₦airaland Forum

You might be surprised to learn that Australia's independence from Britain is not as clear-cut as you think.

The Shocking Facts:

1. Constitutional Monarchy: Australia recognizes the British monarchs (currently King Charles III) as its head of state. For example, king Charles III of England is Australia's current head of state.

2. Limited Legislative Power: Although Australia has legislative independence, the British monarch still holds significant symbolic power. The British monarchs have a say in Australia's legislations.

3. Royal Assent: Bills passed by the Australian Parliament technically require royal assent, albeit a formality. That is to say, the King of England must consent to a bill passed in Australian Parliaments before it can become law.

4. Appeals to the UK's Privy Council: In rare cases, Australian courts can still appeal to the UK's Privy Council.

The British still have a lot of control over Australia. Australia is not fully independent. Many Australians are advocating for a republic, seeking complete separation from the British monarchy.

The kings and queens of England actually double as the rulers of Australia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia

Of all former British territories, the United States is the only one truly independent from the British masters.

GothamCities:
You might be surprised to learn that Australia's independence from Britain is not as clear-cut as you think.

The Shocking Facts:

1. Constitutional Monarchy: Australia recognizes the British monarchs (currently King Charles III) as its head of state. For example, king Charles III of England is Australia's current head of state.

2. Limited Legislative Power: Although Australia has legislative independence, the British monarch still holds significant symbolic power. The British monarchs have a say in Australia's legislations.

3. Royal Assent: Bills passed by the Australian Parliament technically require royal assent, albeit a formality. That is to say, the King of England must consent to a bill passed in Australian Parliaments before it can become law.

4. Appeals to the UK's Privy Council: In rare cases, Australian courts can still appeal to the UK's Privy Council.

The British still have a lot of control over Australia. Australia is not fully independent. Many Australians are advocating for a republic, seeking complete separation from the British monarchy.

The kings and queens of England actually double as the rulers of Australia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia

These are just formalities

Wow, I never knew Australia was still tied to the British monarchy like that! It's interesting to see how they're balancing their independence with historical ties.

I wonder, though, how much influence the British monarch really has in Australia's daily governance? Is it more symbolic or are there actual instances where the monarch's input affects policy?

I do not think most Australians are okay with the current arrangement. They probably want a full break from the monarchy? I have seen a video on YouTube where a member of the Australian Parliament was shouting at King Charles on the podium

"You're not our king!"

Link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBaYN_5A4_E

Corporate2020:
These are just formalities

I doubt it. They wield a lot of influence on Australia.

As of 2024, these countries below are still under British influence till date.
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the King is the President.

Corporate2020:
These are just formalities

You think so?

Ibechris2:
As of 2024, these counties below are still under British influence till date.
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu.

Canada too?

Nigeria that got independence since 1960 re we better than Australia? In as much they te not complaining and have a better life they should continue, most African countries need to be reconalised

Ibechris2:
As of 2024, these counties below are still under British influence till date.
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu.

You are correct. They are known as Commonwealth realms. They always have the option of becoming republics.

IT IS LIKE THAT BECAUSE BRITISH COLONIALISM IN COUNTRIES WITH SUBSTANTIAL WHITE SETTLEMENT WAS A VERY DIFFERENT FORM OF COLONIALISM.

IT WAS NOT BASED ON RAW EXPLOITATION AND LOOTING OF THE COUNTRY AS WAS THE CASE WITH COLONIES WITHOUT WHITE SETTLEMENT.

SO IN PLACES LIKE SOUTH AFRICA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA ETC, EXPORT PROCEEDS FROM NATURAL RESOURCES WERE REINVESTED IN DEVELOPING THE COUNTRIES.

IN PLACES LIKE NIGERIA, GHANA, CONGO ETC, IT WAS JUST PURE LOOTING OF RESOURCES AND BUILDING NOTHING.

THAT IS WHY NIGERIA WAS A BIG FAT FCKING BUSH AT INDEPENDENCE, WHILE AUSTRALIA, CANADA, SA AND CO WERE ALREADY WELL DEVELOPED LONG BEFORE THEY GOT INDEPENDENCE.

GothamCities:
Canada too?

Yes.

Topman7:
IT IS LIKE THAT BECAUSE BRITISH COLONIALISM IN COUNTRIES WITH SUBSTANTIAL WHITE SETTLEMENT WAS A VERY DIFFERENT FORM OF COLONIALISM.

IT WAS NOT BASED ON RAW EXPLOITATION AND LOOTING OF THE COUNTRY AS WAS THE CASE WITH COLONIES WITHOUT WHITE SETTLEMENT.

SO IN PLACES LIKE SOUTH AFRICA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA ETC, EXPORT PROCEEDS FROM NATURAL RESOURCES WERE REINVESTED IN DEVELOPING THE COUNTRIES.

IN PLACES LIKE NIGERIA, GHANA, CONGO ETC, IT WAS JUST PURE LOOTING OF RESOURCES AND BUILDING NOTHING.

THAT IS WHY NIGERIA WAS A BIG FAT FCKING BUSH AT INDEPENDENCE, WHILE AUSTRALIA, CANADA, SA AND CO WERE ALREADY WELL DEVELOPED LONG BEFORE THEY GOT INDEPENDENCE.

I believe the mosquitoes and heat prevented the whites from staying back. If everywhere in Nigeria was like Jo's weather the whites might have fought more to retain control of Nigeria.

Very informative piece. It's ironical that France, Britain and Spain who colonized most of the countries in North America are still not at par with the US. I guess they gave the US more than what they needed.

did you guys noticed how the leaders of the aborigines are not even black....??

kiki....

OneCandleAway:
I believe the mosquitoes and heat prevented the whites from staying back. If everywhere in Nigeria was like Jo's weather the whites might have fought more to retain control of Nigeria.

that would have been their doom....

dont forget which kind of people are in this place called nigeria....

Topman7:
IT IS LIKE THAT BECAUSE BRITISH COLONIALISM IN COUNTRIES WITH SUBSTANTIAL WHITE SETTLEMENT WAS A VERY DIFFERENT FORM OF COLONIALISM.

IT WAS NOT BASED ON RAW EXPLOITATION AND LOOTING OF THE COUNTRY AS WAS THE CASE WITH COLONIES WITHOUT WHITE SETTLEMENT.

SO IN PLACES LIKE SOUTH AFRICA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA ETC, EXPORT PROCEEDS FROM NATURAL RESOURCES WERE REINVESTED IN DEVELOPING THE COUNTRIES.

IN PLACES LIKE NIGERIA, GHANA, CONGO ETC, IT WAS JUST PURE LOOTING OF RESOURCES AND BUILDING NOTHING.

THAT IS WHY NIGERIA WAS A BIG FAT FCKING BUSH AT INDEPENDENCE, WHILE AUSTRALIA, CANADA, SA AND CO WERE ALREADY WELL DEVELOPED LONG BEFORE THEY GOT INDEPENDENCE.

I like your perspective.

karfe:
You are correct. They are known as Commonwealth realms. They always have the option of becoming republics.

Commonwealth realms?

Hmmm.

Interesting. Wow

JimmySwaggart:
Interesting. Wow

How come you be Jimmy Swaggart?