The Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, has confirmed that there are limited circumstances when a government may be dismissed. In an interview concerning the commemorations in Sydney for Governor Macquarie she told Deb Cameron of 702 ABC Sydney (11/4) that she has no general power to dismiss the government.
Her Excellency had over time received a very large number of letters calling on her to dismiss the State government.
...arrest the Governor?
This recalls a similar groundswell against the second government of Premier Jack Lang (1930-1932), who led one of the rival factions of the Labor Party.
This came to a head when the Federal government paid interest due to overseas bondholders which Lang had suspended and then sought to extract this from NSW. Lang lost a challenge in the High Court, but then directed all government accounts be paid in cash, and withdrew the balance of all government accounts. The Governor, Sir Philip Game, warned him that in his opinion, this was illegal. Lang persisted and the Governor dismissed him, appointing a caretaker Premier and ordering an election. Lang lost.
Gerald Stone, in his book "1932", argues that there is evidence that Lang considered arresting the Governor to prevent the Governor from dismissing him. He says the armed forces were put on alert.
Indeed former Prime Minister Paul Keating says that Gough Whitlam should have had Sir John Kerr arrested in 1975. Apparently the Indonesian President General Suharto asked Mr. Richard Woollcott, Australia’s Ambassador to Jakarta and a prominent republican, why Mr. Whitlam did not do that.
What Mr. Keating clearly does not appreciate is that in our system, the Governor-General is the Commander- in Chief, not as in a politicians' republic. Our soldiers would have remained loyal to their Oath of Allegiance.
[ The Governor of NSW and Chancellor of the University of Sydney ]
"The only way that they can disappear, so to speak, is if there's a vote of no confidence," she said."In fact we consult the constitutional lawyers, who are the experts on every small detail of these things, so that there's no doubt about it."Elections do come round from time to time so it's back in the hands of the people."
Her Excellency may also dismiss a government on the ground of illegal or unconstitutional conduct. Notwithstanding the provision of four year terms, a dissolution following a dismissal appears possible under section 24 of the Constitution.
..the Sovereign’s rights...
The Governor says she does sometimes offer the cabinet her opinion echoing the famous observation of Walter Bagehot concerning the Sovereign’s rights – to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. A viceroy has similar rights.
.
"I certainly meet with ministers once a week," she said."There's always time before and after to discuss issues of key importance and I'm quite able and free to put my viewpoint."
The New South Wales Government has lost three ministers and a parliamentary secretary in the past few weeks.There have also been three premiers since the last election in 2007.The Governor told presenter Deb Cameron how she feels when she is called to swear in another new minister.
"What I immediately think is 'I hope that this will now be a healing situation, things will settle down and we can go forward as a united team, regardless of political or other backgrounds'," she said.
How important it is that these functions reside in the institution which is outside of politics, the Australian Crown.
As usual, Australia’s dwindling republican movement is whingeing about The Queen’s Birthday Holiday, instead of deigning to tell us how they want to change the constitution and the flag. The fact is that fact Australians have enjoyed this holiday since 1788 when Governor Phillip declared a holiday on the birthday of King George III.
It is celebrated on the second Monday in June (except in Western Australia where it is celebrated later in the year on a date proclaimed by His Excellency the Governor. This is because Foundation Day is celebrated on the first Monday in June. It also demonstrates that Australia is a federation, and the determination of many matters is left to the States.)
[ The Queen and the Australian State Coach ]
...Monarch’s Birthday in 1788...
George Mackaness in "Admiral Arthur Phillip - Founder of New South Wales 1728-1814" describes that event thus (as posted to the Australian Republic Unplugged site):
“The fourth of June was the birthday of King George III, ‘their beloved sovereign’ as Collins describes him, The day was one ‘general rejoicing, festivity and forgiveness.’"
“The Governor caused the Sirius and the Supply to fire three royal salutes; the transports still in the harbour and the battalion of marines fired volleys; the Lieutenant-Governor and all the officers, civil and military, waited on the Governor, who entertained them at dinner, with the band playing and much enthusiastic toasting and cheering."
“Describing the toast of His Majesty's Ministers, Surgeon White cannot refrain from punning hope that these ‘may be Pitted against any that ever conducted the affairs of Great Britain.’"
“‘Being "a day of forgiveness,’ the four convicts, Lovell, Sidaway, Hall, and Gordon, confined at Pinchgut awaiting banishment, were ‘fully pardoned,’ so that Phillip could write: ‘For the twenty four hours I believe there was not one heavy heart in this part of his Majesty's dominions.’"
“In the evening large bonfires – ‘we had plenty of wood,’ says Southwell - were lighted, and kept burning all night. With a supper tendered by the Governor to all the principal officers of the settlement, the festive day was brought to a close.’”
Until 1936 the actual birth date of the reigning monarch was observed. (The Queen’s actual birthday is on 21 April.) But after the death of King George V it was decided to retain the June holiday weekend in allStates , apart from Western Australia.
...Australian Crown remains central to our system...
The institution which Phillip represented is our oldest. Professor Atkinson says the Crown figured largely in his view of the world. He paid extraordinary attention to our oldest holiday, The King’s birthday.
“Phillip’s reconstruction of the Crown within his government, his essence in transferring the essence of eighteenth century monarchy to this vast and remote space, was a remarkable labour of imagination,” writes Professor Atkinson.
The Crown has since evolved and been Australianised so much so that our High Court has ruled that the Australian Crown is an institution separate from the British Crown and that allegiance to the British Crown is allegiance to a foreign power: Sue v Hill, 1999.
All that the Australian Crown has in common with the New Zealand Crown, the Canadian Crown or the British Crown is that they are worn by the same person and there the law of succession is identical in each of the sixteen Realms.
The Australian Crown is now a significant part of the Australian constitutional system. Providing leadership beyond politics, it is a significant check and balance against the improper exercise of political power.
The troubles of the euro should remind people of something important, writes Spectator columnist (5/6) and former editor of the London Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore. This is that people who opposed the UK going into the Euro were dismissed as “head-bangers” and “swivel eyed”.
He points out that it was only because he and other opponents banged their heads for so long that it became impossible for either major party to take Britain in, at least without a referendum, or as Australians would say, a plebiscite.
(The difference between a referendum and a plebiscite is that with a referendum the details of the proposal are on the table before the people vote and not after. Approving a plebiscite is the same as signing a blank cheque.)
This will remind Australians of a parallel campaign here in 1999. Expatriate author and art critic Robert Hughes said any one who voted No in our 1999 republican referendum was stupid; the then Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne Professor Gilbert said that if we voted No we would be an international laughing stock. Australia’s political and media elites were determined that the people accept the flawed republican model.
Charles Moore says that if Britain survives the economic and political catastrophe which threatens the Continent, “... it will be because all the mad people were sane, and all the men of moderation were barking.”
....President admits people misled....
In the meantime, the President of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy has admitted that Europe's "man in the street" was misled for years over the vast political and economic implications of the creation of "Euroland".
"Nobody ever told the proverbial man in the street that sharing a single currency was not just about making peoples' lives easier when doing business or travelling abroad, but also about being directly affected by economic developments in the neighbouring countries,” he said.
"Being in the 'Euro zone' means, monetarily speaking, being part of one 'Euroland'."
According to a report by Bruno Waterfield in Brussels for the London Daily Telegraph “Ordinary people were misled over impact of the euro, says Herman Van Rompuy “ (26/5), public anger over the cost of supporting other euro zone governments, so far totalling £470 billion in taxpayer funded loans or guarantees, has created new political instability in Europe.
...German voters punish government....
This is especially so in Germany where Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government lost its parliamentary majority following a furious reaction to the Greek bail-out that cost Germany's taxpayers £19 billion.
Opinion polling published by Germany's Stern magazine found that over three quarters of Germans now believe that their country's national debt is out of control, a figure that has risen by 62 per cent since the euro bailout.
"Today, people are discovering what a 'common destiny' in monetary matters means. They are discovering that the euro affects their pensions, savings, and jobs, their very daily life. It hurts," President Van Rompuy concedes.
...flawed from its creation...
He admitted that the euro had been flawed from the moment of its creation in 1992, a situation that had not been made clear to voters. "We are clearly confronted with a tension within the system, the ill-famous dilemma of being a monetary union and not a full-fledged economic and political union," he said.
"This tension has been there since the single currency was created. However, the general public was not really made aware of it."
...so why didn’t the President reveal this?....
The EU President was a minister in the Belgian government at the time the euro was adopted. Why didn’t he and the other proponents of the currency warn the people at the time that this project was obviously inherently unstable, as those of us teaching at the time did. (The same is true of suggestions that Australia and New Zealand have a common currency) .
...a Franco-German..project...
José Manuel Barroso, the President of the EU Commission told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that until now “...Germany has been one of the big winners from the euro. More politicians in Germany should say that clearly. It was not Greece, Ireland or Spain who invented the euro. It was a German-French project."
The British political class was eager to join the euro, without explaining the costs and dangers to the people, in the same way that they joined what was to become the EU. If they could have, they would have joined the euro without a referendum. The British government did that when they adopted the EU Constitution, renamed the Treaty of Lisbon, by abandoning the promise they gave that the people would be consulted first in a referendum.
Mr. Waterfield reported that research published by Open Europe highlighted the contradictory statements made by EU leaders during the euro zone crisis, including Mrs Merkel's assertion two months ago that "there is no possibility of paying to bail-out states in difficulty".
Vincenzo Scarpetta, an analyst for Open Europe, said: "The euro zone crisis is not simply about economic failure but also (about) a breakdown in trust between the political class and European citizens.”
“ The EU elite simply got it wrong on the euro."
...the lesson...
The lesson is to be extremely wary of proposals by politicians, especially to make fundamental changes to our constitution, including those to establish some sort of politicians’ republic.
In 1999, I went to Corowa to debate Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Kelly about the referendum. This had been convened by The Australian.
I was teamed with Ted Mack, one of the most honest politicians ever known in Australia -and a republican. He resigned twice from different parliaments to avoid receiving the politicians' superannuation to which he was vehemently opposed.
I asked him whether the republicans realised how flawed, indeed dangerous, the 1999 model was.
His reply was that the 1999 model would have increased the power of the political class. He added that the political class were well aware of this, and indeed, they intended this result.
More recently Professor George Williams has conceded the 1999 model was flawed. Philip Gibson, a worthy campaigner for the constitution has a long list of comments from republicans criticising the model made before the referndum. Many of them then campaigned for the model, but not Ted Mack. He is too honest.
Draw what conclusion you can from that, and be wary.
During the nineties, republicans would advance the most extraordinary reasons for becoming a republic. Sir David Smith has summarised these in Head of State, a powerful book, which remains unanswered by any republican sage.
These extraordinary reasons have included, from some very prominent Australians, the proposition that their politicians’ republic would result in a reduction in unemployment and increases in trade and immigration.
Sir David writes that former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason confessed he had became a republican at the age of eight while watching the bodyline cricket series but waited sixty five years before revealing it “meanwhile accepting two imperial honours ...from the monarch between conversion and confession.”
[ Bill Woodfull faces a Bodyline field in the 4th Test match in Brisbane, 1933. Harold Larwood is bowling ]
...another silly reason...
It is not surprising then that somebody would now argue that because of Sarah Ferguson, we should become a republic. Just what has Ms. Ferguson to do with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia?
That this should receive a double page spread in a major newspaper is an indication of the editorial priorities when serious issues are confronting the nation. Perhaps the article could have dealt with the ethical standards of the News of the World which entered into an elaborate scheme to entrap Ms. Ferguson. News of the World journalists have, as we know , committed crimes to write stories to boost circulation.
No one has yet demonstrated how this constitutional change will improve the governance of Australia. Nor have they satisfied Australians that the politicians’ republic they are proposing is not going to lead to serious problems and endow the political class with more power.
Remember, in recent years even republican Professor George Williams has conceded there were serious flaws in the 1999 republic.
As the republicans still refuse to say what sort of republic they are proposing, we thought Ms Sarrah Le Marquand of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph could tell us after her two page spread extolling the advantages of some sort of politicians’ republic.
So we sent the following letter to the editor. We were too polite to ask her if she had forgotten or was unaware of the fact that in 1999, the people had overwhelmingly rejected the best model the republicans could devise. They did this nationally, in all states and in 72% of electorates.
...letters to the Telegraph..
"Could Ms. Le Marquand (8/6) indicate what sort of politicians’ republic she is proposing to replace our crowned republic?
How will it affect the Westminster system? How will it replace the oldest institution in our constitutional system, how will it provide leadership beyond politics, and how will it replace the Crown in its many functions, including that of constitutional guardian.
Given that in the current super profits controversy, the minerals are vested in the Crown in the right of, say Western Australia, Queensland or New South Wales, how will this work out in her republic?
Or will the minerals be handed over to a new republican centralist government?
Yours etc."
Beverly Watts of Moss Vale summarises it well in this letter in the Telegraph on 9 June :
“Thank you Sarrah Le Marquand , but I’d rather have my taxes pay for a monarchy than “snout-in-the trough” politicians and their afterlives- not to mention the cost of becoming a republic”
One comment. We do not pay any taxes to support the monarchy- nor indeeddo the British. The monarchy pays for itself, although the British politicians over the last decade have refused to hand over money which belongs to The Queen to be spent for public purposes, suchas maintaining heritage buildings.
If the Super Profit Tax were to be enacted after the election, there would be at least four constitutional questions which could be raised in the likely constitutional challenges.
First, is it a tax on "on property of any kind belonging to a State"? The Commonwealth is not allowed to impose such a tax under section 114 of the Constitution.
The second question is whether the tax is in fact an acquisition or a nationalisation. The proposed tax involves the Commonwealth taking 40% of the so-called super profits, but bearing 40% of the losses. This could be argued to be the effective acquisition of a share in each mine.
(When the Commonwealth is actually called on to share losses when these are large and incurred a foreign investor, it is likely there will be enormous public pressure for this aspect of the tax to be withdrawn.)
Minerals are usually reserved to the Crown, but minerals in the States are not reserved to the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth. They are usually reserved to the Crown in the right of the State. This can often be seen on the relevant Crown Grant.
In New South Wales, coal rights were sometimes granted with the land. In 1981 the Wran Labor government introduced legislation to nationalise these rights. The compensation provisions were inferior to that required by the Constitution in relation to acquisitions by the Commonwealth.
The Greiner Coalition government legislated to provide for restitution and more generous compensation in 1990. This was reversed to some extent by legislation introduced by the Carr Labor government in 1997.
This unsatisfactory affair points to the need for entrenched rights to fair compensation in State Constitutions.
If the tax is an acquisition, the third question is whether this is for a purpose for which the Commonwealth has power to make laws, bearing in mind that mineral ownership is a matter for the States.
Fourth, if it is an acquisition, is it on just terms? The answer would definitely be in the negative - there is no provision for compensation. The Constitution requires that an acquisition be on "just terms".
...prominent economist shows how this is a nationalisation of 40%....
A prominent economist has now come forward to show that what is being attempted is a nationalisation or acquisition. To be valid, this must be for the purposes of the Commonwealth, and miners must be on just terms.
Ben Smith, formerly Head of economics at the Australian National University, was described in the press as a leading proponent of the new tax. In The Australian “Government should pay up front for its share of mining companies' costs “(7/6) he points out he is not. He supports the government acquiring a share in all mines as a compensation for mineral depletion, the so called Brown tax.
Under this the government would pay a share (say 40 per cent) of all exploration and mine development costs and takes that share of the profits, just as a private sector joint-venturer would do. He says that calling this a "tax" is rather misleading. “Calling it a "super profits tax" is ridiculous. In fact, the RSPT is the Brown Tax but with a twist.”
The twist, he says, is that under super profits tax the government pays for its 40 per cent share of costs by borrowing from the mining company, guaranteeing to repay the loan either from its share of the profits or, if necessary, by cash payment at the end of the project's life.
So for every $100 of initial project cost the company still has to put up $100, but only $60 of this is actually investment in the project. The other $40 is – and this is difficult to believe- a loan to the government. I I should add thta this is an interest free unsecured loan to the government.”
This requires the company, he says, to hold a sort of unofficial government bond (paying interest at the government bond rate) in addition to funding its share of the project.
“Mining companies,” he say “ aren't in the business of holding government bonds but, in principle, they can borrow from people who are (such as banks) at no greater interest rate than the government is paying, thereby passing the job of lending to the government on to someone else and separating it from the task of raising the finance needed to fund their 60 per cent share of projects.”
While believing th RSPT is superior to current arrangements he says subject to easily exaggerated fears that a future government may renege on its guarantee. I do not think these fears are at all exaggerated. When the first losses come up for recoupment, imagine the reaction when the media inform the people that a cheque for several billion dollars must be drawn in favour of a foreign investor. What if it is a company owned by a foreign government?
The source of those concerns is the "twist". The solution is to remove it. The government should pay its 40 per cent share of project costs up-front, funding this by borrowing in the capital market and issuing government bonds. This would replace unofficial government debt with official debt and, so long as the commitment to honour both is the same, a proper government accounting system should treat the two cases identically.
They are only different if unofficial debt to mining companies is considered easier to default on than official debt, which is exactly what those on the other end of the super profits tax are worried about.
The ACT & Region Division of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy are celebrating The Queen’s Birthday with a luncheon at the Canberra Yacht Club on Wednesday, 16 June 2010, Noon for 12.30 pm. The price is $40.
The Chairman, Alan Fitzgerald , indicates this will be the occasion for a lively debate to ensure the future direction of ACM –ACT and its activities.
Acceptances on the form which can be downloaded here should be sent to Caroline Ross –Smith at the address indicated.
Another concern about the Resource Super Profits Tax proposal is that it may breach international law and lead to a large number of very substantial claims to a Washington based international agency. These could be made under any of several treaties the Federal government has entered into under the external affairs power in the Constitution. In the video below, Professor David Flint explains how these claims could arise.
Foreign investors are entitled to assume they will not be subjected to laws which expropriate their assets without compensation. International law protects such investment.
[ Washington, but not for tourism ]
...treaty making power...
The Federal Constitution grants a power with respect to external affairs to the Federal Parliament. Under this, the Federal government has entered into a number of treaties to protect foreign investment.
Hitherto there was no obvious need for Australia to do this to encourage foreign investment. Foreign investors would only be concerned about unstable countries being parties to these treaties, not a country with the record Australia has, or perhaps we should say had until recently.
Australia has long been seen as one of the most stable countries in the world, one where foreign investors could expect to be treated fairly and consistently.
No more. Now we hear the code words "sovereign risk" and "country risk" mentioned in relation to investment here.
...potential claims...
If the tax is in fact enacted, foreign investors could claim that the tax is retrospective, and substantially affects existing projects. They would say that they came to Australia expecting to pay Federal taxes, company tax and the GST, and that they had entered into negotiations with the States or were aware of the rate of royalties charged by the owners of the minerals, usually the State governments.
Under one or more of up to 22 international treaties in which the Commonwealth has pledged to protect foreign investment. The foreign investors could claim that Australia was in breach of its commitments to protect this investment.
...international arbitrations...
These breaches could lead to Australia being required to take part in a large number of international arbitration proceedings before an agency of the World Bank. One might be a test case for the others.
In the proceedings the foreign investors would ask for a remedy which is prompt, adequate and effective. This could involve orders for restitution, or for compensation.
This could result in a future Federal government -- that is the taxpayers, and particularly the next generation - having to pay enormous amounts of compensation to foreign companies. At the same time new investment would most likely fall.
The action of the government in so peremptorily announcing such a massive tax and in indicating that the core is non-negotiable, has for the first time raised the factor of sovereign risk in relation to investment in Australia.
...sovereign risk...
Sovereign risk is usually in issue in relation to unstable countries. As the ANZ states, ssovereign risk implies the possibility that conditions will develop in a country which inhibit repayment of funds due from that country, such as exchange controls, strikes or declarations of war
An international lender should (but does not always) compensate for perceived sovereign risk by adjusting the interest rate charged. In other words, lenders to investors in Australia can be expected to increase the interest rates charged.
...country risk...
An associated consideration is country risk, which the ANZ says is the risk associated with dealing with another country, including the legal, political, currency and settlement risks.
For the first time in the history of Australia , foreign investors and lenders considering new projects both in the country and offshore are considering the issues of sovereign and country risks.
When the Australian colonies agreed, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown and under the Constitution, it was assumed the States would continue to rely on taxes they raised and to face the electors and account to them how they had spent their money.
The Founding Fathers, erudite men that they were, were well aware of the fundamental point made by the American Founders, that:
"In a federation, the individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants." (The Federalist Papers)
In the video below Professor David Flint explains how this principle was intended to apply to Australia when the Constitution was written.
But over the years, with High Court interpretations and political machinations we have reached the stage where the original intention of the Founding Fathers has been thwarted. The result is that to day, our Federal Commonwealth of Australia is the most fiscally centralised of the OECD federations. The States and territories raise only 19 per cent of taxes but are responsible for 40 per cent of public spending.
While the benefit to Australia from being a federation is estimated to be 10 per cent of the GDP, this could be raised significantly by further decentralising our taxation system, thus raising average incomes by $4,188 per annum. (The 2007 Twomey-Withers Report to the Council For the Australian Federation.)
The result is that the States are over dependent on the Commonwealth; technically we live in a federation poisoned by "vertical fiscal imbalance".
Just as healthy adults who are welfare dependent tend to lead dysfunctional lives, this imbalance has tended to reduce the quality of State governments, making them dysfunctional and reducing them to mere service providers and not true governments.
The Commonwealth government this year has already tried to take 30% of the GST, a Federal tax which John Howard valiantly tried to give the States to make up income they had lost thanks toa centralising High Court. Alone among the States, the Western Australian government has vetoed this.
The proposed super profits tax will only exacerbate this situation and make the States even more dysfunctional. The proposal in the Henry Review was that the Commonwealth take over State royalties. Fearful of the fight a direct seizure would provoke, the government will probably cap them and slowly expropriate them.
The decision how the people are to benefit from mining is a matter for the States, not Canberra. That is after all what the Constitution, approved by the Australian people, intends.
ACM recently employed Darren Soetanto, a University of Western Sydney graduate, through their Careers and Co-operative Education Program. Darren was responsible for developing our new supporter database, a task long overdue! The new database will optimise the way ACM handles supporters, finance, and functions.
Thomas Flynn (Executive Director), Darren Soetanto, and Jai Martinkovits (Young ACM Spokesman) were invited to the University’s awards ceremony. Presented with awards recognising their contributions to the program, they felt it was a worth while opportunity for both the industry partner and the participant alike.
Another prominent republican has changed his mind, and announced that he is a constitutional monarchist. He is Sir Peter Maxwell Davies. When he was made Master of the Queen's Music in 2004, his republican tendencies caused a stir.
Just as two prominent Australian republicans changed their views at the time of Prince William’s visit, Sir Peter, who is The Queen's official composer, says he has been brought round to support the monarchy because The Queen is such a "fantastic role model".
In a blow to those who are campaigning for some sort of politicians’ republic, he has praised the integrity of the royal family while criticising elected politicians as "dishonest".
"I would say I am no longer a republican," Sir Peter told Mr Cramb "I have come to realise that there is a lot to be said for the monarchy. It represents continuity, tradition and stability"
. "It is a better system than having a president and frankly I have been disappointed so much with our dishonest politicians. They are not telling the truth, any of them."
"But I have grown to be a huge admirer of The Queen. She is a fantastic role model who has selflessly put the interests of the country first."
"I appreciate what she does. I know it sounds obvious but she really loves and cares deeply about all the people of this country."
"It is a pity the politicians didn't follow her example, and it is a good job for them she can't stand for election."
"She has had quite an effect on me. I am not going to say what discussions we have had, but just watching her, listening to her, and the people involved with her, has made me re-think my beliefs. She has won me over, it was a progressive change.
...better off with The Queen....
Sir Peter has put his finger on the role of the Crown as a check and balance on the politicians in our system.
"We are better off with The Queen than being run totally by politicians. It has been quite a journey for me, and one I never thought I would make. But that is the power of The Queen for you."
According to the Telegraph, Sir Peter, 75, added that the Queen and her son the Prince of Wales were "very knowledgeable about music" and the country would be "in good hands with him too".
He is to dedicate his ninth symphony to her, which Mr. Cramb reports, will be performed during her diamond jubilee celebrations in 2012 to mark her 60 years on the throne. However, he warned that it would be "sweet mood music" but a very serious work reflecting the events of her long reign and would cover "good and bad, happy and sad".
I became a monarchist in the late afternoon of 19 November 2009; a dark and chilly day, damp brown leaves blowing balefully along the gutters, the smell in the air of a hard winter to come, declared British columnist Rod Liddle in The Spectator (29/5). He continued:
“This ended more than 30 years of what I considered principled soft-leftish republicanism; the notion that however practically effective and traditional the royal family might be — all those tourist dollars, plus a sense of national continuity — it was still sort of wrong."
"Monarchists would argue with me, saying listen, if we didn’t have the Queen, we’d have Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone or Boris Johnson as an elected president — an idea which rather appealed, frankly. And I would counter by saying well, hell, I don’t mind that — but we might even have Richard Dawkins or Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali or Cheryl Cole, and how wonderful would that be?”
“And then, on 19 November last year, Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, was appointed High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and suddenly my whole ideology was snuffed out with an audible phffwt, the sound of a cigarette being extinguished in a cup of coffee. Because it became absolutely clear to me, on that cold and frowsy afternoon, that Baroness Ashton is exactly who we would have imposed upon us if we were ever to abolish the monarchy.”
“It wouldn’t be an entertaining self-publicising political maverick from the left or the right, or a famous clever person, or even someone with no sentient opinions but who you might conceivably want to shag. It would instead be a person who had moved ineluctably through agitprop bollocks to quango after quango, from CND to the, Christ help us, Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and then on to the Employers Forum on Disability, building up the PC brownie points with every new position, never having said anything of interest to anyone, someone perfectly attuned to the requirements of the deathless civil political appointment, someone whose name was writ, badly, in water."
" Someone like Baroness Ashton, with a face like a bag of spanners and utterly unsuited to the task at hand, a creature — even more than the Queen — of anti-democracy.”
“So it was on 19 November that I finally fell in love with the royal family — and especially Prince Philip.”
.
