The Second Battle of El Alamein marked a major turning point in the Western Desert Campaign of the Second World War. The battle lasted from 23 October to 5 November 1942. The First Battle of El Alamein had stalled the Axis advance consisting of German and Italian troops under Field Marshal Erwin Rommel. Thereafter, Lieutenant-General Bernard Montgomery took command of the British Eighth Army from General Claude Auchinleck in August 1942. The mainly Commonwealth Allied force came from the United Kingdom, Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, the Free French and Greece.
[ General Montgomery at El Alamein ]
The Allied victory turned the tide in the North African Campaign. It ended Axis hopes of occupying Egypt, taking control of the Suez Canal, and gaining access to the Middle Eastern oil fields. Winston Churchill said: "This is not the end, this is not the beginning, nor is it even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." He also wrote "Before Alamein, we had no victory and after it we had no defeats".
In this video, HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York who saw active service in the Falklands War, presides at the 2009 remembrance ceremony and speaks of the sacrifice the troops made.
The Queen, Elizabeth II, presided (18/11) over the State Opening of the United Kingdom Parliament and delivered Her Government's mandate for its final months in office before the general election due next year.
The State Opening of Parliament is a ceremony loaded with historical ritual and symbolic significance for the governance of the United Kingdom. In one place are assembled the members of all three branches of government, of which the Sovereign is the nominal head in each case: The Queen-in-Parliament (Her Majesty, together with the House of Commons and the House of Lords), constitute the legislature; Her Majesty's Ministers (who are members of one or other House) constitute the executive government; Her Majesty's Judges are summoned to attend and represent the judiciary. Thus the State Opening demonstrates the governance of the United Kingdom but also the separation of powers
Similar ceremonies are held in other Commonwelath Realms. When The Queen is present, Her Majesty delivers the Speech from the Throne normally delivered by the Governor-General or Governor.
Writing in the well read column, "The Diary" in The Sydney Morning Herald (19/11) Sean Nicholls and Jessica Mahar report:
NSW REVIVES REPUBLIC
The question of whether Australia should become a republic is still being pushed by the NSW Labor Party. The central policy branch has organised a debate between the national convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, David Flint, and a constitutional law expert, Professor George Williams, to be held on Monday at Trades Hall in Sydney. ''NSW Labor is to be congratulated for allowing both sides to present their views and to defend their positions on this important issue,'' the ACM's website says.
I pointed out recently that once again it had been shown that the best countries in the world to live in were constitutional monarchies (or to use the synonym, crowned republics). A reader who thinks Australia becoming a politicians‘republic would be a good thing said this was a mere correlation. In other words there is absolutely no connection between the fact that a country is governed in a certain way and the result.
[ They worked for this too: Second World War scene in Britain]
He would say that wouldn’t he? So the way, say, Zimbabwe is governed has nothing to do with the quality of life there. In any event the evidence keeps flowing in.
Now we find that constitutional monarchies are fairer for women.
This comes from the World Economic Forum 2009 Annual Global Gender Gap Report. This is based on an index which assesses countries on how well they divide their resources and opportunities among their male and female populations. This is regardless of how wealthy they are. So a different result from the Human Development Index could be expected.
Constitutional monarchies make up less than 15% of countries on the index. But they make up 60% of the top ten and 50% of the top 20 countries. Doesn't that corroborate years of evidence presented here that they offer the best system of governance the world has ever seen?
And to borrow the style of the Australian Prime Minister Mr. Rudd, “I make no apology” for using the term “crowned republic”. It is sanctioned in our founding Charter. It is justified by the dictionary, philosophy, and usage. It is directed to the undecided the young those new to the country. It forces out those who hide their true preferences and their fundamental divisions behind the word “republic”.
Finally it annoys and is already seriously worrying those who want to make this country and New Zealand a politicians’ republic.
The Australian Labor Party Central Policy Branch has called a debate, “Towards a republic,” at 6.30 pm on Monday 23 November 2009 in the Trades Hall Auditorium, 377 Sussex Street Sydney.
NSW Labor is to be congratulated for allowing both sides to present their views and to defend their positions on this important issue.
The speakers will be Professor George Williams and Professor David Flint AM, described in the announcement of the debate as “two renowned defenders of either side of the debate, having been engaged in the discussion in this country for several years.”
“Be sure to attend what will be a great discussion on Australia becoming a Republic.”
Time: 6.30pm
Date: Monday, 23rd November, 2009
Location: Trades Hall Auditorium, 377 Sussex Street Sydney.
RSVP by: 22 November 2009
Please contact NSW Labor on 02 9207 2000 or
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
John Howard’s recent Neville Bonner Oration, “The Crowned Republic” was the subject of a comment by Greg Melleuish, Associate Professor of History at the University of Wollongong. This was published as “ Politics is not a dirty word” in The Australian on 17 November, 2009.
He says that politicians of all persuasions love to praise democracy and the great success of Australian democracy. “If there is a key to what democracy is really about then it is the belief that the ordinary people possess a great deal of common sense and that generally they get things right. Howard expressed this idea with regard to the 1999 republican referendum.”
.
[Plato The Academy]
Professor Melleuish points out there are other views of democracy. “One is that the people are really not too bright, that they are amenable to manipulation and therefore cannot be trusted to make good decisions. That is one republican interpretation of why that cause failed so badly in 1999.”
He says that is why one republican faction will not allow the people to choose the president. They think the people are too stupid to make a wise choice. This confirms that the republicans will never agree among themselves as to what sort of politicians’ republic they prefer.
John Howard rejects the view which emerged among some republicans in 1999 that the people were too stupid to accept the constitutional change proposed then. In the Neville Bonner Oration he said that the 1999 referendum represented the victory of the people and Australian democracy over the elites.
“Another view of democracy,” says Professor Melleuish “is that politicians, the people's representatives, engage in what is termed politics and cannot be trusted to make good decisions. In our public life praise of democracy is very often combined with a condemnation of politics as if it were possible to have one without the other. Of course democratically elected politicians engage in politics. The people who elect them are never of one mind; politics is about negotiating between conflicting interests.”
The denigration of politics, and its association with our leaders and elected representatives, he says, has some dire consequences for our democracy.
“For one thing it maps out a path that Plato would have liked democracy to move in ancient Athens. Plato hated the idea that ordinary people might have the capacity to run their own affairs. He much preferred a system in which individuals who had been educated for their role, the so-called guardians, ran society in what they believed to be the best interests of everyone.”
Because ACM argued in 1999 against a politicians’ republic, as we do today, some republicans say we do not trust politicians.
Rather our position is that we see the constitutional system as providing checks and balances against the political institutions, and that central to these is the Australian Crown which provides leadership beyond politics. in other words, politicans have an important role to play in our system.
We object to this role being vastly extended by the removal of the Crown.
