Re: CHAT: Californian secessionists (was Re: Californian vowels [was Re: Likin

At 09.55 a.m. 3.10.2001, you wrote:
>than the US.) Also, I've never been quite clear why there was a
>pressing need for Australia to be a federation in the first place.
>I mean, there were distinct British colonies there, but AFAIK they
>hadn't been around long enough to grow distinct political and cultural
>conditions like the US States had.
The most pressing reason we're taught in school is that someone from
England came down to look at our defence and told everyone that it sucked
badly. His reccomendation was federation. Although this was, at the time,
already being discussed.

>On the other hand, Australia seems to have rip its organic nomenclature
>off the US wholesale:  it has a "House of Representatives", a "Senate",
>etc. so maybe there's more to the American connection? I don't really
>know.
Aparantly the first draft of the Aussie constitution was a direct rip-off
from America's, although by the time it actually was finalised, I'm pretty
sure its changed considerably---we don't have free speech here, for
example. Although our constitution is much less important than yours.
Aparantly, it doesn't even mention the PM. And most people don't know jack
about it. If you want to read it, you can find something that purports to
be a copy (I don't know about its accuracy) at
http://www.everything2.net/index.pl?node=Constitution%20of%20Australia
(sorry if it breaks).

Tristan

Reply