Gough Whitlam, former Labour PM of Australia has died, aged 98. I am listening to a man saying how incredibly important his legacy was with social policies of all sorts due to him - from easier divorce to abolishing the death penalty to opening Australia up to China. He also was the first to recognise indigenous land rights and appoint a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and lowered the voting age. He said he lacked the common touch and was very intelligent and preferred interacting with other very intelligent people, but his burning desire was to improve the lives of others. He said his big lack was in managing economic affairs. Gough was the PM who was sacked controversially by the Governor General John Kerr in 1975 for not getting his budget through Parliament and presumably losing the confidence of Parliament. This didn't go down very well, and another sacking by a GG is highly unlikely. 

I see his wife being praised as a beacon for women during his time in office too, and later.She was highly involved in women's affairs and cultural things, and was eventually made one of Australia's 100 Living Treasures.

I don't know how he will be viewed in history, but most of those reforms have remained or been built on.  I suppose many of them just fitted the liberality of the day, though I see NZ got rid of the death penalty in 1961 (for treason in 1989) so perhaps Australia was a little behind the play.  Now everything is focussed on economic affairs and trade deals - he wouldn't fit today.

Dear Caro,

in my dictionary they translate the Dutch proverb as : "near is my shirt, but nearer is my skin"
All to say that our club seems more focused on Britain and the European peninsula...MM expat in France, me in Belgium, Nielsen in Denmark, Nordmann in Oslo/Ireland even Islanddawn became perhaps more Greek than Australian and the rest from the British isles...if I recall it well also an expat in the Middle East...?

As your interesting message about Australian nowadays history is unknown to me I did some research and what a story...a bit the American way...and with a lot of dirty politics...the wiki reads as a novel...was Gough Whitlam too rigid...? was the opposition too sly...? Some parallels, MM, with the nowadays French politics? The Socialists, the same in Belgium, in a negative slope downwards...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

Australian nowadays history is unknown to me

Hello Paul

it's funny that you should say that because it reminds me of a discussion I had with a French colleague of mine in London years ago. We were discussing the theoretical (but nevertheless considerable) power which the Queen has in the British constitution. My colleague suggested that since there is no single written constitution for the UK then this meant that the Queen has no real power theoretical or otherwise. I took the reverse view and also tried to explain the difference between the Queen as an individual and the Crown as an institution. To illustrate this I cited John Kerr as Australia's Governor-General using the power of the Crown to dismiss the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. At that point my colleague's eyes seemed to glaze over and took on a bored expression. She gave a Gallic shrug and said "Bof. I know little about Australian politics and care even less."

Thanks, Vizzer, I forgot that the British via the institution of "the Crown" have a say in Australia.

And as such the British are more interested in the acts of the Queen and its influence on politics of "the Commonwealth?" and Australia?
We had on the ex-BBC an American, Alexander Crawford? who was firmly against the power of the monarch in Britain. I did then a lot of research as for the Belgian king and indeed the monarchs have still some power in Belgium and in Britain. It is not so easy to destitute a king in Belgium (see the King's Question of Leopold III) and I don't see how one can abolish the monarchy in Belgium legally without a "revolution". And Crawford was right, but his messages were always deleted by the BBC...had just the time sometimes to read the text before the message disappeared.
And yes I met also in the research the power of the Crown in Australia, Canada and so on, but I don't remember that much about it...

I know I can also do the research, but if you can explain the whole complex matter to me, because you are embedded in the matter...?
I know something about the French commonwealth and also their overseas departments...as for instance Mayotte...the grandson visits now for the second time a classmate, who is doctor on that island. It's European community, French territory, and all services are in Euro...and I suppose also the 200 miles zone around the island is French zone of "interest"...

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

I forgot that the British via the institution of "the Crown" have a say in Australia.

You didn't forget it Paul because the British do not have a say in Australia via the institution of the Crown. This is key. When the Queen is in Australia she is advised by her Australian ministers. Similarly when she is in Canada she is advised by her Canadian ministers, when she is in New Zealand she is advised by her New Zealand ministers and when she is in Jamaica she is advised by her Jamaican ministers and so on. It's got nothing to do with the UK. David Cameron has no say in the matter.

The Crown of Australia is a separate institution from the Crown of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. The monarch of each country, however, just happens to be the same person. A lot of people around the world and including many people in the UK do not appreciate this subtlety.

Vizzer wrote:

PaulRyckier wrote:

I forgot that the British via the institution of "the Crown" have a say in Australia.

You didn't forget it Paul because the British do not have a say in Australia via the institution of the Crown. This is key. When the Queen is in Australia she is advised by her Australian ministers. Similarly when she is in Canada she is advised by her Canadian ministers, when she is in New Zealand she is advised by her New Zealand ministers and when she is in Jamaica she is advised by her Jamaican ministers and so on. It's got nothing to do with the UK. David Cameron has no say in the matter.

The Crown of Australia is a separate institution from the Crown of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. The monarch of each country, however, just happens to be the same person. A lot of people around the world and including many people in the UK do not appreciate this subtlety.

Capito now, Vizzer.

Did some further research as for the ex-BBC Alexander Crawford...Have to say that it is nowadays much easier to do research on the internet than in 2002...thanks to Google and their competition? Oops and I forgot Wikipedia...and if you don't agree with Wikipedia you can always do further research...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm


In my opinion the important members are Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand and I wasn't aware also Papua New Guinea...
And as for the banner or flag, the most beautiful in my not to trust opinion are the ones of New Zealand and Canada ...and of course the ones of the UK...and by the way: why are there two flags for the UK? And the beautiful blue lady remains in the right under quarter while the other quarters change???
And about the powers of the queen:
http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/what-are-the-queens-powers-22069
As I read it, it are nearly the same powers as those of the Belgian king...as a "constitutional monarch"?

Kind regards and with esteem from your longtime friend, Paul.

Addendum to the previous message.

OOPS and I forgot, of course are the little commonwealth islands also very important for their 200 miles zone...the grandson is to Mayotte island between Mozambique and Madagascar...French "departement", territory of France and as such from the European Union...as those of the UK?...couldn't resist to include the UK

Kind regards, Paul.

Paul - the two Royal Standards are those used in Scotland (1 set of leopards, two lions) and the rest of the UK (six leopards, one lion). Suppose this is down to the Union of the Crowns not being the same as the union of the nations, but I'm not certain. Most of the French territories are overseas Departements of France, whilst the remaining 14 British overseas territories are not part of the UK, nor are the Crown dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Mann)

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

Paul - the two Royal Standards are those used in Scotland (1 set of leopards, two lions) and the rest of the UK (six leopards, one lion). Suppose this is down to the Union of the Crowns not being the same as the union of the nations, but I'm not certain. Most of the French territories are overseas Departements of France, whilst the remaining 14 British overseas territories are not part of the UK, nor are the Crown dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Mann)

Gil, thanks for the references of the flags.

"Most of the French territories are overseas Departements of France, whilst the remaining 14 British overseas territories are not part of the UK, nor are the Crown dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, Mann)"

Did research now up to the bone ...what a complicated matter, both for France and the UK...
First the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories
Then the French:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_departments_and_territories_of_France
The French Wikipedia is more elaborated:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_d'outre-mer

I wanted to add a third link about the British overseas territories, but once clicking on it I can't return to my message...(have it with PDFs and all that too...) so I will start a new message...

Kind regards, your friend, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

OOPS and I forgot, of course are the little commonwealth islands also very important for their 200 miles zone...the grandson is to Mayotte island between Mozambique and Madagascar...French "departement", territory of France and as such from the European Union...as those of the UK?

As Gil has said the UK overseas territories are nor part of the UK or the EU.

Many of the French overseas territories have been incorporated into France and the Netherlands have also done the same with their small Caribbean territories.

Britain, however, has been very different. There was a half-hearted suggestion in the 1950s that Malta should be incorporated into the UK sending MPs to Westminster. This, however, came to nothing and the failure of the Maltese episode actually set up and anti-incorporationist ethos in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

With relatively close and small territories such as the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, unincorporated - incorporation just seems not to be the British way. The union between Britain and Ireland was never really loved on the Irish side and the union between England and Scotland is currently also under strain.

Somewhat ironically Malta is now a member of the EU in its own right.

With regard to Australia then it too has various off-shore and overseas territories with varying degrees of self-government. One such is Norfolk Island which has its own team at the Commonwealth Games. A mini-furore recently erupted when an Australian government official demanded that the islanders sing 'Advance Australia Fair' as their first anthem rather than 'God Save The Queen':

http://www.regional.gov.au/territories/norfolk_island/administrator/media/2014/ni-a-tr-201401.aspx

Not sure what Gough Whitlam would have made of this incident.

Addendum to the previous message

Impossible to transfer the PDF. I had to shorten it to succeed
http://goo.gl/O1OtTm
And I learned that people from the Irish Republic can also vote in Britain...?

See also the maps and pictures of the wiki up to the end, where all overseas territories are shown from countries of the European Union...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories#mediaviewer/File:British_Overseas.png


Somewhere I learned, but sadly don't find it back in the articles I mentioned, that New Zealand has two and Australia seven? overseas territories, also the same scheme as with the British Crown, all under the same tutelle of the Australian "Crown"?, and New Zealand "Crown"?

Kind regards, Paul.

Thanks Vizzer for your reply. I see now that our posts have crossed each other...and yes I was asking about the Australian and New Zealand overseas territories...

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.