Singapore became peacefully independent of Malaysia in 1965. Not by the usual method of trying to get independence, but the other way around. It was Malaysia’s idea: they expelled Singapore!
Something similar happened to Brunei several years later. The Sultan of Brunei wanted to remain a British colony. The British Foreign Office was having none of that and told him: You’re independent, like it or not.
[nitpick]Actually, if I understand the position correctly, the Queen doesn’t have the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. If the Governor-General dismisses the Prime Minister he does so in the Queen’s name, but it’s his decision. The Queen can’t tell him what to do.[/nitpick
Be that as it may, whatever power the Queen has, she has because Australian law gives her that power. And Australian law can take it away from her at any time. So, yes, Australia is independent.
Don’t get me wrong. If I were an Australian, I would have voted for a republic. But Australian independence is about the relationship between Australia and other states, not the workings of Australian domestic constitutional law. If Australia (a) is a monarchy, and (b) has a monarch who is also the monarch of another country, Australia does not thereby cease to be independent. Australia ceases to be independent if it is forced by some other country to have a monarchy and a foreign monarch (or, for that matter, if it is forced by some other country to have a republic and an Australian president).
Two questions to illustrate the point:
First, the United Kingdom is a monarchy which has as its monarch someone who is also the monarch of Australia. Is the United Kingdom independent?
Secondly, Ireland is a republic which has as its (elected) president someone who is a citizen of the UK (as well as being a citizen of Ireland). Is Ireland independent?
Unless the Queen is actually in Australia at the time, in which case she can dismiss the Prime Minister.
As much as I dislike the fact that the Queen is still a part of our system, and I would vote yes to a republic (again), there is no way you can’t describe Australia as an independent country.
I believe that the * Australia Acts * of 1986 declared the Queen as “Queen of Australia” and also removed the right of appeal to the Privy Council, making the High Court the ultimate judicial body in the Country.
As ** UDS ** said, it is from Australian law that the Queen derives her power.
We came into being as an ** independent country ** (I’ll set aside debate about our white settlement) through peaceful means Federation in 1901, and many other Commonwealth countries could claim the same.
JB
The Queen doesn’t have much effect on the United Kingdom (her ‘base’ country).
She opens Parliament, but that’s just a ceremony.
She signs Acts of Parliament - ditto.
She chats to the Prime Minister (the guy with the real power) weekly. These discussions are never publicised.
She meets foreign dignitaries, and entertains them. That’s nice.
I think the Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, and is the 'ruler 'of some of those countries.
I know her powers are sharply limited, and Australia does its own thing (so to speak)*.
Nevertheless I think if you have a foreign Head of State (albeit largely ceremonial), then technically you’re not an independent country.
*just to reassure the Aussies; us British chaps admire your sun-drenched country for stuff like:
Rugby Union
Rugby League
Cricket
Swimming (especially Ian Thorpe)
Boomerangs
Home and Away
Neighbours
Sydney to Hobart yacht race
Rolf Harris
Dame Edna Everage
Xmas barbeques
(that’s enough!)
I can’t agree. The whole point about being independent is that you can choose whoever you like as head of state. If you want to choose somebody who has the citizenship of another country, that doesn’t mean you surrender your indpendence; on the contrary, by choosing who you want, you assert your independence.
Question; did England cease to be indpendent when James VI of Scotland ascended to the throne? Did Great Britain ceaset to be independent when George I, a Hanoverian, ascended to the throne?
Another question; if Australia lacks indpendence solely because the Head of State has a foreign nationality, would it become indpendent if the Australain citizenship legislation were amended so as to confer Australian nationality on the Queen?
These questions illustrate, I think, that the nationality of the head of state (or any other government officer) are wholly irrelevant to the question of independence. What matters is whether another state controls Australian affairs.
I think not. Even when the Queen is present in Australia, the Governor-General retains (and exercises) his powers and functions.
I’m not sure what the position would be if the Queen were in Australia at a time when there was no Governor-General. But in any event the point is irrelevant. If the Queen exercises powers conferred upon her by Australian law, Australian indpendence is not thereby compromised purely because the Queen has British nationality.
UDS has some good points about Australian independence and sovereignty. Especially that U.K and Australia both share the same person as head of state, making them dependent on each other(?) I guess both would demur strongly at the proposition, perhaps rendering the Australian Republican Movement a little redundant.
On a tangent, I note that the flag of Hawaii contains a Union Jack.
Does this mean that Hawaii is doubly dependent, both on the U.K and the USA ?
If so, is Hawaii the only state in the world that is doubly dependent?
I agree with the above. But that’s not the case here:
Australia doesn’t choose the British Monarch. Whoever inherits our throne also automatically gets to be ‘in charge’ of Australia. Australia has no choice over the succession. It can’t say e.g. ‘we want Nelson Mandela’ to be its new distinguished ruler. They have to accept whoever we decide.
As I understand it, James VI unified two monarchies. So, yes, England (and Wales?) ceased to be independent. They became part of a bigger country.
As for Hanover, the European monarchies have always been ‘mixed’. (I think the Duke of Edinburgh is Greek.) But whoever sits on the throne beomes the British Monarch - and they were chosen by Britain.
As I say it’s all just a technicality. Although Britain is a ‘Monarchy’, all practical power is exercised by Parliament.
This thread is going off in multiple tangents, but I do have to object to glee’s comment that Australia (and by implication the other “dominion” members of the Commonwealth) must accept whoever the U.K. puts on the throne. This was specifically addressed, I believe in the Statute of Westminster, and there are provisions, used in 1936-37 at the Abdication Crisis, under which the other members of the Commonwealth can come to an agreement as to the succession of X to the common throne shared by the U.K., Australia, Canada, etc.
Not so. Australia chooses to have the British monarch as its head of state. But it could choose to have anyone else as its head of state. They could certainly choose Nelson Mandela (assuming he were willing to accept).
Australia cannot choose who will be the head of state of the UK, of course, but that hardly means Australia is not independent.
Not so. James VI ascended to the English throne in 1603, but England and Scotland continued to be two separate countries with their own parliaments, legal systems, courts, established religions, etc for another century. They were united to create the United Kingdom of Great Britan in 1707 under Queen Anne.
Just as whoever is proclaimed Queen of Australia in accordance with Australian law becomes the Australian monarch. And this has no implications for Australian independence.
Whether we “choose” the Queen as our Head of State or not is irrelevant.
*From dictionary.com
**
Therefore, Australia is not independent.
Right answer, wrong conclusion.
No, no, no.
The office of Queen of Australia is an Australian institution, established and maintained by Australian law.
The person who occupies the office in accordance with Australian law happens (a) to have British nationality, and (b) to occupy a similar office in the UK, Canada and a number of other countries.
So what? That does not make the Queen of Australia a foreign power.
The world is full of examples of both historical and modern heads of state with foreign nationality. I have cited several in earlier posts. The nationality of any office-holder, even the head of state, is irrelevant to the matter of national independence.
The United Kingdom is a foreign power. Prior to 1986, when the UK parliament could (at least in theory) legislate for Australia in certain respects, Australia was not fully independent. Indeed, if it still the case that the UK Privy Council can adjudicate in certain Australian court cases, Australia may not be fully independent. But that has nothing to do with the Queen.
As long as we’re mentioning micronations, you might as well throw in Talossa.
Now that’s why I like this board (and its posters!)
Here I am, a middle-aged British citizen, and I can learn stuff about my country from the SDMB.
In my defence, the current Monarch has been on the throne about as long as I’ve been alive, so I haven’t exactly got much experience of the succession.
I found the Statute of Westminster easily enough (Polycarp, thanks for the cite).
Understanding it was another matter! 
Firstly I’m not sure that the other Dominions can affect the normal succession.
One extract from the preamble reads:
‘…it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom…’
I take this to mean that if the UK wants to change the rules (e.g. pass over Prince Charles and put William on the throne), that the other countries do indeed have to agree.
But I don’t see where e.g. Australia has any say if Prince Charles inherits in the expected way.
Second, given this Statute mentions e.g. ‘section seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894’ and ‘section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890’, I find it difficult to be certain of exactly what it covers!
But can Australia choose to have another distinguished person as its Head of State, rather than the current British Monarch? Wouldn’t that require a change in the law?
I take your point about James VI (History was not well taught at my School!), but at least the English could legally invite him, i.e. they didn’t have to ask any other countries’ permission.
Same with the Hanoverians and the Duke of Edinburgh.
So it’s still just a technicality, but I repeat a key point for me is if Australian law allows ‘anyone the Australian Parliament chooses’ to be Monarch/Head of State. If not, then for me Australia is ‘not independent’.
Yes, it would require change in the law but the point is that it’s Australian law that would have to be changed, and Australia can change it. Currently the Australian constitution effectively provides that the Queen of the UK shall also be Queen of Australia. But the Australian constitution could be amended to provide for an elected president as head of state, or to make any other arrangement for selecting a head of state. I personally favour a constitutional amendment to make Dame Edna Everage the Queen of Australia, but I am not Australian and this proposal may not meet with approval from Australians. It is they, not I (and not the UK) who will decide the matter.
The GG exercises the powers of the Queen and can only be GG while she wishes him to be. If the GG won’t do what the Queen says then the GG would just be replaced.
The Queen could direct the GG to declare martial law. If he refuses then the GG would be replaced (see above).
BUT you say, even if the Queen went nuts and decided to do this wouldn’t Australia just change the constitution to create a republic?
So if the Queen says no I don’t want to give up my powers over Australia then the Bill becomes toilet paper.
There are no circumstances in which the Queen exercises any power, except the power to appoint a GG. All the other royal powers are exercised by the GG in the Queen’s name.
The Queen cannot tell the Governnor-General how to act. He acts on the advice of the Australian ministers or (in very limited circumstances) on his own initiative.
If somebody the Queen objects to how the GG exercises his powers, there isn’t a lot she can do. In theory she can fire the GG and appoint another, but she can only do this on the advice of her Australian ministers. So it’s wrong to say that the Queen can direct the GG to declare martial law; she can’t. Nor can she fire the GG for refusing to do so, unless the Australian government advises her to do so.
It’s equally wrong to say that the Queen could veto a republic bill. It won’t be presented to her; it would be presented to the GG for assent. And she can’t tell him to withhold assent, except on theadvice of her Australian ministers (and probably, in fact, not even with that advice; royal assent has not been withheld from a bill passed by the UK parliament since Queen Anne’s time, so this particular royal prerogative is probably dead).
Yes, if the Queen went nuts and tried to fire a GG against (or without) the advice of her Australian ministers, or to appoint a new GG against or without ministerial advice, there would be a constitutional crisis. But that would be equally true if Australia were a republic with a president who went nuts and tried to abuse or exceed his powers. No constitutional arrangement is entirely proof against this; it doesn’t mean that Australia is not independent.
But there is a difference between an Australian President going nutz and doing this and the Queen of the UK doing this… the Australian President would be an AUSTRALIAN POWER, Whereas the Queen would be FOREIGN POWER!!!
If the Queen went nutzo and actually told the GG to declare martial law and he didn’t and she appointed one of her friends to the position who declares martial law. The Queen’s new GG then dissolves parliament so to remove parliament from the governing process.
All in all, until the Queen is removed from the Australian Federal Constitution we aren’t completely independent.