Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Commonwealth ( No Answer,   8 Comments )
Question  
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?
Answer  
There is no answer at this time.

Comments  
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

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

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 Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy