Talk:New Zealand Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revision[edit]

Have tried to lift the quality of this article. It tried to do too many things, and lost focus on the Movement as an organization.

1) Have marked this page for insufficient (and inappropriate) sourcing. These need to be fixed or removed.

2) Waitangi Treaty - simplistic assertion with no evidence.

2) Removed irrelevent reference to the Electoral Reform Coalition.

3) Why is the Head of State Referenda Bill listed here? It is not the work of the movement.

4) Recent events looks like a diary, not an encyclopedia. The vast majority of these "events" are unworthy of encyclopedic inclusion. They can't really be said to meet the "notability guidelines" as laid out. This looks like self-promotion which is not acceptable in wikipedia.

5) Removed Election of Governor General because it is not an event as laid out in wiki guidelines. Furthermore, the source is self-published and factually incorrect anyway.

6) Added movement's support of Locke's bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to lift the quality of the article is different from unilaterally removing sections of an article. Wikipedia works by consensus, you should've discussed the changes you wanted to make here first. I suspect from your Auckland-based IP address, and the fact you're editing under an anon address, you've got some sort of stake, like myself, with editing parts of this article you don't like or agree with. However, to answer your specific edits:
1) Have marked this page for insufficient (and inappropriate) sourcing. These need to be fixed or removed.
9 of the 15 references are from third-party sources.
2) Waitangi Treaty - simplistic assertion with no evidence.
The statement on the Treaty is part of the organisation's constitution [1]. I've added that as a reference.
2) Removed irrelevent reference to the Electoral Reform Coalition.
It's not irrelevant. It's an important link, and verifiable.
3) Why is the Head of State Referenda Bill listed here? It is not the work of the movement.
On point 6 below you note that the organisation supports the Bill. It's relevant and so is listed in the article.
4) Recent events looks like a diary, not an encyclopedia. The vast majority of these "events" are unworthy of encyclopedic inclusion. They can't really be said to meet the "notability guidelines" as laid out. This looks like self-promotion which is not acceptable in wikipedia.
Which events are unworthy or unencyclopedic?
5) Removed Election of Governor General because it is not an event as laid out in wiki guidelines. Furthermore, the source is self-published and factually incorrect anyway.
Perhaps it should be moved out of the events section - but how is it factually incorrect? It's a verifiable debate (opinion pieces and a book have been published on the topic).
6) Added movement's support of Locke's bill.
Was already mentioned in the article.
--Lholden (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth membership[edit]

Gavin made an edit of this page claiming that the final point of the RMs principles stating:-

"Part of the final point is inaccurate as Commonwealth Realms which become republics automatically cease to be members, unless (like India in 1950) they obtain the permission of other members to remain in the organisation as a republic."

This is incorrect. The very nature of the British Commonwealth was changed in 1950 to the Commonwealth of Nations exactly because India chose to become a republic WITHIN the Commonwealth. Thus, the claim that republics automatically cease to be members of the Commonwealth is incorrect; the protocol is that they are required to reapply for membership of the Commonwealth at a CHOGM. A lapsing of membership and a requirement to simply reapply for it are not one in the same thing. Further, as we saw in the case of Fiji in 1987, the Commonwealth membership only allows membership of states to lapse where there is disagreement between Commonwealth principles regarding the nature of a government and the state applying for membership. Because all decisions are made by the Commonwealth membership are by consensus, and historically virtually all re-applying members that have become republics (No Gavin, South Africa didn't reapply) have maintained membership, the claim is incorrect. --Lholden 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might add also that the point is "Creating a republic does not require change to... Commonwealth membership"; which indicates that our status as a Commonwealth member won't change simply because we become a republic; we have to actually have our membership rejected by consensus. --Lholden 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a country becomes a republic membership ends. Period. The point that they are required to reapply demonstrates that in perfect clarity! That it is usually re-granted is neither here nor there. The point is that there exists an explicit rule which states that any country moving from a Commonwealth Realm to a republic within the Commonwealth must re-apply for membership. That application can be denied, and has been on past occasions.
As the article Commonwealth of Nations (a featured article, no less) states:
Although Heads of Government have the power to suspend member states from active participation, the Commonwealth has no provision for the expulsion of members. However, Commonwealth Realms which become republics automatically cease to be members, unless (like India in 1950) they obtain the permission of other members to remain in the organisation as a republic.
The Republic of Ireland did not apply for re-admittance after becoming a republic in 1949, as the Commonwealth then did not allow republican membership... The Republic of Ireland was the first nation ever to leave the Commonwealth and not rejoin.
South Africa was prevented from continuing as a member after it became a republic in 1961, due to hostility from many members, particularly those in Africa and Asia as well as Canada, to its policy of apartheid. The South African government withdrew its application to remain in the organisation as a republic when it became clear at the 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference that any such application would be rejected. South Africa was re-admitted to the Commonwealth in 1994, following the end of apartheid in 1990.
The Maldives left the Commonwealth in 1965 after unilaterally declaring their independence from the United Kingdom; they were re-admitted to the Commonwealth on 9 July 1982.
The declaration of a republic in the Fiji Islands in 1987, after military coups designed to deny Indo-Fijians political power in Fiji, was not accompanied by application to remain. Commonwealth membership was held to have lapsed until 1997, after racist provisions in the republican constitution were repealed and reapplication for membership made.
Further, from the Commonwealth website:
Occasionally, a member state may change its status from, say, a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Under traditional Commonwealth practice, such a member usually formally informs other members of this change and of its desire for continued membership with its renewed status. Agreement to this is usually a formality."
Thus, though in most instances it may be a formality, the necessity to follow the formal process itself means that a) a Realm which has become a republic has indeed lost its membership, and b) the approval of all the other members must be sought to regain it.
I'm not saying it's likely that NZ would be denied re-admittance to the Commonwealth if it became a republic, but the truth of the matter is that the possibility that it might be does exist. Therefore it's disingenuous to say that there will be no affect to NZ's membership. Denial of this in the service of republicanism can't be allowed in an encyclopaedia. --gbambino 15:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, the principle itself was inserted into the Republican Movement's constitution back in 1999 during the Australian referendum campaign, where monarchists maintained that Australia's membership of the Commonwealth – and its ability to compete in the Commonwealth Games – would be threatened if Australia became a republic. The republicans actually got a statement from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations, Chief Emeka Anaouku, on 3 November 1999 stating:

"Let me make it absolutely clear that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, there is no question of Australia's membership of the Commonwealth being in doubt."

Then, in the lead up to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, the ARM approached the current Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Don McKinnon (a New Zealander, I might add - who was a minister in Jim Bolger's government) to confirm the precise situation of republics within the Commonwealth. His letter of 9 November 2005 states in part:

"Let me confirm that a country’s position as a member of the Commonwealth is unaffected by a constitutional change in its status to become a republic… ever since the London Agreement of 1949, republican forms of government have been entirely compatible with Commonwealth membership… any constitutional change in Australia to become a republic would not affect its membership in the Commonwealth."

These two statements confirm that a Commonwealth member doesn't simply loose its membership by becoming a republic; therefore the principle stands.

The claim was that on becoming a republic, a state automatically looses its membership of the Commonwealth and because they have to "reapply" for it. There is no legal reason why membership lapses when a state becomes a republic, as the mechanism for membership applications - in the words of the Commonwealth - is for "continued membership with its renewed status". There is not some gap between becoming a republic and reapplying for membership and being granted continued membership, the state remains a member unless - in the case of Fiji and South Africa - their application lapses. This indicates that membership is not abrogated by becoming a republic, but by the lapse of the membership reapplication. The fact that the application is a formality cofirms this. I said before that "A lapsing of membership and a requirement to simply reapply for it are not one in the same thing"; on the facts of the Fijian exit from the Commonwealth, or the South African membership of the Commonwealth this is certainly the case.

Aside from the article actually stating the aims and principles of the orgainisation; the claim that somehow this principle is a disingenuous "service to republicanism" is incorrect. The principle only came about because of disingenuous arguments by monarchists about Commonwealth membership in the first place. Any literal reading of the principle favours the view that New Zealand would not be "required" to leave the Commonwealth on becoming a republic, and as I have stated above, membership certainly doesn't lapse when a state becomes a republic. --Lholden 00:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you said "the protocol is that they are required to reapply for membership of the Commonwealth at a CHOGM." Having to reapply infers that membership has been revoked.
Beyond that, however, if a new republic is required to seek approval for continued membership in the Commonwealth, then the possibility of their membership lapsing after their having become a republic must exist. Otherwise, why would they have to seek permission to continue as a Commonwealth member at all?
What's more, you omitted from the letter you quoted (which was actually released Nov. 2, 1999, not by Don McKinnon, but by Commonwealth Secretary-General Chief Emeka Anyaoku [2]) this point: "the procedures which need to be followed to confirm any new status would, in this event, be a formality." Again, why must any procedures be followed if the possibility of membership ceasing doesn't exist, and any new republic is always given consent to re-join?
And Anyaoku's comments pertain to Australia, not New Zealand.
As per your edit: no country has been denied membership simply because it became a republic. But, South Africa was turned away after it became a republic due to its practice of aparteid. What, for instance, is to say that a republican New Zealand wouldn't offend other Commonwealth members for some reason (descriminatory policies against the Maori, for example)
In the end, three points remain: 1) When a Commonwealth Realm becomes a republic they must seek approval for continued membership (Fiji, the Maldives, and South Afica, as well as the words of the Commonwealth Secretariat prove that). 2) Because a new republic must seek approval for continued membership, their continuance as a Commonwealth member is not guaranteed. 3) You can't predict the future, and though it is highly unlikely that a New Zealand republic would be denied membership, the possibility still exists that it could be. Letters referring to Australia do not dispute this, and stating otherwise is indeed disingenious. --gbambino 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, your statement that the Secretary-General's comments only relate to Australia is plain silly; obviously you conceed they support my view, else there would be no need to dispute their application to New Zealand. I think it would be very strange for the Secretary-General to make a statement that did not have application to all Commonwealth Realms regarding this issue. I also add that your statement that it was Chief Anyaoku not Don McKinnon who made the 3 November 1999 statement (The difference in dates is probably due to time differences between Aussie and the UK) shows that you're not actually reading what I've written. Don McKinnon made a statement in the lead up to the 2006 Commonwealth Games when the monarchists once again used the same arguments you're using here to make a point on Commonwealth membership.

Firstly you say the the principle that "Creating a republic does not require any change to... Commonwealth membership" is incorrect by stating that: "When a country becomes a republic membership ends. Period."; on the basis that "Having to reapply infers that membership has been revoked". Secondly you also say that the principle is incorrect because the possibility of membership ceasing by rejection of an application. There is a logical flaw here: If membership "ceases" when an application for it is rejected at CHOGM; it logically could not have ceased at the time when the state in question became a republic. I'm sure you'll say that what you really meant was that membership is not "restored"; but again I say look at the wording of the Commonwealth Secretariat - they actually infer the membership continues from the time a republic is declared.

Having to re-apply for membership doesn't mean your membership has ceased. Changes in constitutional circumstances, as both Secretary-Generals state, do not in and of themselves cause the cessation of membership. New Zealand electoral law works in the same way; you have to re-register to vote if you change electorates (or ridings if you will), but that requirement only has to do with telling the Electoral Commission that you've changed electorates. You don't loose your voter registration when you move, simply because you have to re-register doesn't mean that your registration has lapsed. The same applies to Commonwealth membership.

In answer to your three points:

  • 1. The fact that such a formality exists does not mean membership has ceased; moreover it does not mean that a republic equals cessation of membership of the Commonwealth;
  • 2. The principle itself - what is in dispute here - states that a change in membership is not "required" if we become a republic. That is the case: Our membership of the Commonwealth does not cease if we become a republic; the principle is correct.
  • 3. My inability to predict the future is not relevant. I pointed out that the possibility for rejection is virtually nil; moreover that where rejection occurs, the membership lapses at the time of a Heads of Government meeting – further reinforcing the view that membership does not lapse when a republic is declared.

To say that New Zealand might be rejected because of discrimination against Maori is laughable. It is not disingenious to state that will will not be required to change our membership of the Commonwealth should we become a republic, not is it disingenious to exclude speculative claims that somehow New Zealand might just be excluded for an invented reason from Commonwealth membership in the future should it become a republic. What is disingenious is arguing that somehow membership of the Commonwealth ceases the minute a state becomes a republic because the state has to re-apply for membership. Clearly you're using this argument as a way of "showing" that Commonwealth membership will be lost should New Zealand become a republic and will have to be regained. That is not correct, and it is not disingenious to not state something that is not a fact. --Lholden 02:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very fine line we're walking here. But, as I understand it now, becoming a republic will automatically terminate a country's membership in the Commonwealth. That is, unless that country reapplies, and is approved. The subtlety is between termination of membership being immediately automatic, and termination of membership being automatic after a certain amount of time (as happened with Fiji and the Maldives).
Further, membership can also end if an application submitted after the country became a republic is rejected. It happened, in essence, to South Africa (after their government promised white citizens that their Commonwealth membership would not be affected by the country becoming a republic), and, despite your optimism, though unlikely, it could happen to New Zealand. To assert so firmly that the Secretary-General's words apply to every Commonwealth Realm and country with it's own separate dynasty from now until the end of time shows you're really stretching things for the sole purpose of making your cause more appealing. If it has happened in the past, it could certainly happen again, at any time in the future, to any Realm, including New Zealand.
So, though the statement "Creating a republic does not require any change to... Commonwealth membership" is, I suppose, technically accurate, it's still somewhat Machiavellian for what it conveniently leaves out - namely, that though no immediate change in Commonwealth membership would occur, should the country become a republic, New Zealand would set itself up for the possibility of losing its place in the Commonwealth. Tricky.
But, you've moved this relevant information to Republicanism in New Zealand, which I agree is a better place for it. I'll add a note regarding this. --gbambino 04:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandel[edit]

jee, the vandel [3] must of been on to something. A member of the National Council had reverted in under a minute :P Brian | (Talk) 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and? If someone wrote that the Monarchist League stands around singing God Save the Queen at every meet, you'd revert that. Oh, except that's actually true... --Lholden 07:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on New Zealand Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_Republic&oldid=1203290359"