Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Britain and the European Union - Australian constitutional implications

By David Flint - posted Thursday, 6 November 2003

I am often asked about Britain’s membership of the European Union, and its legal and constitutional impact on Australia. More recently, people are asking how the EU’s draft constitution will affect the role of the Crown in our constitutions, state and federal. The draft constitution is not as the British government suggests, no more than a document setting out what is the present status of the Union. It takes it further, the Union looking suspiciously like a federated republic.

It is truly extraordinary that Tony Blair is refusing to hold a referendum on this - which demonstrates once again the wisdom of our Australian Founding Fathers in requiring that any change to our constitution be put to a referendum, and not, incidentally, to that spin doctors’ dream, a plebiscite.

And why not a plebiscite?


Because the Founders were aware that in a plebiscite the government first asks a cleverly designed question, and then fills in the details later. It is the equivalent of a blank cheque on the constitution.

But returning to the UK, a London newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, in its edition of 16 October 2003, reported that Buckingham Palace is growing more and more concerned about the draft European constitution, and especially about Article 10. This provides that not only the constitution, but also European law will have” primacy over the law of the member states”!

If ratified, will this not undermine the Queen’s supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted as it is through the sovereignty of Parliament? Will not the Queen be reduced to the status of a princeling, and the UK to that of a mere principality or province, like those of the old German Empire that Bismarck had long conspired to create with his “blood and iron” policy? This necessitated the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which was the precursor of those two terrible World Wars.

Sadly, the answer is obvious. So while the British people are to be consulted- at some, as yet unspecified, time in the future- on whether to replace the pound sterling with the Euro, they are not to be asked whether the constitution is to be ratified and whether their country, undefeated since 1066, should be swallowed up into a vast bureaucratically managed entity, governed according to broad policies settled in Paris and Berlin. Forget the wars against the dictators that sought to conquer all Europe. These may one day be seen, in the long tide of history, as mere skirmishes on the path to continental domination, a domination chosen by the elites without the consent of the people.

So when I am questioned about this, I say that if I were a citizen of the UK, I would be outraged, and I would protest strongly about this. And I would oppose substituting the Euro for the pound, too. That the monetary union is run for the benefit of France and Germany is clearly demonstrated by the cavalier way the deficit limits in the so called Stability Pact - which was to have been the guarantee of the integrity of the system - have been ignored by both. And how can you possibly have the same monetary policy for so many countries when some economies are booming and others have little or no growth and high unemployment? A first year student in economics would know that radically different policies are required for each.

It should be recalled that the UK entered the EEC (then not much more than a customs union - Bismarck’s German Empire started with one of those too, the Zollverein) on the promise, or rather the vain hope, of the British elites that the UK would be at the centre of Europe, in the “driving seat” as they say. Not so. The driving seat was well and truly occupied, and after all, three is a crowd. The EU was, is, and for the foreseeable future will be, governed according to the wishes of the Franco-German directoire. In the meantime the unfortunate citizens of Germany and the UK remain the principal source of the largesse which is lavished on every one else in the EU and also used to finance Third World support in ensuring a smooth path in matters diplomatic. This was well demonstrated during Australia’s last and unsuccessful attempt to gain a seat on the Security Council, as the Tasmanian Governor Richard Butler will immediately recall - he was then our ambassador.


Nevertheless, since Margaret Thatcher brought her admirable good sense to the governance of the United Kingdom, the British economy has done quite well, although this may now be changing.

Imagine just how much better she would have done without the cost of the protectionist Common Agricultural Policy – to say nothing of its deleterious impact on the UK environment, the health of its people (wasn’t Mad Cow Disease the result, in part at least, of the intensive forms of farming that the CAP encourages?) and the economies of Third World countries. The UK could have secured all the access she wanted to Europe through a Free Trade Agreement, as Norway and Switzerland have. Neither have to subsidize the CAP. And her market would have remained open to Australian and other produce priced competitively. True, the UK would not be in the EU driving seat - but she is not now and in fact will never be, at least if her French and German allies have anything to do with it!

But what is there in this for us and the other realms, including Canada and New Zealand? The Queen is sovereign of each, but as the High Court has found, unanimously, the Australian Crown is a completely separate institution.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in the Australians For Constitutional Monarchy e-newsletter, Hot News on 3 November 2003.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Flint is a former chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is author of The Twilight of the Elites, and Malice in Media Land, published by Freedom Publishing. His latest monograph is Her Majesty at 80: Impeccable Service in an Indispensable Office, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Sydney, 2006

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Flint
Related Links
Australians for a Consitutional Monarchy
Euopean Union
The Crown
Photo of David Flint
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
 The formidable Fred Nile prevails: premier concedes
 Prorogue then intimidate
 The ‘Utegate’ affair and the constitution
 ETS: emissions trading scheme or energy tax swindle?
 Information and media manipulation par excellence

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy