It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

G'Day from the Queen's uranium mine (and coal seam gas!)

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GardenerOfEden
reply to post by steveknows
 


Well I think we will still have to disagree to disagree steveknows. I am certainly one to get carried away in a debate - way more than what it is worth for sure. I would like to say that the 'laws' regarding the appointment of a governor-general still leave the queen in charge. If the Queen said 'No, I forbid the appointment of this person as Governor-General", the government would be breaking the law to not obey her. fact is, the Queen has the final word, and she can say no.
If you still want to disagree with that fine, but at least be nice about it - I am only new


And thanks all for the welcome!


But they wouldn't mate that's the point. The queen has no say. Her position is symbolic and as I said there's a real chance that the next to wear the crown won't be recognised as a sybolic head it's just the Queen Elizabeth is respected by not just all commowealth countries but most of the world so she's the symbolic head of the commonwealth simply because it's her.. All commonwealth countries are self governed. All the colonies on the Australian continent were awared the right to be self goverment after the Eureka stockade which eventually lead to federation and a self governing nation



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.
,


Although Australia is an independent nation, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is also formally Queen of Australia. The Queen appoints a Governor-General (on the advice of the elected Australian Government) to represent her. The Governor-General has wide powers, but by convention acts only on the advice of ministers on virtually all matters




The Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901 when the former British colonies—now Australia’s six states—agreed to federate.
Although Australia is a fully independent parliamentary democracy, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also formally the Queen of Australia.



If it was just opinion I would say ok then we do agree to disagree but it's not opinion it's law.

Here's a link to a government webste.

www.dfat.gov.au...




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
If the Queen is "formally recognised" as the head of state then she is the head of state. If she is the head of state then she is the one who is control of the state. I honestly don't see how blindly obvious that is. Queen Elizabeth will no longer have say over Australian politics when she is no longer the Queen of Australia (or any monarch for that matter). Seriously though - all politics and legalities are 'formalities', does the legal and political system have any less say over people's lives?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GardenerOfEden
If the Queen is "formally recognised" as the head of state then she is the head of state. If she is the head of state then she is the one who is control of the state. I honestly don't see how blindly obvious that is. Queen Elizabeth will no longer have say over Australian politics when she is no longer the Queen of Australia (or any monarch for that matter). Seriously though - all politics and legalities are 'formalities', does the legal and political system have any less say over people's lives?


Well fella the government websites are disagreeing with you and the federal law is disagreeing with you. Even the commonwealth of nations which all commonwealth countries are signed to is disagreeing with you. If you want to believe that you are right and all the laws of the land are wrong then I guess you'll just have to remain ignorant.

I never said that she wasn't head of state, although it is only symbolic. I said that she owns nothing here and she has no say in the country.

The offical governent websites are telling you you're wrong and it's only that which is so blindingly obvious.


I can't believe that when you use the words "head of state" you always fail to include the word "symbolic' which is on the government websites. So all you're actually doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la.

I just hope that for the sake of IQ's no one believes you when to tell them what you don't know.

I guess ignorance couldn't be denied in this thread. Not bad for your first post.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by GardenerOfEden
If the Queen is "formally recognised" as the head of state then she is the head of state. If she is the head of state then she is the one who is control of the state. I honestly don't see how blindly obvious that is. Queen Elizabeth will no longer have say over Australian politics when she is no longer the Queen of Australia (or any monarch for that matter). Seriously though - all politics and legalities are 'formalities', does the legal and political system have any less say over people's lives?


Well fella the government websites are disagreeing with you and the federal law is disagreeing with you. Even the commonwealth of nations which all commonwealth countries are signed to is disagreeing with you. If you want to believe that you are right and all the laws of the land are wrong then I guess you'll just have to remain ignorant.

I never said that she wasn't head of state, although it is only symbolic. I said that she owns nothing here and she has no say in the country.

The offical governent websites are telling you you're wrong and it's only that which is so blindingly obvious.


I can't believe that when you use the words "head of state" you always fail to include the word "symbolic' which is on the government websites. So all you're actually doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la.

I just hope that for the sake of IQ's no one believes you when to tell them what you don't know.

I guess ignorance couldn't be denied in this thread. Not bad for your first post.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)


www.dfat.gov.au...
For a start nowhere on the 'government site' you provided is the word 'symbolic' used. I even used control+F and it didn't come up - 'formally' - at which point I will point you back to my question about the "formalities" of legal and political systems.
I have looked at every link you have provided and me and all I can say is that it is all double speak "Although Australia is an independent nation, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is also formally Queen of Australia." That is like "I am a nice person but I can also be mean" or "This is your object to use as you wish, but you have to ask me".
"The Queen appoints a Governor-General (on the advice of the elected Australian Government) to represent her. The Governor-General has wide powers, but by convention acts only on the advice of ministers on virtually all matters."
More double speak. So the Governor general must get advice from the ministers before hand? here is a hypothetical - subject 1: "I am going to take all of your money, what is your opinion on that?" subject 2: "I would not like that" subject 1: "okay, thank you for your opinion, I am now taking all your money".
or another; subject 1: "I need your advice on my proposed act of my powers" subject 2: "this is my advice[provides advice]" subject 1: "thank you for your advice, I am going to disregard it"

"Advice" does not constitute power or leverage. Just because a solicitor 'advises' a certain action, does not make a client legally obliged to follow that action.
www.ags.gov.au...
"The Governor-General normally acts in accordance with the advice of Australian Government ministers" not exclusively.

This is not a matter of ignorance prevailing, it is whether arrogance will. Nowhere on the government website does it say the Queen has no authority as regards to the governance of Australia. If you want to continue to disagree fine, but there is no need to put me down, nor anyone else who would agree with me.
I have listened to you, taken your information into account and can see that it confirms that Australia is under the authority of the Queen of England (crown, monarch, whatever). I think you ought to take your fingers out of your ears.
I certainly didn't intend to start a war! I am still relatively new here!

edit on 15-12-2011 by GardenerOfEden because: Constitutional law!

edit on 15-12-2011 by GardenerOfEden because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


Have you ever read the constitution?

australianpolitics.com...
"Australian Constitution - Section 2 - Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. "
I have to admit, I was surprised how blatant that is!

"Australian Constitution - Section 58 - Royal assent to Bills & Recommendations by Governor-General
When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure."

"Australian Constitution - Section 59 - Disallowance by the Queen
The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known."
The Queen can in fact directly interfere with the Australian parliament, even against the Governor General.

Australian Constitution - Section 60 - Signification of Queen's pleasure on Bills reserved
A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent.

"Australian Constitution - Section 74 - Appeal to Queen in Council
No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as the the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the Question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.

Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be please to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitations shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure. "
The Queen can act against the high court "at her pleasure".

Can we now agree that the Queen is our head of state - As so stated in the constitution. I hate to say it mate, but you really put your foot in your mouth!



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





And CLAIMING to have spent time here means nothing. You got involved the moment you imposed yourself as some kind of MOD and stuck your nose into something you know nothing about. And obvioulsy not understanding the difference between opinion and LAW. Thank you for the validation. And stop being a narcissist and attempting to get this thread direct at you which is what you've attempted the moment you jumped in as a self imposed mod.


Some epic hypocrisy there............

I forsee with your attitude your account not lasting long........

Call it experience

Your lack of respect and arrogance is stunning.........
edit on 15-12-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by steveknows
 





And CLAIMING to have spent time here means nothing. You got involved the moment you imposed yourself as some kind of MOD and stuck your nose into something you know nothing about. And obvioulsy not understanding the difference between opinion and LAW. Thank you for the validation. And stop being a narcissist and attempting to get this thread direct at you which is what you've attempted the moment you jumped in as a self imposed mod.


Some epic hypocrisy there............

I forsee with your attitude your account not lasting long........

Call it experience

Your lack of respect and arrogance is stunning.........
edit on 15-12-2011 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


How's it hypocrisy? I lived in the U.S but I'm not about to argue the ins and outs of the U.S federal system as I know nothing about it. Seem like you just picked a word to throw in there.

The fact that you jumped in and didn't add anything to the debate that was going on but rather only attempted to draw energy toward you and away form the debate displays the traits of a narcisist

You've not added one thing to the debate. Yep you're just a narcisist. Be gone with you.

And get help. I'm sure there's psychologists around. Even in Nashville perhaps.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GardenerOfEden
reply to post by steveknows
 


Have you ever read the constitution?

australianpolitics.com...
"Australian Constitution - Section 2 - Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. "
I have to admit, I was surprised how blatant that is!

"Australian Constitution - Section 58 - Royal assent to Bills & Recommendations by Governor-General
When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure."

"Australian Constitution - Section 59 - Disallowance by the Queen
The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known."
The Queen can in fact directly interfere with the Australian parliament, even against the Governor General.

Australian Constitution - Section 60 - Signification of Queen's pleasure on Bills reserved
A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent.

"Australian Constitution - Section 74 - Appeal to Queen in Council
No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as the the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the Question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.

Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be please to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitations shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure. "
The Queen can act against the high court "at her pleasure".

Can we now agree that the Queen is our head of state - As so stated in the constitution. I hate to say it mate, but you really put your foot in your mouth!


My God. You're looking at the un amended constitutaion from 1901 I bet.
.
Things have changed fella.

I not once said she wasn't head of state. I just clarified to you that she is actually just a sybolic head of state. You said she rules us and owns our resources.

You make wnat to look back through the posts.

Yes I have read the constitution. Have you ever read the amendments? . I think you're lookng at it from a 1901 perspective. Things have changed and you haven't read the amendments. No matter what you say, the government disagrees with you just have a look at the links I posted for you. They're not wikki, they're official government websites.

And I didn't put my foot in my mouth at all. You said Queen rules Australia and owns everythng (ignoring the fact that she gets not a single cent from us in anyway shape or form) . And you were wrong. I pointed out the she is a sybolic head of state and does not rule Australia and doesn't recieve a cent from Australia and I'm right.

If Australia decided to go to war aginst someone and she didn't want it to happen, apart from the usual international diplomacy, there's not a single thing she could do about it. If The UK went to war aginst someone and Australia decided to stay out of it there's not a single thing she could do about it.

Did you know that when Americans come to Australia they don't need a Visa but just use a visa waver as we do when we go tot he U.S? Did you know that the Brits need to have a Visa approved prior to coming to Australia?

Sounds a bit strange if the Queen rules Australia don't you think?

I said in the last post which you've obviously ignored me saying is that I never said she wasn't head of state. I said that she is a sybolic head of state and has no powers over Australia or any other commonwealth country.

I can't believe I've spent so much time on this already I guess I just find hard to get my head a round that you're ignoring the facts when even the official websites say you're wrong.

I challenge you to phone up a talk back radio station during the busy time and start blabbing on about the Queen owning our uranium and ruling our country. You'd have it spelled out to you on air..

Seriously. How can you ignore the facts when the government website say clearely that she is a syblolic head of state and has no rule over this country?

Or you're just one of those monarchist who have said in the past that they don't recognise the Australian constitutional amendments. I'm thinking that last one is it and if that's the case this isn't about you denying ignorance but rather about you living in denyal and no amount of debate will change that.




edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


Show me in the constitution were it states the Queen is not the 'authoritative' head of state. Also quote the 'government website' were it says the Queen is only a 'symbolic head of state' without authoritative powers of any kind. As I have said (if you bothered to read what I wrote), the 'government website' does not state the queen as 'symbolic head state'. www.dfat.gov.au... she is referred to as 'formal head of state'.

en.wikipedia.org...

"It gives Australia a parliamentary system of government similar to the other Commonwealth realms, wherein the role of the Queen and the Governor-General is both legal and practical. The Crown is regarded as a corporation, in which several parts share the authority of the whole, with the Queen as the person at the centre of the constitutional construct,[17] meaning all powers of state are constitutionally reposed in the monarch;[18] the 1993 Republic Advisory Committee concluded that "the Queen" in the constitution means "the Australian Government"."

"Still, the High Court of Australia found that those natural-born subjects of other Commonwealth realms who migrated to Australia could not be classified as aliens (as referred to in the constitution) within Australia, given that they owed allegiance to the same monarch and thus are subjects of the Queen of Australia"
just because you mentioned about UK citizens needing a visa.

You have not given any official evidence that backs you claims i.e. such as the constitution. I took my time to read evidence and provide you relevant information supporting my argument, how about you return that respect - if you would like me to take you in any way seriously. If there are amendments which make her not the authoritative head of state, please provide quote and link them - rather than just saying they exist without proving such.
As I have already said, it is all double speak, though I am really thinking that you haven't read a thing that I have said at all - except that I continue to disagree with you...
Anyway, I am learning a lot from this (about the Queen's power over Australia), I hope it is just as informative to you too!
If you continue to object the onus is now on you to prove that the Queen is not the 'authoritative head of state'. Seriously if you are going to be rude and arrogant you sure as hell better be right! though of course it is better to not be rude and arrogant at all.


edit on 15-12-2011 by GardenerOfEden because: (no reason given)

T
edit on 15-12-2011 by GardenerOfEden because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join