When No means NO and YES means NO
According to Malcolm Mackerras, of the 148 MHRs, you the only two willing
to represent the 6-8 million "inherently intelligent" Australians who would
prefer a popularly elected president. Robert Manne has made the same point,
and added some important insights to this anti-democratic referendum.
If Leonie Kramer's proposal for popularly elected Governor-General was added
to a preferential ballot paper listing all four 'constitutional candidates',
the combined first preferences for the currently excluded candidates, could
reach 10 million, but would one more MHR join you both? How can a 'House
of Representatives' be so unrepresentative? Perhaps your colleagues on
the JSCEM can answer that.
Yet a YES majority, even in a single State, will be misrepresented (possibly
to the UK and the UN) as a legitimate expression of a people's free (under
threat of fines) and informed will! If nothing else, the 1999 referendum
confirms the case for ballot formats which allow rejection of both/all options
(eg cross out either or both printed YES and NO).
As "inherently intelligent" Australians, you have by now had your fill of
the Clayton's Republic 'debate', so I'll try to keep the rest of this 'humourous'.
Please don't read any further while your humour is spent, or if you haven't
read my previous e-mail(s) like 'Our Inconsequential Referendum & Unconstitutional
Monarchy - What we were meant to miss'. Come back to it later, what-ever
your YES/NO preferences, and what-ever the result on Nov 6. Also my apologies
for a rushed message, but after the latest efforts to con 'real republicans',
by conceding defeat while linking a promised future 'direct election' to
YES, despite Malcolm Mackerras devastating evidence, I am getting aroused
by the still growing hypocrisy of our misleaders.
A Royal Republic??
If the 'Republic' referendum is genuine, it requires the UK to make (Australian)
lies into (UK) laws! That is why Professor Clements criticised as nonsense,
the idea that the wording of the Australian Constitution could altered
to form the basis of a future republic. If this seems incredible and/or
confusing, see George Williams op ed article in the (Nov 1) Australian.
Ostensibly about the preamble(s), it publicly exposes the fact that amendments
are to be enacted by the UK. What-ever happens, our 'constitution' will
still be UK law with the QV preamble, as well its definitions and its Sec
5!! (Hereafter 'Sec' refers to the sections of UK Act, and 'sec' refers
to the sections of Sec 9 of that Act. This should avoid unnecessary confusion.)
What else are the proposed amendments to secs 126 & 127 as consequential
changes of a miscellaneous nature, but proposals to make lies into laws?
This is obvious when we think about it, which is exactly what more and
more people are doing, despite the (paid?) silence of our 'elites'. Also
making lies into laws is already done in Australia. Thats what judges like
Justice Wilcox tried to do in Sep 1998 (and has so far succeeded), and most
lawyers not only live with it, they make good livings from the confusion
created when lies are laws!
A YES 'Double majority' for a 'Royal' Republic will need to somehow be UNcrowned
during 2000, and we can expect countless QCs to join less regal lawyers,
to trot out more lies, as well as those being working on since even before
the proposed amendments to secs 126 & 127 were drafted.
Legal 'Consequences' of a 'Royal' Republic 'Double' majority
The words of the UK national anthem (God save the Queen): "Frustrate their
knavish tricks, Confound their politics" (with thanks to Albert Langer's
article 'Confound their politics' in Quadrant, May 1998) are the best answer
to the 'Royal' Republic nonsense, but lets dig deeper, as even a single
YES result will force more people, including UK MPs and the UK public, to
think about it, but the more likely YES 'single' majorities will leave plenty
of 'worms' out of the can. The best result would be if the (non-Murdoch)
media rubbish the whole nonsense, which is far greater than secs 126 & 127.
As the next step (according to law), it (the proposed law) "shall be presented
to the G-G for the Queen's assent". If he submits it to Queen Victoria's
successor according to UK law (in accord with his oath of office) she is
bound to act on the advice of the UK parliament. If (contrary to law) he
submits it to the titular (uncrowned) Queen of Australia (in betrayal of
his oath of office under the Crown), she not bound to act on the advice
of the UK parliament, but nor can she enact the proposed law!
Some Political 'Consequences' of a 'Royal' Republic 'Double' majority
The nonsense is more obvious about States, where the Crown (of the UK) will
still hold fundamental land and mineral titles! These are already contentious
issues in WA and Qld, where the people are all but certain to vote NO!
Just imagine the divisions in the indissoluble "Commonwealth" of original
states under the Crown, as our leaders, like the G-G, continue with the
farce of pursuing Professor Clements 'confidence trick of monstrous proportions'
to its legal conclusion, if the other four states and an absolute majority
vote YES!! (we'll need to keep our sense of humour if Oz is to stay 'a
decent country' while this result exposes the 'monstrous' incompetence of
our elite leaders and their 'confidence trick'.)
Other Pertinent Facts and Consequences
In 1900 UK law created an indissoluble "Commonwealth" of original states
under the Crown; WA subsequently joined after a 2nd referendum reversed
the colony's original NO result. 30+ years later WA held a 3nd referendum
which reversed its previous YES, and re-asserted the original NO result.
Despite this free choice, informed by 30+ years (cf East Timor's enforced
term in Indonesia) experience within the Commonwealth, the UK (GeoV?) acquiesced
to the Commonwealth, and let the WA application lapse, over-ruling the people
of WA.
If reasons for this betrayal of the people of WA were ever published, it
would be worth seeing them, and would be pertinent to the situation which
will exist if WA again vote NO, this time to the UK amending Sec 9 of the
UK law as proposed by the Commonwealth. According to the proposed 'consequential'
amendment to miscellaneous sec 127 (original repealed in 1967), their free
choice, now informed by nearly 100 years experience within the Commonwealth,
will again be over-ruled. This time by the UK making into law, the lie
that the proposed amendment to sec 127 is a 'consequential' amendment!
Double Definitions Defy Democracy
Because definitions needed to interpret a law are not consequential but
essential, they are properly made before the undefined terms are introduced.
Hence "The original States" in the UK Act are defined in Sec 6 of the UK
Act, before, not after Sec 9. The proposed amendment to sec 127 of subsequential
Sec 9 of the UK Act, as a consequential amendment, would add a 2nd and different
definition of "The original States", into the same Act! What a wonderful
World! Lewis Carroll called it Wonderland! It would leave WA still in
the indissoluble "Commonwealth" of original states under the Crown, despite
voting NO 60+ years ago, and also, after New Year's Eve 2000, in the subordinate,
consequential, and miscellaneous "Commonwealth", despite voting NO in
1999. This could be our own Y2K bug, creating as much work for Oz and UK
lawyers next year, as the digital one did for computer programmers this
year!
For the above to get (albeit implicitly) on to a Murdoch oped page, may
itself be evidence of God saving the Queen by frustrating knavish tricks,
and confounding their politics! Lets hope its read in UK, by Oz expats
and on Fleet Street. If you know any there, or even Oz lords with seats
in the House of Lords, please help them (and God) to save the Queen. Also
take this to any (UK or Oz) lawyer and/or MP (before New Year's Eve 2000)
for an opinion. Is the Queen one who makes lies into laws, or will she
be saved by God & others?
Seasons Greetings and HAPPY NEW YEAR - 'YES' says it could be the best in
100 years of Oz
Get HushMail. The world's first free, fully encrypted, web-based email system.
Speak freely with HushMail.... http://www.hushmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
