THE case for the Commonwealth is compelling when we watch a weak American President perform in uncertain times.
Joe Biden has rarely been right on foreign policy in forty years – even before his cognitive decline he opposed finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, whose lifetime mission was to inflict ongoing horror upon us all.
- While individual Commonwealth alliances couldn’t repel China, its collective military would.
- An aligned Commonwealth free trade & defence alliance needs to be encouraged.
- The Queen’s lifetime work is bigger than any short-term damage Charles may cause.
US alliances are critical. They saved Australia from being smashed by a Japanese occupation in 1942 and helped rescued the free world in the last war. We all owe America.
But it’s best to hedge our sovereignty, just as when we looked to them for help in WWII. And they would welcome a strong combined Commonwealth ally.
INFLUENCE
Firstly, a viable Commonwealth free trade agreement offers Australians more money and better living standards, and unlike the EU the Commonwealth does not seek to legislate to control or restrain its member States, except to exert influence against bad behaviour.
Increased prosperity is derived from trade between countries, especially India, which is a growing behemoth.
China is not a reliable trading partner, and we need to source alternate markets for our exports to avoid them exerting control over us.
The 54 Commonwealth countries have a combined population of 2.4 billion people, and GDP of about $AUD20 trillion, with different supply characteristics, excellent innovation capability, like democratic structures, and advanced production capability, especially the top seven countries.
Bilateral costs for trading partners in Commonwealth countries are on average 19 per cent less than between those in non-member countries, so never look a gift horse in the mouth, and there’s no contrary case to present.
The EU began to fail when a central government was allowed to set economic direction, a challenge beyond the pay grade of its politicians and bureaucracy.
But the Commonwealth would not be similarly afflicted, as once agreements were made, the safer arms of private enterprise would implement strategy, and there’d be no common currency to create havoc.
Secondly, defence-wise, China is the pariah which unites disparate countries in the common cause of self-determination.
Whereas individual Commonwealth alliances couldn’t repel China, the collective military means of member States led by Britain, Canada, India and others, if organised and enhanced, could provide a buffer against being monstered.
With strong unity, this viable force could also effectively ally with Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and other threatened nations.
While the US has had weak leaders before, it’s likely to return to stronger government, and the aggregate of these forces plus America offers Australia its best safety net.
AGGRESSION
Our aim should be to disincentivise Chinese aggression, utilising commercial consequence and military deterrence.
An aligned Commonwealth free trade and defence alliance, however, won’t happen unless we advocate for this outcome.
Fortunately, Queen Elizabeth and her late husband Prince Phillip did the heavy lifting when greatly expanding the number of member States from 8 to 54 during her reign, and they have been exemplars of the sorts of standards that thus far have served us well.
The then reigning Norwegian Royal family set a like example during WWII.
It helped unite their country from abroad after having to flee, to avoid being used by the Nazis against their people.
They raised considerable funds in America to feed their deprived citizens, utilising the Swedish Red Cross, and kept morale high with regular radio broadcasts.
They also assisted to fund raise for a Norwegian militia to fight alongside the allies and, pre-Yalta Conference, the then Norwegian Crown Prince lobbied Roosevelt to ensure northern Norway was not ceded to the USSR.
Under the current Act of Succession, Prince Charles will succeed his 95-year-old mother when she dies, which could present a problem when trying to keep States unified.
His puerile climate change views are a direct threat to their economic interests.
As well as singularly threatening their prosperity, his generally silly statements degrade his office and weaken Commonwealth unity.
That said, all understand that the Queen’s lifetime work is bigger than Charles.
BEHAVE
The solution is to lobby the British Government to either change the Act of Succession, so that the safe hands of Prince William and Kate could continue to help hold the Commonwealth together, or else for Charles to be clearly told how he must behave if he is not to be bypassed.
The royals should stand against – not join – the ABC, political correctness operatives and the Marxist BLM movement who are the unpatriotic successors of the treacherous Australian Waterside Workers.
These unionist refused in 1942 to load ships carrying critical war supplies to our diggers fighting for our very existence on the Kokoda Trail.
They also deliberately smashed vital military equipment being landed, until American troops fired on them – when they then exhibited their cowardice as is typical of their successors when seriously confronted.
We weaken our societally when we fail to challenge these cretins’ distorted reality, their world view and lack of moral compass.
DARKNESS
Australians must fight for their future and espouse against the threat posed by their own internal forces of darkness.
The Greens, Labor and NSW Liberal Left, likewise, inadvertently seek to impoverish us with bad policy.
Our environment will fare much better if we are prosperous and use technology, in which regard the Left have nothing on offer.
We need to alert Australians to what threatens us internally and externally, if we want to stay free.PC
Well done Nick Bury on a most thoughtful and accurate assessment on the Commonwealth’s capability to become a bulwark against tyranny.
“The Greens, Labor and NSW Liberal Left, likewise, inadvertently seek to impoverish us with bad policy.”
They most certainly do, but also avoid the voter traps the above create like the several candidates masquerading as Independent supported by the Union Movement backed GetUp activist organisation and Liberal left (LINO) and related individuals and organisations that targeted real Liberal and National MPs at the 2019 election.
Consider the earlier group of “Independent” MPs who supported the Gillard Labor Government to form a minority alliance government in 2010 but had campaigned successfully years earlier as trustworthy former National Party members is reasonably safe National Party held electorates. Consider that there were several NSW State MLAs funded and supported by NSW Labor Cabinet Ministers.
And beware of deceptively similar party brands incorporating “Liberal”.
It is interesting in the lates news on electricity supply that the so called renewable energy solar and wind businesses are failing to provide a reliable energy supply source and consideration is now being given to subsidise coal fired power stations to continue generating well past the planned by their owners closure timing. An example of wealth creation based on a climate hoax (as compared to natural Earth Cycles of weather and climate changing) that gradually impoverish us, economic vandalism.
Brilliant piece of information for us to think about, well done …
Thanks Dominic, but now face the mammoth slog of trying to garner enough interest to give the plan some legs.
You see, when conservatives speak of the commonwealth, they really mean Canada and the UK…..you know, the rich white countries.
They don’t mean Bangladesh or Guyana or Nauru or Belieze or Pakistan or Uganda or Rwanda, all of whom are full commonwealth members. They would prefer not to mention them.
Generally, conservatives don’t mean that at all, they are habitually a lot less selfish, and much more interested in helping poor people who want to work hard and improve their lot than are the left, who basically are only interested in themselves, and in sponging off the hard work of others. That’s why many tradies who work hard for their living, loathe them so much. The left try to use class warfare and attempted political correctness to justify their leaching off the productivity of others.
Countries like Uganda that have substantive natural resources would be prospective huge beneficiaries of a Commonwealth free trade agreement, as would so many other poor countries. A rising tide lifts all boats. The capitalist dollar is much more likely to find its way to a country where people are interested in working hard and getting ahead, than the spoilt parasites from a rich country who bludge off the work of their countrymen, using the class warfare excuse, due to being too lazy and hopeless to be able to accumulate anything from their own endeavours. So many Australians start with nothing, become rich from hard work, and are interested to help others achieve the same result.
Years ago the Ugandans got so tired of being ruled by the likes of Idi Amin, they contemplated inviting Britain to return to administer them, to get rid of poverty, and to put a dollar in their pockets. That’s what good capitalism does. The best illustration of the left and class warfare in action is resource rich Venezuela, where all the population are desperately poor instead of being rich. Put shortly, the premise is hopeless.
You’re not a conservative, so how would you know? If you are a progressive, you despise the nation state, preferring an amorphous ‘international community’, answerable only to the sneering opinions of a self-appointed elite. Check the mirror.
“They would prefer not to mention [Bangladesh or Guyana or Nauru or Belieze or Pakistan or Uganda or Rwanda]”.
I notice that you yourself have never mentioned the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. Since you are such an ardent anti-monarchist, I would have thought that you would want to move there and experience just how good life can be without a King or a Queen (subsisting on bark and grass, and being shot if you look sideways at their dear leader). Mind you, I’m not sure if they allow just anyone to enter their country (even communists have standards, low as they may be).
The beginning of the republican movement in Australia was strongly backed by communist unionists who migrated from Great Britain and who hated the monarchy;
“These unionist refused in 1942 to load ships carrying critical war supplies to our diggers fighting for our very existence on the Kokoda Trail.”
Irrespective of whether some countries are Republics or not, they are still Commonwealth members and excellent prospective trading partners. There are a few duds in there of course but most are sound, and the basic overall premise put is irrefutable.
The majority of Commonwealth members are republics.
Should Australia really try and get closer to Pakistan, or Malawi, or Sierra Leone? All are full commonwealth members.
For all intents and purposes the Commonwealth of Australia is a self governing democratic nation with the Governor General Head of State officially appointed by the Queen after being nominated by the Government, and the High Court of Australia is the last court of appeal.
The Queen of Australia has no powers and acts only on advice from the Government and/or Governor General under certain circumstances based on constitutional laws.
The powers of a Monarch were removed firstly by an Act of the British Parliament during the 1930s and a similar Act of Parliament in Australia during the 1980s.
Your point being?
My view is, so what, the Commonwealth of Australia is a self governing nation.