Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Shut up Paphitis! Australia had a referendum sometime in the 90’s when I was living there under Hawk, to determine whether they’d remain in the commonwealth or become a republic, but the Australian monarchists had their day.

[Simon]

In fact I made a mistake myself when I originally accepted your assertion that Australia was no longer technically part of the Empire after 1901. I thought it was wrong at the time due to Australia's dominion status, and after double-checking this, your assertion was wrong. Even technically and theoretically, Australia was still part of the Empire.

I think you have got your knickers in a knot.

Australia has been an independant country since 1901. Britain has absolutely no say within Australia and Australia's role as a Dominion Power is purely ceremonial and denotes EQUAL status within it - but please tell me ecxactly over which empire Australia is a Dominion off.

You can't be a Dominion over an empire that no longer exists.

Get you facts right because whilst Britain still fantasises over a non existent empire, Australia has become an economic superpower - which is still booming. We are the brad basket of china and India, whilst the UK is just an irrelevant pissant nation that now eats our dust.

Hands off our ANZACS, because you pathetic Brits have absolutely no right to bask in their glory!

Actually Paphitis, I think it is you who have got your knickers in a twist. Firstly, once again, Australia was not fully independent in 1901. It was still a dominion of the Empire. How can you say this was only ceremonial when over 100,000 ANZAC (as you pointed out) were fighting on behalf of the British in Gallipoli, under British command? How can you say it was ceremonial when the British were still legislating for Australia well beyond 1901? That is anything but ceremonial.

You are clearly confused. Please separate out in your mind the situation today, and the situation back in the time of the First World War. Today Britain has no Empire, you are right. I am not claiming that Australia is part of any Empire today. I'm talking about the situation back in 1916. You seem to be confusing two very different times in history. Back in World War I, Australia was still part of the British Empire, as a semi-autonomous dominion, and still fighting for Britain. Today, the Queen's role in Australia is ceremonial, and the Commonwealth is largely irrelevant. I have never denied this. My argument was clearly regarding WW1, the situation today is irrelevant.

If you want to talk about today's economies and Britain and Australia's role in the world, we can do that. The UK is still a major economic power. It has the 6th largest economy in the world. It is the 4th largest defence spender in the world. It has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It is a recognised nuclear power, and can project power around the globe. London is one of the most important cities in the world. Historically, and still today, Britain plays a leading role in the world, and its influence in all areas of culture, law, political systems etc can still be felt worldwide. Hardly an irrelevant nation now is it? Whilst Australia, with its population of just over 20 million people, cannot really say any of these things.

I actually like Australia and really do not want to get into a silly slanging match over this, but you needed to be put in your place.

P.S. I have no interest in your ANZACS. This obsessive paranoia is not healthy Paphitis.

[Paphitis]

In fact I made a mistake myself when I originally accepted your assertion that Australia was no longer technically part of the Empire after 1901. I thought it was wrong at the time due to Australia's dominion status, and after double-checking this, your assertion was wrong. Even technically and theoretically, Australia was still part of the Empire.

I think you have got your knickers in a knot.

Australia has been an independent country since 1901. Britain has absolutely no say within Australia and Australia's role as a Dominion Power is purely ceremonial and denotes EQUAL status within it - but please tell me exactly over which empire Australia is a Dominion off.

You can't be a Dominion over an empire that no longer exists.

Get you facts right because whilst Britain still fantasises over a non existent empire, Australia has become an economic superpower - which is still booming. We are the brad basket of china and India, whilst the UK is just an irrelevant pissant nation that now eats our dust.

Hands off our ANZACS, because you pathetic Brits have absolutely no right to bask in their glory!

Actually Paphitis, I think it is you who have got your knickers in a twist. Firstly, once again, Australia was not fully independent in 1901. It was still a dominion of the Empire. How can you say this was only ceremonial when over 100,000 ANZAC (as you pointed out) were fighting on behalf of the British in Gallipoli, under British command? How can you say it was ceremonial when the British were still legislating for Australia well beyond 1901? That is anything but ceremonial.

You are clearly confused. Please separate out in your mind the situation today, and the situation back in the time of the First World War. Today Britain has no Empire, you are right. I am not claiming that Australia is part of any Empire today. I'm talking about the situation back in 1916. You seem to be confusing two very different times in history. Back in World War I, Australia was still part of the British Empire, as a semi-autonomous dominion, and still fighting for Britain. Today, the Queen's role in Australia is ceremonial, and the Commonwealth is largely irrelevant. I have never denied this. My argument was clearly regarding WW1, the situation today is irrelevant.

If you want to talk about today's economies and Britain and Australia's role in the world, we can do that. The UK is still a major economic power. It has the 6th largest economy in the world. It is the 4th largest defence spender in the world. It has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It is a recognised nuclear power, and can project power around the globe. London is one of the most important cities in the world. Historically, and still today, Britain plays a leading role in the world, and its influence in all areas of culture, law, political systems etc can still be felt worldwide. Hardly an irrelevant nation now is it? Whilst Australia, with its population of just over 20 million people, cannot really say any of these things.

I actually like Australia and really do not want to get into a silly slanging match over this, but you needed to be put in your place.

P.S. I have no interest in your ANZACS. This obsessive paranoia is not healthy Paphitis.

Simon, I don't know what Drugs you are on but the Australian Constitution Act was implemented on 09 Jul 1900.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/co ... /index.htm

Australia still has the same Constitution to this very day.

The Commonwealth of Australia was formalised on 01 Jan 01, when 6 British colonies formed the Australian federation and Australia became a completely independent nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia

Furthermore, there British Empire had 3 Dominion Powers. they were Australia, New Zealand and Canada. As Dominions, these nations ruled and were the guardian powers as an equal to the UK. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were always regarded as the empire's Dominions, and all 3 were always independent, and this is why the monarch has as its title the "Royal crown of Britain, Northern Island, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (until we rightfully depose of this archaic monarch as well.

Australia, New Zealand and Canada were not subjects of the British Empire.

Also, Australia had its very own Armed Forces and these forces were known as the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) and the AIF had its own Chain of Command. Australia was never at Gallipoli on behalf of the British. Australia was at Gallipoli as a nation in its own right, just like France and Italy.

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/

At know stage were the British still legislation for Australia beyond 1901.

The Parliament of Australia was opened on 09 May 1901 in Melbourne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia

In pure size terms Australia's GDP (Gross Domestic Product. This measures the value of all goods produced by the economy) is about 1.2 Trillion Australian Dollars which makes it the 12th largest in the world (when comparing on what is called purchasing power parity, which just adjusts for different prices in different countries).

It is also the 6th largest military spender in the world, and by 2011, Australia will have 2 aircraft Carriers (one more than the UK) as The Invincible is your only Archaic rust bucket atm...

Australia is also set to be the next permanent member of the UN Security Council, so please tell me exactly how the UK (an irrelevant minnow) is suppose to tell Australia what to do, when the truth of the matter is that Australia spits on Britain...

http://www.dfat.gov.au/un/unga.html

Simon, we know the Brits like Australia too much...as you all seem to want to live here...but we are desperately trying to keep you out.

As for our ANZACS, they have reached legendary status...Ask the Turks...as Ataturk admired the ANZACS most of all...he even wrote a poem about them....

Now go to sleep you British scum...

[Paphitis]

Shut up Paphitis! Australia had a referendum sometime in the 90’s when I was living there under Hawk, to determine whether they’d remain in the commonwealth or become a republic, but the Australian monarchists had their day.

You bloody idiot!

Are you sure you lived in Australia?

The referendum was held on 06 Nov 99.

Bob Hawke was Prime Minister from 11 Mar 83 to 20 Dec 91.

After Bob Hawke we had Paul Keating as our Prime Minister until 1996!

John Howard was Prime Minister from 11 Mar 96 to 23 Nov 07.



GET YOU FACTS RIGHT!

Furthermore, you would realise that Republicanism was rejected because Australians generally feared changing a Democratic System that has been faultless for around 100 years, with zero instability. They did not want an American style Presidential system or the instability associated with countless Republics around the world. The attitude was "if it is not broke, then don't fix it" and nothing more. At least this was the clever Monarchist campaign that was waged at the time.

Monarchists in Australia are generally less than 10%, mostly hopeless British expat retards.

I can't believe that someone who claims to have lived in Australia can get it so wrong!

[Get Real!]

Shut up Paphitis! Australia had a referendum sometime in the 90’s when I was living there under Hawk, to determine whether they’d remain in the commonwealth or become a republic, but the Australian monarchists had their day.

You bloody idiot!

Are you sure you lived in Australia?

The referendum was held on 06 Nov 99.

Bob Hawke was Prime Minister from 11 Mar 83 to 20 Dec 91.

After Bob Hawke we had Paul Keating as our Prime Minister until 1996!

John Howard was Prime Minister from 11 Mar 96 to 23 Nov 07.



GET YOU FACTS RIGHT!

Furthermore, you would realise that Republicanism was rejected because Australians generally feared changing a Democratic System that has been faultless for around 100 years, with zero instability. They did not want an American style Presidential system or the instability associated with countless Republics around the world. The attitude was "if it is not broke, then don't fix it" and nothing more. At least this was the clever Monarchist campaign that was waged at the time.

Monarchists in Australia are generally less than 10%, mostly hopeless British expat retards.

I can't believe that someone who claims to have lived in Australia can get it so wrong!

It’s just as well I got the PM wrong because it certainly boosted your confidence enough to make such a scene out of it! I’m sure you enjoyed it…

Btw, getting back to the issue… the Australian monarchists had won the referendum and that means at least 51% in favor in 1999 so how can they have dropped to your alleged 10% in just a decade?

[Paphitis]

Shut up Paphitis! Australia had a referendum sometime in the 90’s when I was living there under Hawk, to determine whether they’d remain in the commonwealth or become a republic, but the Australian monarchists had their day.

You bloody idiot!

Are you sure you lived in Australia?

The referendum was held on 06 Nov 99.

Bob Hawke was Prime Minister from 11 Mar 83 to 20 Dec 91.

After Bob Hawke we had Paul Keating as our Prime Minister until 1996!

John Howard was Prime Minister from 11 Mar 96 to 23 Nov 07.



GET YOU FACTS RIGHT!

Furthermore, you would realise that Republicanism was rejected because Australians generally feared changing a Democratic System that has been faultless for around 100 years, with zero instability. They did not want an American style Presidential system or the instability associated with countless Republics around the world. The attitude was "if it is not broke, then don't fix it" and nothing more. At least this was the clever Monarchist campaign that was waged at the time.

Monarchists in Australia are generally less than 10%, mostly hopeless British expat retards.

I can't believe that someone who claims to have lived in Australia can get it so wrong!

It’s just as well I got the PM wrong because it certainly boosted your confidence enough to make such a scene out of it! I’m sure you enjoyed it…

Btw, getting back to the issue… the Australian monarchists had won the referendum and that means at least 51% in favor in 1999 so how can they have dropped to your alleged 10% in just a decade?

I knew you were not serious.

51% of Aussies are not Monarchists, trust me on that.

Australians are generally fairly apathetic about such issues and generally don't give a damn about the invisible monarch figurehead.

Australians just don't like change especially since our democratic system of Governance is very stable.

But the few monarchists were loaded with lots of money. These few regard themselves as the "establishment" even though Australia does not really have a class society and is more egalitarian. These Monarchists did run a very effective scare campaign and had us all believe that our political system will be Americanised and that all Republics are unstable nations with Coups and what not...

The same tactics won't work next time around, although the monarchists did have a point - "Don't change something that is not broken" was the catch cry...

[shahmaran]

You should take this with a pinch of salt because it's rubbish. When were the UK and France defeated twice by Turkey? Please enlighten me. We can then take the discussion from there. I presume you are talking about wars, not individual battles, especially where you ended up losing the war.

If the UK continued to supply and arm Greece for the entire period after the Turkish collapse, and not withdrew its support, Ankara would probably be Ankaropoulos by now.

By the way, the Turks received help from the Russians when they defeated the Greeks. So it was not "single-handed" as you claim.

The Battle of Gallipoli which you so proudly boast about, was exactly that, just one battle. The Ottomans lost many others, and lost the war let us not forget.

As a footnote, Gallipoli was more of a stalemate that led to an Anglo-French withdrawal, rather than an outright military victory by the Ottomans. It is classed as a victory for the Ottomans because it was a successful defence of Constantinople/Istanbul - but by no means were Anglo-French forces routed or anything of the kind. In fact, the Ottomans lost more troops than the British and French.

Turks fought the British Empire as well as their allies which included the French in Gallipolli and won the battle (1915-1916), I did not say anything more or less and that is exactly what happened, the campaign was a total failure, however it did not stop the collapse of the Empire, it just turned Atatürk into a war hero and let to the events that followed.

Then during the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923) the Turks fought the British, Greeks, French, Italians and the Armenians and were victorious, which led to the declaration of the independent republic of Turkey.

The only Russian backing they got during that conflict was of arms smuggling, since the British had destroyed and banned all arms.

This is nothing new and the battle was still fought only by Turks.

I have not said anything different nor was I "proudly praising" anything, not that I have to as the facts speak for themselves loud and clear.

The next time, I also said, the Turks would face the Greeks, would be in Cyprus.

So you do the maths genius and check your facts while you are at it.

[Get Real!]

51% of Aussies are not Monarchists, trust me on that.

Sure I trust you!

Paphitis, I don't know why I bother exchanging anything with you...

Oh btw...

54.87% of votes cast were "no" to the proposed law and all states voted "no".

[Paphitis]

51% of Aussies are not Monarchists, trust me on that.

Sure I trust you!

Paphitis, I don't know why I bother exchanging anything with you...

Oh btw...

54.87% of votes cast were "no" to the proposed law and all states voted "no".

I told you why this was the case and If you lived in Australia and really did get to know the country, you would understand exactly what it is I'm telling you.

And another thing, even if 86% of Aussies voted YES, Australia still would not be a Republic unless there was a majority consensus within ALL states.

Apparently many Republics have coups...is that true?

[Simon]

In fact I made a mistake myself when I originally accepted your assertion that Australia was no longer technically part of the Empire after 1901. I thought it was wrong at the time due to Australia's dominion status, and after double-checking this, your assertion was wrong. Even technically and theoretically, Australia was still part of the Empire.

I think you have got your knickers in a knot.

Australia has been an independent country since 1901. Britain has absolutely no say within Australia and Australia's role as a Dominion Power is purely ceremonial and denotes EQUAL status within it - but please tell me exactly over which empire Australia is a Dominion off.

You can't be a Dominion over an empire that no longer exists.

Get you facts right because whilst Britain still fantasises over a non existent empire, Australia has become an economic superpower - which is still booming. We are the brad basket of china and India, whilst the UK is just an irrelevant pissant nation that now eats our dust.

Hands off our ANZACS, because you pathetic Brits have absolutely no right to bask in their glory!

Actually Paphitis, I think it is you who have got your knickers in a twist. Firstly, once again, Australia was not fully independent in 1901. It was still a dominion of the Empire. How can you say this was only ceremonial when over 100,000 ANZAC (as you pointed out) were fighting on behalf of the British in Gallipoli, under British command? How can you say it was ceremonial when the British were still legislating for Australia well beyond 1901? That is anything but ceremonial.

You are clearly confused. Please separate out in your mind the situation today, and the situation back in the time of the First World War. Today Britain has no Empire, you are right. I am not claiming that Australia is part of any Empire today. I'm talking about the situation back in 1916. You seem to be confusing two very different times in history. Back in World War I, Australia was still part of the British Empire, as a semi-autonomous dominion, and still fighting for Britain. Today, the Queen's role in Australia is ceremonial, and the Commonwealth is largely irrelevant. I have never denied this. My argument was clearly regarding WW1, the situation today is irrelevant.

If you want to talk about today's economies and Britain and Australia's role in the world, we can do that. The UK is still a major economic power. It has the 6th largest economy in the world. It is the 4th largest defence spender in the world. It has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It is a recognised nuclear power, and can project power around the globe. London is one of the most important cities in the world. Historically, and still today, Britain plays a leading role in the world, and its influence in all areas of culture, law, political systems etc can still be felt worldwide. Hardly an irrelevant nation now is it? Whilst Australia, with its population of just over 20 million people, cannot really say any of these things.

I actually like Australia and really do not want to get into a silly slanging match over this, but you needed to be put in your place.

P.S. I have no interest in your ANZACS. This obsessive paranoia is not healthy Paphitis.

Simon, I don't know what Drugs you are on but the Australian Constitution Act was implemented on 09 Jul 1900.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/co ... /index.htm

Australia still has the same Constitution to this very day.

The Commonwealth of Australia was formalised on 01 Jan 01, when 6 British colonies formed the Australian federation and Australia became a completely independent nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia

Furthermore, there British Empire had 3 Dominion Powers. they were Australia, New Zealand and Canada. As Dominions, these nations ruled and were the guardian powers as an equal to the UK. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were always regarded as the empire's Dominions, and all 3 were always independent, and this is why the monarch has as its title the "Royal crown of Britain, Northern Island, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (until we rightfully depose of this archaic monarch as well.

Australia, New Zealand and Canada were not subjects of the British Empire.

Also, Australia had its very own Armed Forces and these forces were known as the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) and the AIF had its own Chain of Command. Australia was never at Gallipoli on behalf of the British. Australia was at Gallipoli as a nation in its own right, just like France and Italy.

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/

At know stage were the British still legislation for Australia beyond 1901.

The Parliament of Australia was opened on 09 May 1901 in Melbourne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia

In pure size terms Australia's GDP (Gross Domestic Product. This measures the value of all goods produced by the economy) is about 1.2 Trillion Australian Dollars which makes it the 12th largest in the world (when comparing on what is called purchasing power parity, which just adjusts for different prices in different countries).

It is also the 6th largest military spender in the world, and by 2011, Australia will have 2 aircraft Carriers (one more than the UK) as The Invincible is your only Archaic rust bucket atm...

Australia is also set to be the next permanent member of the UN Security Council, so please tell me exactly how the UK (an irrelevant minnow) is suppose to tell Australia what to do, when the truth of the matter is that Australia spits on Britain...

http://www.dfat.gov.au/un/unga.html

Simon, we know the Brits like Australia too much...as you all seem to want to live here...but we are desperately trying to keep you out.

As for our ANZACS, they have reached legendary status...Ask the Turks...as Ataturk admired the ANZACS most of all...he even wrote a poem about them....

Now go to sleep you British scum...

Paphitis, I have kept my patience until now, but that fact is that you are nothing but an incompetent idiot. I have not insulted you before now, despite you repeatedly attacking me. Enough is enough. You are such a fucking prat that you can't even think logically, probably due to your psychotic obsession with the ANZACS. You claim that the Australians are desperately trying to keep the Brits out, when the majority of Australians are nothing but British settlers anyway you incompetent fool.

Now to your pathetic arguments. The Australian Constitution Act that you keep banging on about did not make Australia fully independent. What it did is united the several colonies as one, but they still remained a part of the Empire. You quoted a Wikipedia link which confirms the Federation BUT NOWHERE IN THAT WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE DOES IT SAY THIS MADE AUSTRALIA FULLY INDEPENDENT OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. THIS IS YOUR OWN SILLY ASSUMPTION.

Whether Australia was a subject, or an equal in the Empire is irrelevant. They were part of the Empire and not independent. Scotland is an equal nation in the UK, but this does not make it independent. Your arguments are simply illogical.

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.

The British DID legislate for Australia after 1901. What the fuck was the Statute of Westminster in 1931 then? Only in 1931 did Australia receive full legislative equality. Read below:

"The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (22 & 23 Geo. V c. 4, 11 December 1931) which established a status of legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of the British Empire and the United Kingdom, with a few residual exceptions. The Statute remains domestic law within each of the other Commonwealth realms, to the extent that it was not rendered obsolete by the process of constitutional patriation.[citation needed]

The Statute is of historical importance because it marked the effective legislative independence of these countries, either immediately or upon ratification. The residual constitutional powers retained by the Westminster parliament have now largely been superseded by subsequent legislation. Its current relevance is that it sets the basis for the continuing relationship between the Commonwealth realms and the Crown".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster

Before you jump on the bandwagon about the self-governing bit, Falkland Islands is self-governing, but it's not independent. Britain has many such territories. There are many self-governing territories that are not fully independent.

The fact that Australia had a Parliament does not mean independence. Scotland has a Parliament, are you now going to tell me they are independent. You seem to be mentally incapable of understanding that a territory can be semi-autonomous and self-governing, without having full independence.

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).

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.

Australia the next permanent member of the Security Council?
THE LINK YOU GAVE ME IS ABOUT AUSTRALIA APPLYING FOR A SEAT FOR 2013-14. 1 YEAR YOU FOOL. NOT A PERMANENT MEMBER! DO YOU EVEN READ YOUR LINKS? This is rubbish. Australia does not have a hope of a permanent seat. India and Brazil will be well before Australia. Britain on the other hand has been a permanent member from the start, and you think Australia spits on Britain? You're a joke man. You call Britain an irrelevant minnow? It has 3 times as many people as Australia! I think you're taking the piss, you must be.

There are many Brits in Australia, and there are also many Australians in Britain also. I know a few myself. They sometimes still regard Britain as the motherland. Now that must really piss you off.

Finally, you refer to the reputation of ANZAC. I have a great respect for them. I also have a great respect for the British Armed Forces, which has a fantastic military history and has conquered a quarter of the globe. The British today are still regarded by many as the best trained armed forces in the world. 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. So Britain don't need your ANZACS you prat so shut the hell up.