Simon wrote:Right I am now ready to reply and trash your silly arguments once more.
My arguments are based on the links I provided you from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and on the Australian Constitution.
Your arguments are based on trashy wikipedia and google links....
Simon wrote:
You have not attacked me? Do you want me to dig up your posts, where you called me British scum amongst other things, completely unprovoked? I didn't think so...
I included ANZAC troops with the British forces, because they were a part of the Imperial Forces that fought for the British Empire, UNDER BRITISH COMMAND. End of story. You obviously hate the fact that the British ruled Australia and therefore try to deny the undeniable. Well tough shit. You cannot change history just because you don't like how it sounds.
You have attacked Australia's sovereignty when I kindly requested that you do not link the ANZACs as British, because Australia and the AIF was present at that campaign as a
nation in its own right just like any other. You choose to ignore or belittle this...
The AIF was not part of the Imperial Forces you wombat. The AIF was a completely sovereign and separate military force as Australia was independent in 1901. Cypriots were part of the "Imperial Forces" in WW2, Australians were not part of the Empire's Imperial Military in WW1 or WW2, as our AIF was completely separate.
What on earth are you talking about? Where did I say Australia is part of any Empire today? You sound like a rambling wreck. Of course Australia is not part of any Empire today. The British don't have an Empire. I'm talking about the time of the First World War. Have you not even grasped that yet.
Australia shares historical and cultural links with Britain, as well as a language, and is a close ally. You are clearly a racist. You hate the British and therefore the thought of Australia in any way associated with them churns your stomach. Well again I say, tough shit racist! Facts are facts.
Stop playing games Simon, because Australia was an independent nation in 1901, and you still ignore the links I provided you from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Constitution.
I suggest you read your crappy links again...
The English are the single largest group by far, at around 31% claiming English heritage. Only 9% claimed Irish heritage in the 2006 Australian consensus. Not that any of this matters, you are just showing your racism. Who called them British? I said the majority of them are settlers from Britain, when you tried to make out that all Australians are racist like yourself. Obviously today they regard themselves as Australian.
This is nothing but typical arrogance.
Australians are not British settlers. Less than 1,000,000 Australians were born in Britain, so how the hell can they be "British settlers"?
And yes, Aussies don't like the Poms very much, even those that admit to some English inheritance, so we are racist and with good reason it would appear.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa were part of the empire as independent states, not as subjects. These countries had their own respective Crown or Monarch. Do not confuse these countries with other subject nations of the Crown such as Cyprus prior to 1960. Cyprus was a British subject whilst Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were not. BIG DIFFERANCE.
Now go back and read the links I provided you from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, like a good boy....
Paphitis wrote:
Quote:
Although Australia is an independent nation, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is also formally Queen of Australia.
Today this is correct. The situation was different in the years I am talking about. You still have not grasped this.
It was also correct from 1901, and during WW1 as stated in the
official links I provided you. Ask any Australian and they will tell you the same as New Year's Day is celebrated as Australia's Federation Day (Independence Day)!
Paphitis wrote:
Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia has its OWN independent Crown, which is the nations head of state (soon to be deposed, requiring another Statute no doubt).
Simon wrote:
Again, you are talking about the situation today, which is irrelevant.
I am talking about the situation from 01 January 1901!
What you post above actually proves what I have been saying all along. Australia was self-governing, but not fully independent. For if it was fully independent, why would Western Australia even bother Britain with it? This is not the actions of an independent nation. Britain refused to intervene because it made Australia self-governing and it was an internal Australian matter! Read below:
Please try to understand what I posted. It was The Commonwealth of Australia that requested intervention from its
OWN crown to prevent Western Australia from severing ties from the Federation.
Simon wrote:
"Between 1855 and 1890, the six colonies individually gained responsible government, managing most of their own affairs while remaining part of the British Empire. The Colonial Office in London retained control of some matters, notably foreign affairs, defence, and international shipping. On 1 January 1901, federation of the colonies was achieved after a decade of planning, consultation, and voting. The Commonwealth of Australia was born and it became a dominion of the British Empire in 1907. The Federal Capital Territory (later renamed the Australian Capital Territory) was formed from a part of New South Wales in 1911 to provide a location for the proposed new federal capital of Canberra. (Melbourne was the temporary seat of government from 1901 to 1927 while Canberra was being constructed.) The Northern Territory was transferred from the control of the South Australian government to the Commonwealth in 1911".
It became a dominion in 1907, not 1901. Another error on your behalf. Again I ask, how was Australia fully independent when it was a dominion "OF" the Empire. It was "of" the Empire, so how is it fully separate from it, i.e. independent?
Exactly!
The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on 01 Jan 01. This is the day Australia became completely independent. It was still part of the Empire, but not a subject, because Australia at the time wanted to be part of it by retaining the Crown as head of state, and in 1907 its status was upgraded as a Dominion within that Empire.
Paphitis wrote:
The Statute of Westminster only removed the last "theoretical" avenues in which Britain could intervene within Australian affairs, and a further Statute was required in 1986, because "theoretically", Britain still had the ability to intervene and legislate for any Australian State (former colonies) within the Federation and undermine the Commonwealth of Australia (Federal).
Simon wrote:
The Treaty of Westminster was British involvement in Australian affairs. It gave Australia legislative independence. Australia did not even have proper legislative independence before 1931, yet you want to tell me it was fully independent and separate from the Empire.
The Statute of Westminster was no such thing.
There is no British involvement on Australian Affairs unless the Federal Parliament allowed it. The Statute was ratified in 1942, not 1931, by Australia's Parliament. Australia did not have to ratify it if it didn't want to. From 1901, it was not Self Governance that Australia had, it was independence and Australia's first Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton was sworn in on 01 Jan 1901.
Legislative independence was achieved in 1901, as ALL laws passed in Australia were ratified by Federal Parliament. Britain had no authority to ratify anything on Australia's behalf.
Everyone in Australia knows it, and yet you cannot provide one link that says it. This article states the Commonwealth of Australia and its democracy was born. I never disputed this. What it it not saying is that this meant all ties were severed with the British Empire, because they weren't! You have even posted links that confirm this!
I posted links from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Here it is again:
The Australian Federal Government states quite clearly that Australia became fully independent on 01 Jan 01.
Quote:
One of the oldest continuous democracies in the world, the Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901 when the former British colonies—now the six states—agreed to federate. The democratic practices and principles that shaped the pre-federation colonial parliaments (such as ‘one man, one vote’ and women’s suffrage) were adopted by Australia’s first federal government http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Paphitis wrote:
In fact, Australia has ALWAYS been more democratic than Britain itself, because The Commonwealth of Australia has its OWN Constitution (since 1901) and Britain doesn't even have that!
Simon wrote:
Britain DOES have a constitution. What it doesn't have is a codified constitution, i.e. codified in one document, because its democracy never developed that way. Magna Carta and various other British constitutional documents are the basis of many constitutions around the world, including the American one. The British Parliamentary system and been copied around the world, and Britain has helped establish many democracies, including Australia's! So get off your high horse please!
We all know Britain does not have a codified Constitution in order to maintain its "establishment" and thank heavens Australia never followed your lead, because Th Australian Constitution was also moulded on The Constitution of The United States, and was developed by Australians because the fact of the matter is, Britain never even had a Constitution so how the hell could Britain develop Australia's Constitution?
And we also know Britain's record at creating Constitutions and "democracies". They did develop the Cypriot Constitution after all, and now look what happened. Face it Simon, Britain's incompetence is legendary throughout history...
Simon wrote:
How can it be part of anything today when the Empire no longer exists? You're still confusing today's reality to the situation before WW1. Read:
"Four colonies of Australia had enjoyed responsible government since 1856: New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.[22] Queensland had responsible government soon after its founding in 1859[23] but, because of ongoing financial dependence on Britain, Western Australia became the last Australian colony to attain self-government in 1890.[24]
During the 1890s, the colonies voted to unite and in 1901 they were federated under the British Crown as the Commonwealth of Australia by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.The Constitution of Australia had been drafted in Australia and approved by popular consent. Thus Australia is one of the few countries established by a popular vote.[25] Under the second Balfour Declaration, the federal government was regarded as coequal with (and not subordinate to) the British and other Dominion governments, and this was given formal legal recognition in 1942 (when the Statute of Westminster was retroactively adopted to the commencement of the Second World War 1939). The governments of the states (called colonies before 1901) remained under the Commonwealth but retained vestigial links to the British Parliament until the passage of the Australia Act 1986."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion
Just like your link states, the Australian Colonies (States) formed The Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The British Monarch was retained because Australia wanted to keep it, and later it was transformed to the Australian Monarch/Crown.
There were no vestigial links to the British Parliament, but the Australian States within the Federation had remnant laws within their Constitutions which could potentially allow Britain to exercise some power over them, thus undermining The Commonwealth of Australia. The Australia Act was ratified to nullify these remnant laws which were
dormant for 80 years.
You still can't provide me with one Act Britain imposed on Australia can you?
Simon wrote:
Australia was federated "under the British crown" which back then meant something. Today is doesn't. The above also confirms that Australia was only "recognised as coequal with the British" at the SECOND Balfour Convention, which was in 1926,
AFTER WW1. Two points hear, "recognised coequal". Well if Australia was fully independent and separate from the Empire, why did it have to worry about being equal with the British? Secondly, this by implication means that before 1927, Australia was regarded as subordinate to the British.
It is ok, I'm not expecting an apology.
The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 as an independent nation and with the British Crown as the head of state. The Crown's role back then was purely ceremonial as it is in the UK. Nothing has changed other than the fact that the British Crown was replaced by the Australian Crown.
With regards to the Balfour Convention, you need to get you facts right.
The Balfour Convention (1926) - This document from the 1926 Imperial Conference declares the United Kingdom and its Dominions equal in status in all matters of internal and external affairs. This replaced the principle of a hierarchical relationship with one of 'autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status ... and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations'.This was only applied to the ceremonial British Crown and the Empire, which was then replaced by the Australian Crown to signify this equal status, but Australia was already a nation in its own right from 1901 with this British Crown as head of state, later to transform into the Australian Crown to signify ceremonial equal status within the empire.
The above has absolutely no bearing on anything Simon, as Australia was a free and independent nation on 1901. And as a nation, it went to WAR in Gallipoli on its own accord, and not as part of any British Imperial Force. The AIF was completely separate, Australia had its own Prime minister, Parliament, was already engaging in Foreign Affairs and Gallipoli signified "the coming of age" of the young nation, because it was at War as an independent nation and not as a component of The British Empire.
Gallipoli and WW1 was the first war Australia had as an independent nation. Australians did serve in other wars, such as the Boer War, but back then Australian Soldiers were a mere component or regiment of the British Empire, but that was not the case in Gallipoli. And this is why the ANZACS and the AIF are not to be categorised as British, and no one apart from you does this.
Balfour opened the first meeting of the Committee by stating that the 1914–18 war had left the Empire
'unexplained and undefined' a situation complicated by the role of the Dominions 'in framing and signing the Treaty'.
Simon wrote:
With regards to Australia's forces, the clue is in IMPERIAL. If they were imperial forces, they were obviously forces of the Empire. Not independent. Plus these forces were under BRITISH COMMAND. THIS SAYS IT ALL. I wish you wouldn't continue going around in circles on things I've clearly refuted.
Paphitis wrote:
The fact that Australia is a Dominions to this very day, should also say something to you sunshine. Having Australian commanders is a prerequisite to success and this is proven throughout history! Because every single time the British and especially the Americans have their finger in the pie, we have a disaster on our hands. So stay away from our ADF you incompetent nincompoops, because you are a danger to our safety and were a danger to our AIF in the past!
Our status has not changed within this so called non existent Empire.
Simon wrote:
I have already dealt with this above. You cannot compare today, when Britain has no Empire, to back then, when it did, and say "Dominion" means the same thing.
HERE, THIS IS WHAT WAS, AND IS NOW, MEANT BY DOMINION"A dominion, often Dominion,[1] refers to one of a group of semi-autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, constituting the British Empire and British Commonwealth,
from the late 19th century.[2] They included (at varying times) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. After 1948, the term was used to denote independent nations that retained the British monarch as head of state; these included India, Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Kenya."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DominionKEY WORDS BEING SEMI-AUTONOMOUS, WHICH INCLUDES AUSTRALIA. AFTER 1948, THE TERM 'DOMINION' WAS USED TO DENOTE INDEPENDENT NATIONS. NOT BEFORE. UNDERSTAND? Read you link again!A dominion, often Dominion,[1] refers to one of a group of semi-autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, constituting the British Empire and British Commonwealth, from the late 19th century.[2] They included (at varying times) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State.
As your link clearly states, the states were only semi autonomous" in the late 19th century. This is certainly the case with the Australian Colonies, as they were
semi autonomous as early as the 1850s, until they formed The Commonwealth of Australia in 1901....
Paphitis wrote:
Australian Armed Forces were defined as "Imperial" because by default Australia was ALSO deemed to have an EMPIRE. Technically, all British subjects were also the subjects of the Dominion Powers (Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa etc) because we shared a Crown which ruled over the Empire, and this Crown was not just Great Britain's but was also the Crown of the Dominion Powers. In other words, Australia's Crown, Canada's Crown etc etc ruled over the Empire's "subjects"!
Simon wrote:
Australia was deemed to be PART of the Empire, that is why "Imperial" was used. British subjects were subjects of the same Empire that Australia was a part of. All this is yet more proof that Australia was not independent of the Empire!
The only thing this proves is that Australia was an independent nation within the Empire and this is why Australia was able to raise its own Army, Air Force and Navy (AIF) and go to war as a nation for the first time. This is a fact!
Simon wrote:
You then proceed to tell me the statistics of Australia. The funny thing is, you reply as if you refuted what I said, but actually you supported my statement. In every area, Australia was ranked lower than Britain. A few corrections: Australia is NOT the 6th biggest defense spender, nowhere near. It is 14th. It is also the 14th largest economy measured by GDP. PPP is not an accurate way to measure the size of an economy. The preferred method by most is GDP (nominal).
Please read again!
This is what I said:
If that is the case, then Australian GDP is 40% the size of Britain's and yet Australia's population is a mere 21 million compared to Britain's 63 million. So the magnitude of the Australian Economy outstrips the magnitude of Britain's economy on a per capita basis, and this is the preferred option (per capita) of measuring GDP output when comparing different economies, and not GDP (nominal) as you would then not be comparing apples with apples.
I stated that Australia is a far richer and larger economy than Britan on a per capita basis and made no mention of nominal GDP...
Paphitis wrote:
That's a bit rich considering that what you posted supports my argument that Australia is richer than the UK, and packs a bigger punch since our population is a third of yours...
Simon wrote:
Then you mention aircraft carriers. Firstly, can you point me to a credible link that states Australia is building 2 carriers, because I know of no such procurement programme. I suspect this is just more assumptions by you. In any event, the UK has 2 carriers, not 1 (they did have 3 but 1 has recently been decommissioned). So Australia will have an equal amount IF they do build 2 carriers. However, the UK is building 2 huge supercarriers, displacing 65,000 tons each. The Australian Navy cannot hope to compete with the Royal Navy. So don't even go there, I will rip you to shreds. Britain have recently developed the best air defence ships in the world, the Type 45 Destroyer, not even the Americans have anything like it. The Royal Navy is a bluewater navy that can project power around the globe. Only the Americans, French and possibly Russians can currently say the same thing. Australia certainly do not have this capability.
http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class The Canberra Class will be fitted with a catapult for launching aircraft, when they are upgraded.
If you look at the picture below, the Canberra Class is designed with a sky ramp to launch aircraft when the catapult is fitted. In this way, Australia will end up with 2 Light Aircraft carriers without upsetting the opposition or causing another political rucus.
Furthermore, Australia plans to purchase the F-35 A/Bs for the RAAF, and a small number will belong to the Royal Australian Navy Air Arm, and will operate from the Canberra Class Ships which HAVE been designed in such a way as to be able to be modified and accept fixed wing aircraft and STOVL aircraft.
The Canberra class ships will provide the Australian Defence Force with greatly increased naval aviation capabilities, with each ship carrying up to 24 Army and Navy helicopters.[1] These aircraft will include Army and Navy MRH-90 transport helicopters, Army Tiger helicopter gunships and Navy S-70B Seahawk anti-submarine helicopters.
Although the ships will be fitted with a ski-ramp and could be certified to operate STOVL aircraft, they will not be fitted with the radar needed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. Here is an artist's impression of an F-35 in RAN colours.
The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's recommendation was made on the grounds that STOVL aircraft would provide deployed Australian forces with air defence and close air support. Despite the slight reduction in range and payload of STOVL F-35B compared to CTOL F-35A (and C) aircraft, they are inherently flexible in terms of operation, and can provide organic close air support right at the edge of the Field of Battle Area, which land based aircraft cannot do. An order of F-35Bs for the Canberra class could form part of the planned order of up to 100 F-35s for the Royal Australian Air Force. The Navantia ships have a ski-jump included as part of the basic design, and are designed to operate and sustain a mixed jet and helicopter carrier air group of up to 36 aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_c ... opter_DockOnce again, this is what I wrote, so please don't pretend you don't comprehend:
In 2007, an Australian Defence White paper was leaked, which outlined plans to procure 2 Spanish or French Aircraft Carriers. There was some political controversy about this and the Department of Defence was reeling. The Defence Minister then declared the construction of the Canberra Class, and decided that 2 ships will be commissioned by 2013.
http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class These Ships are depicted as Helicopter Decks, but are easily modified to take Sea Harrier Jets and up to 12 F-18s or F-35s. It is planned to do this down the track.
They will also be fitted with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.
Paphitis wrote:
Australia too is considered a strategic power due to the Collins Class(most advance conventional subs) and F-111 etc. And we have been projecting our power for decades now. In fact, it is well and trully proven that the ADF is far more competent than both you and the US.
If you want to now how to really fight a war, then mimmick the ADF and what it did in East Timor. I believe that only the Israeli's are capable to match or even outperform the Aussies with clever no nonsense strategy and psychological warfare.
Simon wrote
This is pure nationalist nonsense. Yes Australia is a regional power, in the Pacific. Britain historically, and still today, can project power around the globe. Its power projection capabilities are second only to the US. I can't even believe you're trying to compare the two.
Britain couldn't even defeat 300 Cypriot villagers and you're telling me that Britain is a superpower.....
Face it Simon...It's over....Britain is a mere shadow of her former self, and right now the Dominions (Australia and Canada) are rising and will supersede you as you have become irrelevent...
Paphitis wrote:
There are no Aussies that regard Britain as a mother country. People who fantasise about "mother countries" are immature fucks (apart from those that only recognise cultural similarities). There are many Cypriots like that and you maybe one of them.
Simon wrote:
How can an idiot like you speak for every single Australian? I have heard this term from an Australian's mouth! So there you go, they must be "immature fucks" according to you
.
Simon, you accuse me of insulting you when you clearly have been insulting me by calling me all sorts of names, but worse of all, you have been insulting my Australia, which has clearly reached a level beyond Britain's reach.
We are richer, have better weather, are egalitarian, more democratic and liberal, beat you in all sports, have superior Armed Forces and Intelligence, and have better looking women than you.
And to top it all off, we have to beat you pricks off with a stick, because you know that Britain just can't compare to Australia in anything...
Paphitis wrote:
But you have definitely proven yourself to be a great Imperialist, so well done sunshine!
Simon wrote:
And you have definitely proved what a racist you are.
There you go again!
Let me tell you one thing Simon, The British Officer Corp is well renowned in the ADF as being the most arrogant, pompous, pretentious little gentleman's club, and the ADF snubs its nose at them.
I have met many, and I can tell you, it is they that are racist. They are well renowned for their bastardry, and only deserve to be treated with contempt.
Paphitis wrote:
They are legends in their own right, and are highly regarded by many nations, including former foes.
Simon wrote:
I respect them because I do not disrespect anyone who has served and sacrificed in the Armed Forces of any States. Shame you can't say the same.
So now the ANZACS served and sacrificed for their own State did they?
It's about time you saw the light.
Simon wrote:
The Royal Marines undertake the longest period of training in NATO. The Paras are legendary. The SAS are regarded as the best on earth. The Gurkhas bravery is the stuff of legend.
Paphitis wrote:
OUR SAS is regarded as the best as well. So who is the best then?
Simon wrote:
The Australian SAS is based on the British SAS. Traditionally, the British SAS has been referred to as the best in the world.
So what?
The Australian SAS is still just that - Australian SAS. And they are elite and formidable and they have more experience than the British SAS.
My money is with the Aussie SAS any day.
As I told you before:
The British and American Armed Forces can stay right away from the superior ADF, because we don't like you guy's behaving like Hollywood Rambo's endangering our men and women in suicide missions and futile wars!
Your incompetence throughout history is legendary, apart from a few isolated instances.
What a load of nonsense. What wars have Britain lost? They have taken casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan due to ongoing occupations. Any Forces would lose troops this way. None of these enemies take Britain head on, because they lose everytime in conventional war!
I'm not talking about casualties.
I'm talking about the British and the Americans losing these wars through utter stupidity. It is very difficult fighting against guerilla Insurgents with a conventional army. We are sick of all this American/British macho rambo crap.
The British and Americans should have decided to place all their forces under Australian Command, because this is the only way you would have a chance of winning these wars....
Paphitis wrote:
We don't want their memory tarnished through associations with the wrong crowds...Britain needs help, so may God save the Queen, because Australia sure as hell won't from now on!
Simon wrote:
Why do you think you have the authority to talk on behalf of Australia? You would get bitch-slapped by the monarchists in your OWN country, who voted to keep the Queen!
Why don't you try finding one Australian who disagrees with what I've said.
Don't worry about the Monarchists, because there are so difficult to spot. There are hardly no monarchists in Australia.
No one admits to being a Monarchist in Australia - and as you already know, the defunct Monarch will be altogether removed very soon. Our Prime Minister has already hinted at another referendum, and so the Monarch's days are numbered.
Simon wrote:
P.S. I noticed you didn't comment about the links I provided which clearly included Australia in the British Empire in 1914. Wonder why?
PS: I notice you ignore my official Australian Federal government links and rely on wikipedia for all your information. Wonder why?
