|
The Commonwealth Realms
V The Constitution for Europe. - Part 1
“inasmuch
as the Crown is the symbol of the free
association of the members of the
British Commonwealth of nations… united
by the common allegiance to the Crown”
The
Statute of Westminster 1931
A Paper
delivered to a meeting held in the
House of Lords – London on the 21st
April 2004.
By
Philip Benwell MBE
The Commonwealth Realms
Antigua and Barbuda New Zealand
Australia
Papua New Guinea
Bahamas
Saint Kitts
Barbados
Saint Vincent
Belize
Solomon Islands
Canada
Tobago Tuvalu
Grenada
Tonga
Nevis Saint Lucia
United Kingdom
* * *
My Lords, Ladies & Gentlemen,
My task
tonight is not to take sides on whether
we should be in or out of Europe, but
rather to explore what I consider to be
the real danger to the Commonwealth of
Australia and the fourteen Commonwealth
Realms.
The
issues relating to individual
sovereignties are indeed complex,
particularly since the Statute of
Westminster of 1931 which was enacted to
provide for the maturing independence of
those former colonies who remained
‘under The Crown of the United Kingdom’
which were termed ‘Dominions’, so named
in 1907 as ‘the self-governing dominions
beyond the seas’ to replace the term
‘Great Colonies’ and which today
comprise the nations of Australia,
Canada and New Zealand, each having
unique constitutions with precedents and
conventions developed to suit their
individual environments and peoples.
For
instance, Canada is still essentially a
‘Royalist’ nation whereas Australia is
not; and this is probably due to the
comparative physical closeness of Canada
to the United Kingdom and its greater
number of Royal Visits, a privilege
Australia has little experience of, due
to our distance and the length of travel
time to reach us.
This may
explain why Australia has a more
constitutional – and lesser
Royalist-approach to our Monarchy than
Canada. We tend to recognise The Crown
as but an ingredient –albeit vital –
within our system of Government. It is
this more sterile approach that has led
Monarchists to explain that the
Governor-General is effectively
Australia’s Head of State with the Queen
as Sovereign, whereas Canada still
unashamedly recognises The Queen as
their head of State.
In the
years leading up to 1931, the former
British Prime Minister, Arthur, later
lord Balfour, formulated a treaty
between the United Kingdom and the
then Dominions to encompass the
views expressed during the preceding
Imperial Conferences, particularly that
of 1926. The Conferences had been held
in London between the United Kingdom
Government and representatives of the
Governments of the Dominions who were
calling for a relaxation of control,
which continued to be exerted by the
British Government following their
independence, particularly with regard
to the decision of who would nominate
their respective Governors-General.
It was
this Treaty, which was consolidated into
an Act of the British Government called
the Statute of Westminster, which was
adopted by the then Dominions, which
included Australia, Canada, South Africa
and New Zealand.
The
independent sovereignty of the Realms
was clearly shown at the time of the
Constitutional Referendum in 1999, for
if Australia was not in charge of its
own affairs, how else could the people
themselves decide whether or not to
retain The Crown?
The
concerns now facing Australia go far
beyond the Republican / Monarchist
divisions caused by the Referendum.
Whilst the British Parliament no longer
has any right to legislate over the
affairs of Australia, it is fettered
from taking certain actions relating to
the Crown of the United Kingdom and is
specifically barred from legislating in
matters of the Succession and the Royal
Styles and Titles.
In
Zurich in September 1946, Churchill,
still in Opposition, explained his
motivation in working for Union: “When
the Nazi power was broken, I asked
myself what was the best advice I could
give my fellow citizens in our ravaged
and exhausted continent. My counsel to
Europe can be given in a single word:
Unite!”
[Winston
Churchill also stated in his Zurich
speech his feelings of his own country
when he said:
“We
are with Europe but not of it.
We are linked but not
combined.
We’re interested but
not absorbed”]
*
In
Volume IV of his ‘The Second World War’
Churchill wrote:
“Hard as
it is to say now, I trust that the
European Family may act united as one
under a Council of Europe…I look forward
to a United States of Europe in which
the barriers between nations will be
greatly minimised and unrestricted
travel will be possible. I hope to see
the economy of Europe studied as a
whole.”
It was
thus that Churchill founded the United
Europe Movement in 1947 and it was
Churchill who brought together persons
of influence to create a bi –partisan
committee and it was Churchill who
persuaded France to allow a defeated
Germany into the Alliance. Indeed had
not Churchill thrown his weight behind
the early meetings the entire concept of
a united Europe may have become a
forgotten segment of history?
Churchill, of course, knew that Britain
had to provide the leadership in
bringing the war-torn nations of Europe
together and that in ding so there would
be some loss of sovereignty. Britain
has been entering into treaties for nigh
on a thousand years or more, all of
which have resulted in a loss of some
sovereignty.
There is
a statement attributed to Churchill:
“If
the choice for Britain is Europe or the
open sea, then Britain must choose the
open sea.”
This,
however, has been taken from a
conversation Churchill had with de
Gaulle in 1944 and is often quoted out
of context to indicate his opposition to
European Union.
It is
not necessary to take Churchill’s
comments out of context for it was never
in his mind that Britain would ever
become a State subservient to a United
Europe.
And
certainly not at the expense of the
Empire and Commonwealth, but rather that
Britain had to take the lead, jointly
with the United States of America, in
the reconstruction of Europe.
[Elsewhere
in our Bulletins we have emphasised that
the USA from the beginning of their
support for a United Europe wished to
include the UK in a Federal Union.]
When in
Government, Churchill seemed to lose
interest in European Union. This was
possibly because the Marshall Plan was
working, but more probably because he
was then in full command of the facts
and he vehemently disagreed with the
more extensive plans of pro-Unionists
and would never be convinced that the
sacrifice of British Sovereignty would
be worth anything Europe could offer
Britain. It was not until Harold
Macmillan became Conservative Prime
Minister that Union was pursued by
Britain with full vigour at whatever
cost.
Macmillan, of course, had been with
Churchill as Churchill sought solutions
to rebuild a war-torn Europe, but unlike
Churchill, Macmillan never took into
account the dangers of full integration.
Macmillan was not the British Bulldog
that Churchill was. He was a
Conservative as such and in his younger
days had flirted with many different
ideologies, including Mosley’s National
Socialism and Roman Catholicism.
For over
fifty years, the British Parliament has
been debating and legislating over
matters pertaining to its entry into
Union with Europe. That there are
economic benefits to Britain in a
European Trading Bloc cannot be denied.
That there are disadvantages also cannot
be denied. Today (21st April
2004) however, we are not just talking
about an economic Union, but a political
one, one that denies, indeed saps, the
natural right of member states to
legislate and administer themselves
without external interference or
authority. It is this, which is the
greatest challenge to the independence
of Britain’s sovereignty,
and it
is this, which provides a possible
danger to the integrity of the Crown of
the United Kingdom, without which the
independent constitutions of the fifteen
Commonwealth Realms cannot survive.
That is the question to be analyzed
tonight.
End of
Part 1
Click Here for Part 2
*
21st
April 2004.
[WE
WERE THERE.]
H.F.700/1
* * *
| 
