In what is being touted as a kick up the arse to Trump, and his egregious swipe at Canadian sovereignty, King Charles was invited by Mark Carney to open Canada's parliament.

An understandable gesture, given Trump's drivel, but how is it that the normally irony-savvy British have not picked up on the irony of a nation asserting its independence and sovereignty by inviting its constitutionally and necessarily foreign king to open its parliament?

"We're free and independent... and here's our foreign head of state to prove it!"

Charles flies in by Airbus Voyager of his Royal Air Force as King of Canada. The Commons and Lords have no say about Canadians.  Charles needs to be careful the CIA don't grab him as an enemy alien.

(Canada ended appeals to Charles in Privy Council in 1949 but Oz can still do it, which puts Canada ahead on independence from Mr Windsor).

Charles Master of Ceremony, but not of Politics

chimera wrote on May 26^th, 2025 at 9:06pm:

Charles flies in by Airbus Voyager of his Royal Air Force as King of Canada. The Commons and Lords have no say about Canadians.  Charles needs to be careful the CIA don't grab him as an enemy alien. (Canada ended appeals to Charles in Privy Council in 1949 but Oz can still do it, which puts Canada ahead on independence from Mr Windsor).

Err, the Australia Act of 1986 ended the right of Appeal to the UK House of Lords for all Australians.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

The Royals of the United Kingdom serves Europe (like King George supported Nazi Germany) and will one day kneel before the King of Europe via Italy's Eurovision Royalty.

...while political Great Britain dies before a Unified Israel/Islam (Istari) as it fades into the greater West, to be reborn in reclamation of America.

This is the 'difference' between the United Kingdom of Royal Entertainment (the Left) and Great Britain of Politics (the Right).

I am beyond the Twilight Zone.  ;D

Brian Ross wrote on May 26^th, 2025 at 10:48pm:

the Australia Act of 1986 ended the right of Appeal

States can't appeal to Privy Council but Commonwealth can. 
s 74. 'Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council'.

'Section 74 of the Constitution has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation alone'. 
So the Australia Act, which is subject to the constitution, can be repealed and s 74 will then continue in force. An appeal was able to be active after 1986 if already approved.  Australia is on record as having the UK Council written into Commonwealth structure, the one detail which is British.

It seems Canadians are awake to the apparent irony of their foreign head of state...

They've gone to great lengths to insist that King Charles, when in Canada, is Canadian.

Even to the point of welcoming him home when he stepped off the plane.

'The relevant royal proclamation was issued on 8 January 2024, and since then the sovereign's style and titles in Canada are Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada'.

(This can't be translated into French, though).

chimera wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 1:08am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 26th, 2025 at 10:48pm: the Australia Act of 1986 ended the right of Appeal States can't appeal to Privy Council but Commonwealth can.  s 74. 'Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council'. 'Section 74 of the Constitution has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation alone'.  So the Australia Act, which is subject to the constitution, can be repealed and s 74 will then continue in force. An appeal was able to be active after 1986 if already approved.  Australia is on record as having the UK Council written into Commonwealth structure, the one detail which is British.

Not quite.  Section 74 was abrogated by the UK's passing it's own version of the Australia Act in 1986, which in turn prevented any Australian appealing to the UK Privy Council.  Therefore, the process was closed at both ends.  So, there was to be no appeals allowed to the UK Privy Council. 

As Wikipedia points out:


Quote:

Section 74 of the Constitution has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation alone.[n 6] Nonetheless, s 11 of the Australia Act goes as far as legislatively possible, to make s 74 a dead letter. Thus, for practical purposes, the Australia Act has eliminated the remaining methods of appeal to the Privy Council.[n 7]

Source

Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

chimera wrote on May 26^th, 2025 at 9:06pm:

Charles flies in by Airbus Voyager of his Royal Air Force as King of Canada. The Commons and Lords have no say about Canadians.  Charles needs to be careful the CIA don't grab him as an enemy alien. (Canada ended appeals to Charles in Privy Council in 1949 but Oz can still do it, which puts Canada ahead on independence from Mr Windsor).

Jayzuz far king Krist.

Appeals from Australia to the Privy Council ended around the mid 1980s (1986 at a guess...Australia Act or similar,) 
FFS.

Edit:

Oh, I read the post of Chimera, replied, before I saw what followed from others.

There is uncertainty about who 'owns' the Oz Constitution which is why 2 of 1986 Acts were passed.  Oz but not UK can alter the Constitution by referendum. The King of Oz is a different beast from Rule Britannia. Passing 1986 means the Act can be 'unpassed', repealed, undone and we go back to s 74.
's 11 of the Australia Act goes as far as legislatively possible, to make s 74 a dead letter.'  That's a bit woofy for a legal definition. Dead letters in the post office can be claimed. A pistol hidden in a drawer and not used is still a pistol.

chimera wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 2:51pm:

There is uncertainty about who 'owns' the Oz Constitution which is why 2 of 1986 Acts were passed.  Oz but not UK can alter the Constitution by referendum. The King of Oz is a different beast from Rule Britannia. Passing 1986 means the Act can be 'unpassed', repealed, undone and we go back to s 74. 's 11 of the Australia Act goes as far as legislatively possible, to make s 74 a dead letter.'  That's a bit woofy for a legal definition. Dead letters in the post office can be claimed. A pistol hidden in a drawer and not used is still a pistol.

As already noted, the Act was passed by the UK and the Australian Parliaments.  No matter what Oz does, we cannot go back to S.74 of the Constitution because the UK has passed an act that abrogates the right of Oz citizens to appeal to the UK's Privy Council.  S.74 is effectively dead as far as Oz is concerned and buried well and truly six feet under.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

chimera wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 2:51pm:

There is uncertainty about who 'owns' the Oz Constitution which is why 2 of 1986 Acts were passed.  Oz but not UK can alter the Constitution by referendum. The King of Oz is a different beast from Rule Britannia. Passing 1986 means the Act can be 'unpassed', repealed, undone and we go back to s 74. 's 11 of the Australia Act goes as far as legislatively possible, to make s 74 a dead letter.'  That's a bit woofy for a legal definition. Dead letters in the post office can be claimed. A pistol hidden in a drawer and not used is still a pistol.

The Forum's counsellor has even put it in Latin for you


Aussie wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 2:15pm:

Jayzuz far king Krist.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 26^th, 2025 at 8:53pm:

In what is being touted as a kick up the arse to Trump, and his egregious swipe at Canadian sovereignty, King Charles was invited by Mark Carney to open Canada's parliament. An understandable gesture, given Trump's drivel, but how is it that the normally irony-savvy British have not picked up on the irony of a nation asserting its independence and sovereignty by inviting its constitutionally and necessarily foreign king to open its parliament? "We're free and independent... and here's our foreign head of state to prove it!"

Charles III is not a foreigner in Canada, as King of the Constitutional Monarchy of Canada he is the Canadian Head of State and therefore a Canadian, just as he is an Australian.

Isn't dual citizenship in Australia frowned upon?

Brian Ross wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 4:14pm:

No matter what Oz does, we cannot go back to S.74 of the Constitution because the UK has passed an act that abrogates the right of Oz citizens to appeal to the UK's Privy Council.

The UK Act copies the Oz Act, on request, because there was maybe an alternative route through the UK as 'owner' of the Constitution. Then if Oz repeals its Act, an alternative route exists. This is because the law is so murky on this point.  As noted, the King of Oz in Council is not the King of UK in Council. The whole point of 1986 is that UK can't impose its will on Oz and reasonably, if Oz asks UK to repeal the UK 1986 Act, it will comply.

Behind this, s 74 remains embedded in the Constitution which has more authority than general legislation passed by means of it. The Constit says that matters for s 74 can be regulated and the 1986 Acts list the number of cases available as nil. That number can be given as x,y,z by another Act and s74 is up and running.

Jasin wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 4:48pm:

Isn't dual citizenship in Australia frowned upon?

What nationality is a king of Australia?
[  ] Gaza
[  ] Putin
[  ] Australian
[  ] Nazi

chimera wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 4:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 27th, 2025 at 4:14pm:   No matter what Oz does, we cannot go back to S.74 of the Constitution because the UK has passed an act that abrogates the right of Oz citizens to appeal to the UK's Privy Council.  The UK Act copies the Oz Act, on request, because there was maybe an alternative route through the UK as 'owner' of the Constitution. Then if Oz repeals its Act, an alternative route exists. This is because the law is so murky on this point.  As noted, the King of Oz in Council is not the King of UK in Council. The whole point of 1986 is that UK can't impose its will on Oz and reasonably, if Oz asks UK to repeal the UK 1986 Act, it will comply. Behind this, s 74 remains embedded in the Constitution which has more authority than general legislation passed by means of it. The Constit says that matters for s 74 can be regulated and the 1986 Acts list the number of cases available as nil. That number can be given as x,y,z by another Act and s74 is up and running.

Except as already mentioned, the UK passed it's own act which abrogated any attempt by Australians to appeal to the Privy Council.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Quote:

King Charles To Open Canadian Parliament

Thats nice.

Brian Ross wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 8:51pm:

Except as already mentioned, the UK passed it's own act which abrogated any attempt by Australians to appeal to the Privy Council.

Ok you are unable to understand what's written. No worries.

chimera wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 9:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 27th, 2025 at 8:51pm: Except as already mentioned, the UK passed it's own act which abrogated any attempt by Australians to appeal to the Privy Council.  Ok you are unable to understand what's written. No worries.

Actually, I'd have said the same about yourself.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Do you know the difference between 'abrogate' and 'repeal'?
What does 'alternative' mean?

Jasin wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 4:48pm:

Isn't dual citizenship in Australia frowned upon?

Not at all, only if you are a Member of Parliament,
I have held dual citizenship all my life as did my father.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on May 28^th, 2025 at 8:25am:

Jasin wrote on May 27th, 2025 at 4:48pm: Isn't dual citizenship in Australia frowned upon? Not at all, only if you are a Member of Parliament, I have held dual citizenship all my life as did my father.

Tah Sir Eoin

'This is because the Constitution states that anyone who is a citizen or subject of a foreign power, or under an acknowledgement of allegiance to a foreign power, is disqualified from Parliament'.

So if UK Charles is your king, you're out. He must be your king of Oz. (Camilla is an optional extra).

chimera wrote on May 28^th, 2025 at 7:46am:

Do you know the difference between 'abrogate' and 'repeal'? What does 'alternative' mean?

According to Google it means:


Quote:

abrogate /ˈabrəɡeɪt/ verbformal verb: abrogate; 3rd person present: abrogates; past tense: abrogated; past participle: abrogated; gerund or present participle: abrogating     1.     repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement).

Now run along silly little man.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

There are two senses of abrogate. The UK hasn't repealed s.74 as it's still part of the Constitution and gives power to UK for its 1986 Act/ Aust 1986 Act.
'A "repeal" refers to the action of formally revoking or nullifying a law or regulation. In essence, it means making a law no longer valid. It can involve either replacing the law with a new one (repeal with re-enactment) or simply removing it from the statute book altogether (repeal without replacement).'

It's not repealed because that needs a referendum. It's still available to be used as parliament chooses, advising the king of Australia over whom UK parliament has no authority.

For example:
'The Commonwealth abolished the death penalty in 1973, with application also in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.'

This is under s 51 of the constitution and reviving hanging is very unlikely. But if the MPs choose, they can bring it back. It's not gone forever.

chimera wrote on May 28^th, 2025 at 3:27pm:

For example: 'The Commonwealth abolished the death penalty in 1973, with application also in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.' This is under s 51 of the constitution and reviving hanging is very unlikely. But if the MPs choose, they can bring it back. It's not gone forever.

One would hope it is.

"The death penalty has been abolished in every Australian jurisdiction, and the federal parliament passed legislation in 2010 to ensure that it can’t be reintroduced anywhere in Australia."

Is King Charles of the United Kingdom 👑
your rock star celebrity royal Peccary?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 28^th, 2025 at 3:39pm:

the federal parliament passed legislation in 2010 to ensure that it can’t be reintroduced anywhere in Australia."

This is similar to the Privy Council situation. At present, the law prohibits capital punishment.  Commonwealth law overrides State Law on a certain topic. It can't prohibit the use of law to change the Commonwealth policy, so it's remotely possible then to 'reintroduce it'.

Fundamentally if it’s in the Constitution then neither Federal nor State law can overrule it.
If Parliament could bypass the Constitution then we wouldn’t have had the recent referendum.

Will he defend his people from the abuses of the rabid left?

If you're keen to get the High Court to allow an appeal to Charles, ask the PM for a bill and you're off to London. Here are the decent chaps:
https://jcpc.uk/
(click on bars at top, click on The Justices).

I’ll have to make time after I finish helping pull dead cows and drowned horses out of trees and scrub and get them buried in pits to understand what your all whining about this time.

I heard a little of his speech on the radio. I thought it dignified and on point. Trump hate it but honestly Charlie could buy trump out several times over.

Trump isn’t in the real money league, never was or will be.

P. S loving the endangered national party crew crying Albo needs to do more to fix roads and ensure flood free bridges.

Hello?
What have they been paid to do for the last 60 odd years in these National party seats?

Now your complete failure is today’s new government fault.

Losers

Daves2017 wrote on May 28^th, 2025 at 8:28pm:

P. S loving the endangered national party crew crying Albo needs to do more to fix roads and ensure flood free bridges. Hello? What have they been paid to do for the last 60 odd years in these National party seats?

the nats would have to be the most useless party EVER. They're even more useless then the greens.  They make lots of noise in opposition, but never do a thing once the conalition is in govt.

You're a moronic Gronk  ::)

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 8:07am:

It seems Canadians are awake to the apparent irony of their foreign head of state... They've gone to great lengths to insist that King Charles, when in Canada, is Canadian. Even to the point of welcoming him home when he stepped off the plane.

You should go over to witness it.

But remember you can't say c~nt in Canada.

Jasin wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 4:48pm:

Isn't dual citizenship in Australia frowned upon?

Only if you're a Politician.

Dnarever wrote on May 27^th, 2025 at 9:23pm:

Quote: King Charles To Open Canadian Parliament Thats nice.

Yes it is Agnes.  ;D

The UK Prince Philip was the son of Prince William, the second son of King Christian IX of Denmark who owned Iceland and Greenland. Charles has some links, one of his Oz girls is now Queen of Danes. King Donald of Tariff may win but lost to Canadians in 1812. Russian tsar Vladimir III is lost in Ukraine.

chimera wrote on May 29^th, 2025 at 6:54pm:

The UK Prince Philip was the son of Prince William, the second son of King Christian IX of Denmark who owned Iceland and Greenland. Charles has some links, one of his Oz girls is now Queen of Danes. King Donald of Tariff may win but lost to Canadians in 1812. Russian tsar Vladimir III is lost in Ukraine.

You should take it bit more steady - relax - you're going to blow a poofu valve thinking up that much bollox on a daily basis.

Have a Bex & a good lay down.

Ex-prince Harry the Red is the wild card joker and may bring down Windsor Canada by alliance with HRH Don the 47th. Charles will then struggle to hold a frozen Greenland and flooded Australia.

Troll Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Great Britain is good for Canada.
It's about politics.
Bringing a monarch of the United Kingdom of Eurovision over as a poke against Trump, by the Lefties. Sure is politically misplaced and going nowhere beyond cheers in the Media of music and entertainment.

Troll Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Thanks for proving me right.  ;D

Brian Ross wrote on May 30^th, 2025 at 3:18pm:

Troll Zone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... ::) ::)

Yes you are a troll.