|
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.
[ WE WERE THERE]
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 a part 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 analysed tonight.
End of Part
1
Click Here for Part 2
*
21st April
2004.
H.F.700/1 |
