| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 3,469 Given: 8,126 |
The Queen is actually animatronics, like her mother who they switched off in time for the jubilee.
Lettuce, Gruyere, Bacon and Tomato Pride, WorldWide!!
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 140 Given: 0 |
What proportion of your tax money goes overseas to support the Queen? I think you'll find it's zero. And if you think Britain wouldn't support you in a war, you don't know the British. Still, bashing the ones who created you is a popular sport, I believe, in the dominions.Originally Posted by Bridie
LOL Indeed.
I wouldn't recommend it. All it means is that the Queen gets the final say on issues that don't even concern Britain, a portion of your tax-payer's monies go straight overseas and if the poms go to war, you have to support them, even though they are unlikely to support you should you ever need them.
Then again, no need to preach to those who already know.
Double LOL.
Yes.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 53 Given: 29 |
Some of your arguments are not definitive but OK, other are plain weak, specially the one linking Ireland and Galicia (why not Ethiopia too?) by the famines they suffered. Anycase it's a subject not to be discussed here which worths an own thread.
But hey, just my imagination I guess
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 13 Given: 0 |
Or she knows us to well.Originally Posted by Wulfhere
And if you think Britain wouldn't support you in a war, you don't know the British.
Britain defended North Africa to the last Australian, yet wouldn’t release the Australian units to defend their homeland against the Japanese advance. It was the Americans that kept the Japs out of Sydney, not the British.
Australia was wise to move its allegiance to the Americans.
I believe that legends and myth are largely made of
“truth”, and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.
J.R.R. Tolkien
Indeed it might be a basic characteristic of existence that those who would know it completely would perish, in which case the strength of a spirit should be measured according to how much of the “truth” one could still barely endure-or to put it more clearly, to what degree one would require it to be thinned down, shrouded, sweetened, blunted, falsified.
Nietzsche
To God everything is beautiful, good, and just; humans, however, think some things are unjust and others just.
Heraclitus
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 3 Given: 0 |
All the issues I mentioned mould a character and a way of seeing life. Collective identities are shaped by such things and our histories ran parallel. And in this particular case this was reinforced by the almost continuous contact between the two territories throughout centuries, if not millennia. If that doesn't bring two peoples together I don't know what does.Some of your arguments are not definitive but OK, other are plain weak, specially the one linking Ireland and Galicia (why not Ethiopia too?) by the famines they suffered. Anycase it's a subject not to be discussed here which worths an own thread.
But yeah, it'd be pointless to discuss anyway.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 118 Given: 0 |
Ri an Fhothairt Cill Dara, at your service.
Ireland had a High King. Under him were four or five big Provincial Kings. Each province typically had two or three major subkings, often alternating in the provincial kingship. Under these were a plethora of minor kingdoms, so that at any one time, there might be... oh.... let's say 200 or so 'Kings'
on the island. Chances are, therefore, that every man there now has some of their blood in his veins.
But anyway, a reUnion?!? Why of ALL of each island? Sod that! Let's just bring back the old partnership between the Norse Kings of Dublin and those of York;
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 22 Given: 0 |
To be fair, I've read articles in news papers critiquing Australian monies sent abroad to Britain and much hearsay, but a quick search on the net for figures comes up with nothing. So, either no Australian money actually funds Britain, or the specifics are not being made available to the public. I hope you're right though, in any case.
Excuse me? "The ones who created you"???? LOL!!!! I can tell you who created Australia... and it sure as hell wasn't the British (like yourself) who stayed safely at home, sitting on their arses, only reading of the explorations, conquests, colonisations and pioneering ventures of the British Empire!
And as far as your claims of "you don't know the British" go... up until a few generations ago my family was British. To claim that I don't know the British is to claim that I don't know myself.
Australia's relationship with Britain has always been close enough that we've never lost sight or knowledge of the mother country. Even today, our largest immigrant group is the British. (In the suburb that I live in over 50% of the population was born in the UK.)
I think that incident was the final nail in the coffin really. A very sad day for Australians. The final betrayal.
And even then, Australia has been slow to distance herself from the motherland....
Source : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225792081725Recent British arrivals such as me are often surprised -- startled, even -- by the resilience of Australia's Anglocentrism and how "the British way" retains its permeating influence in so many different realms of national life. Much of this country marks the monarch's birthday with a public holiday, a courtesy not observed in my homeland. There are still about 160,000 Britons who can cast a vote in Australian federal elections, a fancy franchise shared with other residents from the British Commonwealth but with no other non-citizens. British colours still adorn the Australian flag, of course, while Australia Day celebrates the moment of British colonisation. The Queen's profile continues to decorate the coinage and her portrait the $5 note.....
When it comes to the constitutional relationship with Britain, this kind of gradualism provides a common historical thread. The word British survived on the front cover of an Australian passport until the Whitlam era, while people here were Australian citizens as well as British subjects until 1987. It was not until the mid-1980s, with the passage of the Australia Act, that Australians lost their right of legal appeal to the Privy Council in Britain. God Save the Queen survived as the national anthem until 1984, seven years after a referendum decided to replace it with Advance Australia Fair. And even though the Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931, thus removing the right of the British parliament to legislate for its dominions, Australia waited a further 11 years to finalise this constitutional piece of housekeeping, whereas the Canadians ratified it immediately.
What makes Australia's loyalty to Britain all the more anomalous is that the national story has continually been punctuated by imperial slights and colonial condescension. The mother country has not been wholly deserving of the faithfulness of its distant dominion, nor even at times its friendship. For had successive British governments set out to concoct a strategy to alienate their Australian cousins, they could not have done much better than the disaster of Gallipoli, the Melbourne Agreement during the Depression, the great betrayal during World WarII, the British nuclear tests in the outback and entry into the European Common Market. And that list does not include made-for-television crises such as the bodyline Ashes series or the dismissal of the Whitlam government.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 140 Given: 0 |
It's nothing, I assure you. Indeed, I think it rather unfair that although 15 other countries continue to have the Queen as their head of state, they don't contribute a penny to her upkeep.
How on earth do you know if I'm a "stay-at-home"? I wonder if you've ever gone anywhere? It was the British who created Australia, pure and simple.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 22 Given: 0 |
Oh well, even if you're right, I'm sure Australians pay enough for the Queen's representative, the Governor General. What a waste, that is.
Anyway, why should we pay for a Queen who contributes nothing to us? At least, for you lads, the Royal Family generates some profits via tourism.
NOT ALL BRITISH created Australia, Wulf. That was my point. Those who stayed in safely insulated in Britain did nothing to contribute. The legacy of those who did create Australia (among them, many Irish also) can be found living in... wait for it.... Australia! So when you spout rubbish like this...
THE ONLY ONES WHO BASH THOSE WHO FOUNDED AUSTRALIA TEND TO BE THE BRITISH! Not all British, of course, but I've heard enough "you're all convicts and scum" comments, along with other such condescensions, to last a lifetime.
Quite frankly, any Australian would be a fool not to agree with this...
But our bonds with you poms are not so anomalous. Despite everything else, nothing can change the fact that we share a common history, culture, language, customs and perspective on the world. We are the same people.What makes Australia's loyalty to Britain all the more anomalous is that the national story has continually been punctuated by imperial slights and colonial condescension. The mother country has not been wholly deserving of the faithfulness of its distant dominion, nor even at times its friendship.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 140 Given: 0 |
Yes, you pay for the Governor General - just like you'd pay for a President, because that's exactly the job he does.
So you're dividing the British up into those that went away and founded places like Australia, and those who stayed behind - by definition, us. In fact, people moved back and forth, especially the governing classes. And those in Britain, far from doing "nothing", payed for the Royal Navy with their taxes, for example. But, if it makes you feel better, go for it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Éire
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks