|
|
Subject:
Commonwealth
Category: Miscellaneous Asked by: jeraboo-ga List Price: $5.00 |
Posted:
30 Oct 2006 20:14 PST
Expires: 29 Nov 2006 20:14 PST Question ID: 778662 |
In the highly unlikely event that Australia and Canada were to go to war, could soldiers of either country be loyal subjects and still fight? |
|
There is no answer at this time. |
|
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: qed100-ga on 30 Oct 2006 22:08 PST |
Do you mean loyal to the United Kingdom? |
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: canadianhelper-ga on 30 Oct 2006 22:16 PST |
This has happened in the past with other Commonwealth Natins: From Wiki: Another concern sometimes raised is that, as head of state of so many different countries, the Queen's neutrality and loyalty could come into question should a conflict ever emerge between two of her realms. Historically, a few situations have arisen in which such a conflict of interest could have occurred. In 1939, South Africa and Canada declared war a few days after the UK did, so that George VI, as king of all three countries, was, for a few days, simultaneously at war and at peace with Germany. (Australia and New Zealand were automatically at war as a result of the UK declaration of war, since neither country had ratified the Statute of Westminster at that time.) In South Africa the declaration of war had followed an initial declaration of neutrality which had precipitated a political crisis resulting in the replacement of the prime minister. Ireland, arguably still a Realm until 1949, remained neutral throughout the war. A more extreme example is the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. George VI, as head of state of both warring nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself. In 1983, during Operation Urgent Fury, Queen Elizabeth was the Queen of Grenada while it was being invaded by many other Caribbean countries of which she was also Queen. Additionally, the invasion was also opposed by several other countries in which she was Queen, notably the United Kingdom and Belize. An important role of a Governor-General is to act in such situations in a way that avoids placing the sovereign in such a conflict of interest. In practice, this may require a Governor-General to take a controversial action entirely on his or her own initiative through the exercise of reserve powers. The Grenada invasion was formally initiated by an invitation for American forces to invade issued by the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon; this action was deliberately undertaken without informing the Queen. Similarly, when Sir John Kerr dismissed the Australian government in 1975, he did not inform the Queen of his intent to do so. This was possible because the Australian constitution invested this power in the Governor-General, not the sovereign. As stated in the last line Australia's constitution invests power in the Governor General and that is the same in Canada. Thus, no conflict for the sovereign. Now...lets forget this sillyness cause Canadians love Aussie Sheilas and they love our beer. Cheers mates. |
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: jack_of_few_trades-ga on 31 Oct 2006 05:10 PST |
"Now...lets forget this sillyness cause Canadians love Aussie Sheilas and they love our beer. Cheers mates." Fosters, Pennsylvanian for beer. |
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: jeraboo-ga on 31 Oct 2006 08:37 PST |
What a great answer. Why aren't you a Google researcher, CanadianHelper? |
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: canadianhelper-ga on 31 Oct 2006 09:04 PST |
Jeraboo...thanks...I get lucky sometimes! GA isn't hiring as far as I know (secretly I think PinkFreud runs the place!) |
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: frde-ga on 01 Nov 2006 02:39 PST |
I don't think Pink runs it If she did a number of things would happen: 1) adsdadsd posts would be removed in seconds - probably they would never appear 2) the 'Google Clamp' would last for 15 mins max 3) the Mail Notification would be re-instated 4) their would be a 'book mark' option that allows one to tag curious threads |
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: frde-ga on 01 Nov 2006 02:41 PST |
Aarghh Their ? I am embarressed |
Subject:
Re: Commonwealth
From: pjdscott-ga on 11 Nov 2006 12:57 PST |
canadianhelper-ga suggests that Ireland was still a realm until 1949. The Constitution of Ireland, adopted by plebiscite in 1937, clearly states the right of the Irish to designate their rulers. The Constitution ratified the Free State and there is no argument that Ireland was betokened to the English Crown. Having said that, tens of thousands of Irishmen lost their lives in the First World War, and many thousands also served and died again in the defense of Europe in the Second World War, amongst them my uncle (who trained in Canada as a Lancaster pilot). If you would like to find out more about Ireland, its customs, culture, people, facts and tourism, you are most welcome to visit my website: http://www.hidden-dublin.com An insiders guide to hidden Dublin - reaches the parts other tourist information misses. Warmest wishes, P J D Scott |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |