However, unlike that bequeathed to the British colonies, there will be no burgeoning democracy whatsoever, nor will there be any encouragement towards independence. Quite the reverse, for the purpose of the Union is the centralization of power into one undemocratic body essentially responsible only to a few people in Brussels.

Europe has been no stranger to unification, for over two thousand years ago, the greatest union, which included Britain, was that of the Romans, which broke up in the 5th Century AD, and was followed shortly thereafter by that of Charlemagne⁴⁵⁹, which excluded Britain in the 8th Century AD. This existed in one form or another for a thousand years until Napoleon tore up the then map of Europe.

In the early years of the 18th Century proposals began to be put forward for an economic union of European nations (Abbé Charles de Saint-Pierre 1728⁵⁰⁸) and was given an impetus with the creation of the independent Federation of the United States of America (an incident absurdly likened by Valery Giscard d’Estaing⁵⁰⁹ to his own cumbersome constitutional draft). Napoleon gave some legitimacy to this concept with his 1806 ‘Customs Union’ established to blockade Britain but it was the ‘Zollverein⁵¹⁰’ customs union established amongst thirty-nine states of the German Confederation in 1833, which can be looked upon as the precursor of the European Common Market.

The creation of the League of Nations⁵¹¹ in the aftermath of the First World War gave impetus to the concept of a confederated Europe and several conferences met, many papers were delivered, and at least one book written on this subject (The United States of Europe by Edouard Herriot⁵¹² 1931); but nothing positive occurred prior to the Second World War.

In their plans for their ‘thousand year Reich,’⁵¹³ certain prominent Germans proposed a ‘European economic community’ with no borders and a common currency based on administration from Berlin; but the occupied countries were allowed no free choice under National Socialism. It was therefore only after the defeat of Germany that such Europeanists as the Frenchmen Jean Monnet⁵¹⁵ and Robert Schuman,⁵¹⁶ were able to persuade powers in the United States of America to support an economic union of European nations as a means whereby a future world war could be avoided.

Winston Churchill¹⁵⁵, who in a speech at the University of Zurich⁴⁴⁷ in 1946 urged the formation of a United States of Europe and played a not insignificant part in the establishment of ‘the Council of Europe’⁵¹⁷ in 1949, supported this belief. It was thus that the forerunner to European union was born. It should be said, however, that Churchill never ever looked upon Britain as being a part of Europe!

First came ‘the European Coal and Steel Community⁴⁶²’ in 1951 with six founding members: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (called the Benelux countries) with West Germany, France and Italy. Although invited to join at this early stage, the Attlee Labour government, as had Churchill, held that union was for Europe, not for the United Kingdom and that the long-existing arrangements with Empire and Commonwealth should continue!

BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY STARTS TO SLIP AWAY

In 1957, the first of what were to be several important treaties leading to significant losses - both real and potential - of national sovereignty was entered into by the member nations of the Coal and Steel Community. Called ‘The Treaty of Rome⁸⁹’ it laid the pathway for the total politicisation of the Union.

It was from this that the ‘European Economic Community’ or ‘EEC’ emerged and following the assumption of office by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan⁴⁴⁶, the British Government promoted the ‘EEC’ as an extremely palatable trading arrangement allowing the ‘freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people’ from which Britain, as a member, would gain tremendous advantage without loss of sovereignty and without impairment of its relationships with the Commonwealth!

In 1960, along with Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, (Iceland joining in 1970) Britain helped establish the ‘European Free Trade Association⁵¹⁹’ or ‘EFTA’, a non-political free trade arrangement. The British Government originally stated that it was joining this  ‘non-invasive’ organisation, and not the main Community, so that it would not impair its relationship with the Commonwealth. However, it then stated that it needed to join the actual Community, due to the deterioration of its Commonwealth trade, but this is total nonsense, as within only a matter of months of joining EFTA, a formal application was made to join the Community as a full member.

As we know, this was rejected in 1961 as was a further application in 1967; however, in 1973 Britain was formally accepted into full membership of the European Community and became a signatory to the Treaty of Rome  - the intent of which was always to create an: ever closer union of the peoples of Europe.

The two people most responsible for plunging Britain into union with Europe were of course Harold Macmillan and his acolyte Edward Heath⁵²⁰ who, as Heath has now admitted, grossly misled not just the British people but also the Commonwealth in their haste to become a part of what they assumed would not only be the greatest and most prosperous trading conglomerate the world has ever seen, but also the end to all wars!

Macmillan was a product of the age of social reform, where so many of his ilk became devotees of the socialist Fabian movement¹⁰⁷ which, as you would all know has always had as its creed the peaceful obliteration of what exists and the creation of a new socialist world. People of that era, and even today, have so very casually dismissed the thousand years of trial, errors and agony it has taken to create what is the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Whilst most treaties, such as NATO, admittedly lead to a slight erosion of that sovereignty, their purpose is to underwrite and protect the national interest, not to demolish it!

British sovereignty is unlike that of most European nations, for since Saxon times ours has been based on the freedom of the individual whereas that of European nations is based on the authority of the state. It is thus that what may be perfectly normal and acceptable to the French and the Germans is absolutely abhorrent to us. Such is the extent of the successful hood-winking of the British people that most seem not to realise, and possibly neither care, that their independence has been subjugated to an entity which is totally alien to everything that was Britain.

Despite the Government White Paper of 1971 stating that there was: no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty,⁵²¹ the several treaties that the British parliament has already entered into with the European Community have not led to simply an acceptable erosion of sovereignty, but to the actual control of the British legislature and the legendary law of the United Kingdom by an ineffectual puppet European Parliament regulated by what is essentially an autocratic committee based in Europe.

A decade following Britain’s joining, the EEC began its pre-destined transformation into Union.

In 1983 the member nations entered into the ‘Solemn Declaration on European Union⁵²²’ (the Stuttgart Declaration 1983) and in 1986 the Single European Act⁵²³ saw the commencement of political integration into a single community. This was followed in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty⁵²⁴ which formally established the European Union. In 1999, eleven of the then fifteen member nations (Austria, the Benelux countries, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) joined into the one single currency called the Euro⁵²⁵, with Greece joining in, in 2001.

In 2003 the Treaty of Nice⁹⁰ was implemented, ostensibly to facilitate the expansion, from its original grouping of six nations, to a Federation (in fact, if not in name) of twenty five members, which included: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom.

BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY GONE

At present the running of the Union is divided into three main areas: the (somewhat toothless) European Parliament⁹⁴ based in Strasbourg, the European Commission,⁹³ based in Brussels together with the Council of Ministers⁹¹ and its many committees; and the European Court of Justice,⁹² based in Luxembourg. Assisting these are numerous bodies with countless administrative staff, supported by close to a hundred thousand pages of rules and regulations!

With its stranglehold on the parliament and the laws of the United Kingdom almost complete (I understand that up to 80% of legislation in the UK Parliament now emanates from Brussels), the Governments of all member nations have agreed and, indeed, are signatories, to a unifying Constitution. It is no wonder that there is a misunderstanding over the intent of this Constitution, for it comprises something like 66,000 words - compared to some 522 words in the Bill of Rights - and unlike most constitutional documents seems to be intentionally disjointed so as to create confusion! The purpose of this Constitution is not to create a new entity but to simply consolidate into a legally binding document that to which member Governments have already agreed through past treaties.

Items such as Section 10 of the proposed Constitution which reads: The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the laws of Member States have created quite natural concerns of supra-national dominance, however as evidenced in several legal cases in the United Kingdom, this primacy already exists!

Article 1V.1 specifically states: The currency of the Union shall be the euro and whilst the British people have consistently rejected acceptance of the euro, preferring to stay with the well tried and tested currency of the Pound Sterling, it is clear that should Britain entrench itself further into Europe, it will have no choice but to relinquish the pound and cede authority over its own economic policies. Of similar concern is Article II-114, which specifically forbids any political campaigning to reverse any aspects of the Charter!

With at least ten member nations, including Great Britain, requiring a confirming vote through referendums, it seems now to be likely that the Constitution will not be ratified by all members as is required.

However, since the Constitution can be likened to the skin over an existing skeleton, rejection will not create an impasse but simply an irritation requiring the Union to change direction utilising existing and, possibly, new treaties not requiring referendums, to continue with the plans for the extinguishment of the autonomy of individual member nations and the centralisation of sovereignty into a suzerainty rather than into a single state.

BRITISH PEOPLE DUPED

Whilst this may be acceptable to those in Europe who for centuries have been used to seigneury, I ask how can this be sanctioned by the British people, whose ancient liberties and freedoms have remained intact for over a thousand years?

Indeed, how can the British people even contemplate accepting total political immersion into Europe, thus proceeding with the betrayal of those former Dominions continuing under the Crown of the United Kingdom who whenever asked have come to the military assistance of the ‘Mother Country’ to help her fight - not just for the freedoms of the world, but for the very ideals which were Britain?

When the people of the United Kingdom voted at the 1975 referendum⁵²⁶ to confirm Britain’s entry into the European Common Market, there was not the slightest public indication that there would eventually be created one state going far beyond that of an economic union. For it is proposed to have one foreign and one defence policy backed by one defence force; and one police force backing one judicial system based on European law and administered by professional judges, not necessarily taken from those trained in the law as we know it!

According to Article I-15, paragraph 2 of the European Constitution:

Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area.

They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.

The control of the defence and foreign affairs policies of the Member States will be in the hands of the unelected Council which itself has no public reporting of its proceedings and is not responsible to any parliament.

This is a matter of great concern to us in the Commonwealth for there is the potential that Britain may be forced into a war against our allies at the time, or worse, those with whom we may have entered into a military alliance!

Without waiting for a referendum on the Constitution, Britain has already amended the Act of Settlement to enable aliens who are not ‘Subjects of the Queen’ and therefore not required to take an oath of allegiance (other than to the Union), to be employed in areas of government, defence and policing within Great Britain.

At present, Britain has a seat on the Security Council⁵²⁷. As an integral part of the Union, will it be allowed to continue to enjoy this privilege? If it is found that, with allegiance to a larger entity, it cannot, it will not only be the British people who will lose this protection, but indirectly the Realms themselves.

In one way or another the Union will reform itself to implement the proposed structures implicit in the Constitution, including the establishment of the office of Executive President who will undoubtedly require to be acknowledged as the ‘head of state’ of the Union! Did not Edmund Burke¹³⁹ so wisely say: Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny⁵²⁸.

Several members of parliament who assented to the Treaty of Rome have acknowledged that they never ever read it, but simply accepted as truthful the lies told them by their leaders!

The truth is that it is this Treaty, together with all the following treaties entered into by the British parliament by which they have abrogated almost the totality of the powers vested in them by the people of the United Kingdom to the European Union. In this way the concept of the Westminster doctrine in regard to the sovereignty of the people has been bypassed in favour of authoritarianism through the dictates of an unelected administration in a foreign country.

That the island kingdom which created the largest empire known to mankind would have, by the very acts of its parliament, set in process the eventual exclusion of its people from British law and British justice (justice it freely bequeathed to all those whom itself subjugated) is incredible. 

No truer word was said than by the Frenchman Montesquieu¹⁴²: The deterioration of a government begins almost always by the decay of its principles⁵²⁹.

The Westminster System, itself developed over a period of centuries in the United Kingdom, is based on the principle of the people electing other people to represent them in the parliament for a temporary period.

The development of political groupings was a natural course of progress as those of like mind joined together, initially to lobby the King, and - as time passed and circumstances warranted - to form their own governments; always however, remaining subject to election by the people!

Whether a ‘temporary’ parliament can cede its sovereignty to an alien authority is open to question; it is certainly morally, and possibly legally, wrong.

One of the main reasons for the 1688 Declaration and the ensuing Bill of Rights was to prevent any future king from entering into an alliance with the likelihood thereby of ceding authority to a foreign entity. This restriction should likewise apply to the parliament itself, however, the main impediment is that the British Constitution, uncodified as it is, is within the primacy of the parliament and neither the Monarch nor the courts can question the actions of an elected parliament. To do so would be to return to the days of James II for only the people can so question - nowadays, at election. Indeed, the power and the prerogative of the Monarch, and as a consequence the courts of the Crown, were emasculated by the Declaration and the ensuing Bill of Rights in total favour of parliament.

THE FORMER DOMINIONS (NOW COMMONWEALTH REALMS) ARE UNDERPINNED BY THE CROWN

What the British Parliament must understand is that the bond that existed between the British nations of a hundred years ago and the Crown has not changed. What has altered is the attitude of successive British Governments which have fostered for over fifty years a process of separation from the Commonwealth Realms to free Britain of any responsibility as it sought to unite with Europe.

Had it not taken this course of action, we may today have seen Australia, Canada and New Zealand and Great Britain united in a close association of the British peoples under the Crown and were it not for the disjointing of these familial arrangements, it is likely that Australia may not have faced such a strong move towards a republic in the closing years of the last century.

Since the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788⁵³⁰ there have been those in Australia against the Monarchy. The anti-British sentiments which have been kept determinedly kept alive for generations mostly by Australians descended from those Irish who still bear life-long grudges for incidents their forefathers suffered in centuries past. It received a tremendous impetus with the angst felt by so many at what was seen as a betrayal by Britain as it advised Australia and other Commonwealth Nations in 1961⁴⁶⁷ that it was reneging on its trading arrangements with them to facilitate its entry into Europe.

The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of November, 1961⁵³¹, curtailing the freedom of movement of Subjects of the Queen who were not citizens of the United Kingdom, soon followed, and was a stark indication of things that were to come. Having to line up in the ‘Aliens’ or as is now termed the ‘Others’ queue to enter Britain is particularly galling for those who fought for Britain in Europe. Fortunately, the trust Australians quite rightly repose in our system of government overcame what seemed to be overwhelming odds, as we faced a maliciously orchestrated (but fortunately unsuccessful) referendum on a republic in 1999. It is to be hoped that their trust is not betrayed once again by the British Parliament!

There are many questions which we, in the Realms, must ask in regard to how the European Union, in its political state, will affect us. I say ‘political’ because, of course, the matter of trade is one for Britain to determine.

Whatever angst the Realms underwent when Britain reneged on its obligations to us, throwing out what was then known by the now politically incorrect term of the ‘White’ Commonwealth, to enable Britain to make its own trading arrangements, have long since passed. Australia has found its own feet in the industrialised world and despite our small population, is now independently a major economic power although our constitutional arrangements remain dependent on the system of Westminster government under a Constitutional Monarchy.

The one major difference in our constitution from that of the United Kingdom is that change to our written constitutional document cannot be effected by the parliament but only by the people.

However, as in Britain, many of our constitutional arrangements are not codified and provided there is no conflict with our written document, our parliament is unencumbered.

This is how it was able to limit appeals to the Privy Council in 1968 and 1975,⁴⁰⁷ and then pass the Australia Acts in 1986,⁶⁸ all without reference to the people, although there are those who still say that these Acts were unconstitutional.

Our Federal Commonwealth has been established ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain’ which means that it cannot survive in its present state without that Crown.

Furthermore our Constitution requires that Crown to: extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom⁷⁶⁴.

In 1953 the Australian Parliament passed the ‘Royal Style and Titles Act, 1953’²⁷⁸ declaring the ‘Royal Style and Title’ in Australia to be:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Twenty years later, the Australian Parliament enacted a new style under the ‘Royal Style and Titles Act, 1973²⁷⁶’ declaring that in Australia the style was thereafter to be:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

The Queen was in Australia when she gave her Royal Assent to the Act on the 19^th October, 1973, at which time Her Majesty said:

It puts ‘Queen of Australia’ first and foremost. It will give me much satisfaction to do this because it is something which my father thought should be done as long ago as 1947 and, above all, I hope it will strengthen that relationship which I value and cherish.⁵³²

Following Assent, the Loyal Toast was then proposed, by the Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam²¹³, to ‘the Queen of Australia’ during which he referred to Australia as a Kingdom⁵³²!

Whilst the terminology of ‘Crown of Australia’ is freely used, there is actually no constitutional or legal document creating such an entity, the inference taken from the Royal Style and Titles Acts.

One hundred years ago, the Crown was deemed to be one indivisible unit but following 1926 it was viewed as separate entities to accord with the independent sovereignties of the then Dominions or to use the current term ‘Commonwealth Realms’. However, no express legislation was enacted to describe, of the Crown, what is separate and what is the whole, leaving it open to interpretation.

At present the Queen adopts a different persona in the performance of her constitutional duties in each of her realms⁴⁹². It is the ‘one’ separating into the ‘many’ as may be constitutionally required.

However, whilst the parliament and government of Australia are as independent of Britain as Britain’s are  independent of us, neither we nor Britain can escape the fact that our (Australian) Federation is vested in the Crown and our Constitution in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, which surely means that despite the lack of legislation determining the status of that Crown, the parliament of the United Kingdom does not alone have the jurisdiction to legislate on anything which may impair the performance of the Crown even beyond the two areas of the Royal Style and Titles and the Succession and the fundamental documents of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement!

Of course, this interlinking between our constitutional arrangements ‘under the Crown’ provides an opportunity for assertions by republicans that we are not ‘independent’.

Whilst this is arguable in that we are a sovereign country and make our decisions totally independent of influence by the British Government, the problem is that the British Parliament has virtual control over the Crown. Even the requirements of the Statute of Westminster that: any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, is rejected by contemporary politicians and jurists alike in that it is a perambulatory declaration and because of the Convention that ‘no one Parliament can bind its successor’!

There is much argument to justify the legal status of Preambles, for they explain what follows. It suits politicians to abide by the convention that ‘no one Parliament can bind its successor’, however, they tend to conveniently forget that their supremacy essentially derives originally from Magna Carta but more from the Declaration of Rights, both of which are resultant from treaties contracted by the Monarch of the time. In a similar manner to the parliament, cannot it not also be said that one monarchy cannot bind another?

Because there is no specific scheme outlining how our constitutions are interconnected through the Crown, there is a consequent deficiency of understanding of these arrangements both in the parliaments and the courts in the United Kingdom and the Realms alike. But there will need to be a greater awareness as the British people, or as is now more likely, the British parliament, make their decision at referendum on whether or not to accede to the Constitution for Europe, for in so doing they may well place the ‘persona’ of the Queen at risk and thereby force the Realms into reluctant constitutional change. It is no wonder that Prime Minister Blair stated in his address at the recent Labour Party Conference that Britain’s place in world politics was entering an historic realignment!⁵³³

Surely there is no need to submerge British sovereignty into Europe. Surely there is a ‘middle’ way in which Britain can retain the actual and perceived benefits of a trading alliance without foregoing primacy over its Parliament and its laws?

BRITISH AND AUSTRALIAN FREEDOMS – JEWELS IN THE CROWN

There are two main areas of concern to us in Australia and to others of the Realms. The first is the freedom of the British Parliament, which has a great measure of primacy over the Crown.

The fact that the parliament has already itself ceded ascendancy to Brussels without protecting the independence of the Crown is morally wrong, for it does not belong to Britain alone and for the sake of the Realms the Crown, and the ‘persona’ of the Queen must be maintained intact.

Of similar concern at the moment is the position of the Queen under the Presidency of the Union. Past history has shown that the Union will assume total supremacy over its member nations; and the implication of that is that its President will undoubtedly be termed ‘head of state’.

I ask how will this affect the position of the Queen in (the UK) parliament and how will it affect the position of the Queen in the parliaments of the Realms?

The Crown and its workings can be likened to the solid and stable foundation upon which there are many buildings and if the parliament of the United Kingdom is allowed to remove bits and pieces from this foundation, they are then putting the whole edifice in danger.

It will not be the peoples of Great Britain who alone will suffer the consequences, but also those of us in the Commonwealth Realms.

As stated at the commencement of this Paper, the seventeenth century poet, John Dryden. wrote:

Freedom which in no other land will thrive,
Freedom an English subject’s sole prerogative⁵³⁴

and it was this intense belief that led firstly, to the overthrow by parliament of Charles I, and secondly, to the removal of his grandson James II and the establishment of a formal Constitutional Monarchy under a Parliamentary Democracy.

There can never be any such thing as ‘pure freedom’ for that would be tantamount to chaos. Every individual must sacrifice a portion of his freedom to maintain the rest intact.

In Australia this means that we subject ourselves to law and order; according to the proper directions of those we place in authority; the Government, the Judiciary and the police. However, to voluntarily hand over these individual freedoms to the European Union, and to make them subject to the laws and policing of this alien authority for what is, in actuality, an illusionary ‘mess of pottage’, seems to me to be total insanity and indeed a betrayal by the British parliament of its duty to the people who place their governance in its care.

Of course, subjugating themselves to the will of Europe is a matter for the British people to decide. However, neither the British people nor their parliament have the right to make any determination which may affect the status of the Crown, for it is the Crown which is at the very heart of the democracies of fifteen other nations, including Australia, and to whom Dryden’s words continue to remain sacrosanct:

Freedom an English subject’s sole prerogative.

UPDATE NOTE

As anticipated the people of both France and Holland rejected the Constitution for Europe at their referendums. The French Referendum, which was held on the 29^th May 2005, returned a 55% NO vote with 69% of the electorate voting. The referendum in the Netherlands held on the 1 June 2005, returned a 62% NO vote with 63% of the electorate voting.

Only Spain and Luxembourg had previously held referendums on this question, both passing with substantial majorities. Denmark, the Republic of Ireland, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom have postponed their planned referendums indefinitely and the Czech Republic has cancelled plans altogether, taking the safer option of parliamentary ratification.

The Parliaments of Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Germany, Latvia, Cyprus, Malta and Belgium have agreed to the Constitution without referendums. The Parliaments of Estonia, Finland and Sweden have yet to debate the question.

It is expected that the Union will either make appropriate alterations to the constitution or seek to placate those politicians who publicly opposed it or else proceed along a pathway, such as a treaty, not requiring future referendums. One thing that is certain is that it will not allow the Union to fragment.