Brexit’s Past: Withdrawals from the Empire

I should begin perhaps by saying that it’s a little warm in here. They are working

on the air conditioning, but we don’t mind that it’s so warm because we’re talking about British colonies

throughout the world. So we adjust to the warm

temperature. Our Speaker A? Yes,

we need a pukka Lalah our speaker Hosch on Azarian

is actually from New Zealand, even though he teaches at the University

of Edinburgh. His parents moved

to New Zealand from Sri Lanka or a suit was called at the time.

Ceylon Marshon then went on to teach at various places, studying

various places, including London and Cambridge, and

now teaches at the University of Edinburgh. But he commutes

between Edinburgh and Berlin because his wife lives in Berlin.

So this is kind of a complicated story. And the complicated life

is going to talk to us today about precedents

for Brexit. In other words, the countries that either left or refused

to join the British Commonwealth. Now, inevitably, this is

going to lead, we hope, to a general discussion about Brexit. And

I hope that everyone will be aware of the critical moment that we are

facing. So I think it’s a good time for people to reflect on the significance

of Brexit, even though it may turn out to be not quite so bad as everyone

believes. My own view, it seems to me like, will be crashing out harder. And we look very

much for your.

Right. I think I’m set up now. Well, thank you very much for welcoming me

to to Texas and to Austin, I should say it’s my it’s the privilege for

me to be. This is my first time to Texas. It’s a great honor, but

an even greater honor than being in your great state is to be invited by

Professor Roger Lewis, who is the titan in my field of decolonization

and studies of the late British Empire. So I’m immensely honored

and grateful to Roger for inviting me to here to give this

talk. Now, Roger, when he asked me to deliver this talk,

said for not a natural reason so that people were very interested

in Briggs’s. And I’m a political historian of

decolonization and the last days of the British Empire and also of the

export of the British parliamentary system to different parts of the world. So

Briggs’s as it is current history, if you like, contemporary history is not my

specialty. However, it is something that all of us in academia

not have, not only, of course, us, but those in the citizenry of Britain

having to address and tried to explain when even our own politicians

are at pains to try and do so themselves. So when

Roger gave me this task, I thought, what may I potentially contribute

to this discussion? And I thought I would do

this by looking at another important organization that Britain

has tried to put a lot of work on to, but also eventually

effectively abandoned. And that has the Commonwealth, an organization

that is a very, very difficult one in some respects

to understand, even for those of us like myself, who is from

Commonwealth states and works on it. And when I was

one of the other inspirations of thinking of doing this talk for you here

was late last year, an Indian comic

gave a performance in London. And he said in his

stand up routine that that he had

he wasn’t quite sure why the British should come to India. But then after

a while, they started speaking the same language, sort of playing cricket, enjoyed gin and tonics

and so on. And then he said, at midnight, suddenly you lift. It was the first brigs

it and. And so in that vein, I was thinking

that it would be quite a interesting idea to look at the Commonwealth and how

Britain looked at this organisation as it did. And for some still does

look at the European Union as a source to uphold its principles

and advance its global ambitions and economic ones as well.

So I will begin with a little bit of few statistics. It’s not my

again, not my area. So forgive me if I am not saying it as aptly

as some of you who are trained in such art are. But in 2017,

the UK, the United Kingdom recorded a trade surplus with the Commonwealth of

over 7 billion pounds, the Commonwealth. So this is I should

put the slide up or that’s not especially clear.

But there are 53 countries in the Commonwealth. These are almost

entirely countries that were once positions or had

crucial colonial links with Britain and its empire

to the now 53 countries. And there are there is a waiting list to join

the organisation. So today that that grouping of countries 53 from every continent

on earth, including the Americas, accounts for just over

that is roughly the same as the u.k.’s entire exports to one country,

Germany. And then to link this to imports, the same

said the same current period that’s accounts for just just under eight per

cent of Britain’s imports come from the Commonwealth countries. But again, to

put this into perspective. This is just roughly the same as the Netherlands,

one country trade is mainly with India turned to the Commonwealth countries.

So they are 53 states. But these are mainly with India, Canada,

Australia, Singapore and Sri Lanka. Sorry. And South

Africa, but there. Those are the main countries, part of the reason these statistics

are that way, of course, is because the European Union has rules about who

Britain or any of its member countries can trade with. But nonetheless, it doesn’t hide the fact

that the Commonwealth, in terms of its trading relationship with Britain today,

is less of a force than the European Union. This was not always

the case. If we look at the period I’m interested in and we’ll be talking to a little bit more

about today, the late 1940s and early 50s. In 1950,

for example, the Commonwealth accounted for 40 percent of

Britain’s imports and 38 percent of its exports

at 38 percent. Well over almost 40 percent of Britain’s

exports went to Commonwealth states. And if you then do the comparison

I did earlier and look at the countries that would make up the European

Economic Community, which was six countries at the time, the same period, 1950.

This this corresponding figures were just 13 per cent

of Britain’s imports came from the six key countries

from Europe and just eleven per cent of its exports. So this was the

context that Britain, the Commonwealth and the Europe

Western European countries had at that time in a trading relationship.

But as we know with things like international organizations, as you know well

in the states, thinking of recent negotiations with NAFTA, that these polity

sorry, trade and statistics are not everything. It’s also politics and

culture and identity and also global ambitions.

So around approximately around this time, thinking of that from that perspective, since

just over 70 years ago, Winston Churchill, that time leader of the opposition,

no longer prime minister, famously spoke of Britain being at the

October 1948, a being at the very point of junction

of three great circles among the free nations and democracies.

First, he had the English speaking world, which he included the image America

and, of course, a united Europe. And the third was the British Commonwealth

and Empire. And Ernest Bevin, who was foreign secretary at the time from the Labor

government, also is use similar language, saying the three main pillars

of our policy, Western Europe, the United States and the Commonwealth.

So this was a comparable parlance at the time.

And that’s what I’ll be focusing on as I look

today. You can probably can’t make this out, but the Commonwealth has approximately

accounts for about 14 percent of the

world’s GDP. It has met a massive country like India with 1.2

billion and closer to my part of the world. Nauru is only 10000

as a massive great scale. And important for the story I’m about to say

is that there are now that you didn’t have to acknowledge the British monarch as the head of the

organisation there now. The majority are republics and only

capacity. So these are independent states. So I’m

going to look at nineteen forty nine. Seventy years ago this month,

the modern Commonwealth came into being.

And here is a picture at Buckingham Palace of the King.

With the then grouping of Commonwealth prime ministers

there, there’s a there’s Deursen and Ayaka, Mr Pitt from Ceylon Lister Pierce and from

Canada, Liaquat Ali Khan from Pakistan. The King, Clement Atlee.

British Prime Minister Ben Chifley. The Australian Malard from South Africa. Peter

Fraser from South Africa. And nier from India.

So with that in mind, this is I would like to look at how this international

organisation came into being with, as I said, similar ambitions

that Britain had in the 60s and 70s for Europe, but also in some ways came unstuck.

Can crowns be returned? Clement Atlee thought so as prime

minister, he postulated only a few weeks before Indian independence

in August 1947 to his sovereign. George the Sixth. Who was the last

emperor of India? Whether the imperial state crown of India should

be given back to the Indians and for that matter, the Pakistanis, if they left

the Commonwealth as they ultimately paid for it. The King, along with the

potential loss of this over six thousand diamond studded headpiece

bought for his father’s 1911, Durbar had to deal with the more massive

loss of the empire’s greatest to India. The British,

the great British paper The Times remarked that the Imperial State Crown of India, quote,

on its velvet cushion in the tower was the precious emblem of a tutelage

outgrown a crown without an empire. India

had marked Britain as the world’s most formidable world power. The dissolution

of the Indian empire meant George the sixth had to surrender the Crown’s preeminence

and acknowledge the beginning of the end of empire. Potentially, if you like.

It’s a terrible term, but sig’s it. The the the remove

of the end of the Commonwealth, the end of the British Empire, because as many argued at

the time, without India, no such organization could exist.

And other more personal cuts had to be recognized, including an eye

from his signature, Georgios Rex Imperator, an education that

adorned everything from coins to post boxes across every continent.

The eye, of course, recognized the British monarch’s grandiose title, which the

Queen Victoria first took as Empress of India and proclaimed as such

on the 1st of January 1877 as lavish Durbar in Delhi,

India transformed the monarchy and the Commonwealth. So this is something I’ll be looking at

today, looking at the Crown. And at that time, when Queen

Victoria communicated to her Foreign Secretary, Earl Granville in January 1873,

her impatience that no special mention of India had been made to her title

since Britain assumed direct control after the Indian mutiny of 1857.

The Foreign Secretary was left with no illusion of the Queen’s belief in the importance of India

and it for the Crown. Victoria believed that India made, in her

words, undoubtedly the sovereign of sovereigns and consequently

Empress. In 1949, 100 years after Britain

seized the fabulous Cahit nor Diamond, India, known

as the jewel of the crown, declared its attendance intention to shed the monarchy and

proclaim a republic. But within the Commonwealth, the monarchy

and Britain, which had relied on India for its prestige, was now to be transformed

by it once more by a new organisation and a new title.

A Monarch No Longer King Emperor. This is the Queen’s father would be head

of the Commonwealth. Move! Change the constitutional and political nature

of the British Empire and Commonwealth. And drew attention to a monarchy with a fast disappearing

empire with the possibility of the crown going with it. Britain’s foreign

secretary, Ernest Bevin thought, like many of his officials, that the Commonwealth. You can read here.

European Union itself be dissolved rather than compromise Britain’s

identity and position and pretensions. So

in this iteration, perhaps the monarchy itself would

be swept aside and expel the crown as meaningless flummery

or modernize it for a postwar era of decolonization. As

an internationalist institution unshackled by imperial pretensions.

Either way, Walter Badghis, famous warning not to let daylight

in on the monarchy hang in, hung over the deliberations,

through the debates and issues that swirled around India’s wish to become a republic and stay

in the Commonwealth in this period in nineteen forty nine forty seven to forty nine.

We are able, I think, to discern the competing original, reactionary and

often bizarre ambitions for the four post war Britain. And again, you

can read this to similar debates about the European Union and Britain’s relationship

with it. I’m not intending to look at all the debates around India’s

decision to become a member of the Commonwealth, but instead to look at this,

how there was at that time in 1949, 70 years ago, comparable debates

that are happening now by Remainers and Brexiteers about

Britain’s position in the world and its relationship with countries that saw

itself and sees itself as being closely aligned to. And this,

of course, in the context I’m looking at, does not involve just Britain and India.

But these men who represented the men and women in their own countries,

namely Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Ceylon, but

also Ireland and Burma. Ireland, of course, figures very prominently in

today’s debates about the European Union, as it did in 1949

about the Commonwealth as well. This was an

emotive and exhausting period for all concerned. At least judge from the

accounts of the time and I think in some ways we’re looking here 70 years

ago after these debates and for someone not perhaps

interested in this period. It strikes one as very odd how much passion

was involved, which what seems very esoteric debates.

I wonder if 70 years on, people will look at Brexit and 2016 as

a comparable life, but that’s for a new generation of scholars

to look at. Nonetheless, the issue of whether India should be in

this new organization and whether a new organisation the Commonwealth should exist

was an issue that was a huge one at the time and created

Britain’s own the nineteen forty nine nine version of Roundheads

and Cavaliers.

This is this is this is a a coin. Just a reminder of this, George, the

sixth king emperor. And this is, as you can see, India

there when he was still head of state of

the Dominion of India. The Commonwealth, with its complexities, contradictions

and shifting characteristics, made it to some seem incredible.

George, the sixth appreciate of this and thought the reaction of an outsider would, in his words,

surely be that of the man who on first seeing a giraffe, exclaimed. There ain’t no

such animal. The same could be said for the British monarchy’s Commonwealth

extensions, though there had been the dual monarchy of Ostro, Austria-Hungary,

the elected and collective crowns of the Holy Roman Empire. The Polish Lithuanian

Commonwealth and other examples, including, of course, the royal ties between England,

Scotland, Ireland and Wales. The British monarchy and the Commonwealth

and its Commonwealth facets are, I think, illimitable. The metaphysical

and mystical royal chameleon offered across the globe and continues to

shed. And yet devised a monarchy that never ceases to Bethel

as an example. During World War 2, George the sixth declared

war a week apart as the King of Canada from the King of Australia,

the King of South Africa contemplated neutrality, but then found new ministers to

carry out the declaration of war. The majority of the population of the Indian empire

were against the unilateral declaration of war committed by the King Emperors representative

the Viceroy, which nonetheless compelled thousands upon thousands

in India to fight in his name. The King of Ireland remained neutral

throughout the conflict, while the King’s declaration of a state of war in London

meant that colonies from Antigua to Zanzibar, from the Bismarck archipelago

to Malta, were at war too, though the King as Duke of Normandy

had to accept German occupation of the Channel Islands.

George the Fifth. This just is just a slight illustration of these manifestations,

which I would proffer makes some of the brigs discussions look quite simple.

George, the fifth jealously aware of these imperial manifestations, scrutinised all imperial

legislation to guarantee the Crown’s position and prerogatives.

But he also saw the opportunity that the empire had to become a

major international organization that had drawn from

the bounds and restrictions of colonies and empire.

The Times seemed to agree. And rather than wallowing in the net, the national and

national self-pity at the loss of India in August 1947 thought

the Crown both as an institution and a signifier of royal power.

So the actual crown could in fact have an opportunity to be refashioned

for a new era. This is what they said in an in an editorial.

What has happened in that is that a symbol has been made obsolete by the

emergence of the reality. It was meant to foreshadow if it can be regarded as

a piece of jewelry emptied of its significance, to which a new meaning may now be

given. It might suitably be used to typify the function of the sovereign

as the personal link of the entire Commonwealth and carried before him

when he opens his parliaments oversee as the Crown Imperial has carried

on like occasions at Westminster. This editorial and the principal organ

of the British establishment commented that this intriguing remarketing of the Crown

would indeed would need the agreement of the states that paid for this historically laden

headpiece, and perhaps by doing so eluded them for the monarchy to

successfully act as a unifying institution for this new organisation, the

Commonwealth. It must also have the consent of the new members who did not

come from the kith and kin settler countries, namely Australia,

Canada and New Zealand. Indeed, the South Asian leaders could

compete with sentiments of their settler dominion counterparts like Robert Menzies of Australia,

who thought of the King as a father and of the empire

as his family. The silliness leader, Deursen Anaika, told his fellow

prime ministers in 1948 that he, in fact, represented, in his

words, the oldest continuous monarchy in the Commonwealth since through

the 1815 candian Convention, visted the near two

and a half thousand year old Singhalese crown on George the Third.

And his successors, as Sir Ivor Jennings remarked. A great constitutional

authority, quote, A great a good deal of ingenuity is required to

prove the apostolic succession from Prince Vijaya to Queen Elizabeth.

But nationalist history is not less influential. Through through being romantic as

a store of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table for Pakistan, the acceptance

of the Crown and Commonwealth was weighed less on emotional searches for monarchical

and descendants and more on the perceived practical advantages to be gained,

which included military and personnel thinking of a time when the Commonwealth was also

a military based organisation. Jinnah Mohammad Ali Jinnah

had always been in favor of the Commonwealth membership and of course, became as

the first Governor-General, the King’s representative in Pakistan to Lord

Mountbatten disapointment who wanted the job himself. Alterations

the king’s title, not just the Indian Challenge, were viewed with considerable suspicion

and sober calculation by the Pakistani leadership. It’s not just the English and the French

that have suspicion with too much towards each other on being considered. Asked

to consider potential changes, the King’s title in light of Ireland, for

example, the Pakistani High Commissioner questioned the consequences of

altering the buck bounds and bonds between Commonwealth sin states

since, in their words, in the final analysis. It is the British crown that provides

the link. The high commissioner further explained that he if

he took the issue to Pakistan’s constituent assembly, their parliament, where the issue

of the country’s future was being debated, they would naturally and quite legitimately ask

me what particular advantage would derive from being in the Commonwealth

and having the Crown. Though these opinions of Ceylon and Pakistan,

but not necessarily representative of their people, they are no less important.

I believe that their interests in the link with the King and Commonwealth

wasn’t foreign policy terms perceived as protecting their interests by

being in the Commonwealth vis-a-vis the South Asian hedgeman of India

for all the member states. The Indian stance on the Commonwealth.

Like Britain’s today with the European Union, withdraw all of them outside

their comfort zone. And this was the main context

of the debate in nineteen forty nine. If the monarchy had been judged, a giraffe

would seem an even more improbable creature. Through these debates

in 1949, there was the Indian challenge.

Now I will move on, which looks at how India transformed

the International Organization of the Commonwealth.

It was a matter of great regret to George the Sixth that he never visited Britain’s

Indian empire. Like his father, a Durbar had been taught vital to proclaim

him not only as the new king emperor, but also to personally affirm a connection

with his Indian subjects and follow Dushan. This is the ancient

Indian principle, which was the principle practice especially for priests,

kings and leaders to be seen and see their followers in reverential

and a near spiritual manner. The Durbar had been organized in nineteen

thirty seven thirty eight, but that was for Edward the eighth. The sixth

was impatient to visit. But the precariousness of the monarchy after the abdication

and the Indian political situation made it constantly postponed. And

with the outbreak of war in 1939 near impossible, the great Indian

Party, the Indian National Congress had declared in Lahore, which

is now in Pakistan on the twenty eighth twenty sixth of January 1930,

a date from 1950 celebrated as Republic Day, the Puna Saraj

Complete Independence and the severence, with Britain being the objective of their

party. Though things would change since India, Pakistan and Ceylon would all

become realms as in quasi kingdoms and not republics

on independence. Thus, and Gandhi’s mobilisation of the masses

over the limited reforms expressed in the Government of India Act 1935

created, if you like. That was almost like a a Maastricht moment created a potentially

combustible context for a royal visit, especially when it was unclear

what, if any, reform. George the Sixth. Delhi Durbar would offer, as

had been the tradition at the time. George 6 realized, however,

the desire for the Indians to achieve independence and hoped it would be within the Commonwealth.

The possibility of secession that was mentioned as a possibility to entice Congress

support for the war effort appalled him. Since to the King emperor, it was not

only against the interests of Britain, but also for many outside the Congress camp.

In many ways, just as we are seeing today in Britain what he was arguing, that the political party

did not necessarily represent the views of all the citizenry and voters

in that time. There was something, I think, to what the king perceived

sense as. There were several parts of India, which again makes the European Union and Europe look like

a tiny dot. When you consider the scale of the great Indian empire,

there were many within India and remembering that their minorities would constitute giant countries

in their own right. That did not agree with this Congress version.

And rather than having pure emotional attachment to Britain, several sections

of Indian society viewed the Crown and the potential Commonwealth as a protector

of their interests. Rather, as some Britons see the European Union as protecting

their interests as opposed to their own government.

The great princely states, for an example, and India, which covered over a third

of the great landmass, were convinced and cajoled to join either the successive

dominions of India and Pakistan. They were courted to take this dramatic step

and being assured by the king’s cousin, who also happened to be the last viceroy

of India. Lord Mountbatten. The Crown would continue. So if you talk

about the lies of the side of a bus, similar lies were told

to those leaving the British Empire as an example, an exchange

with Mountbatten had with the Maharajah of Dhol Poor on the twenty ninth of July

is perhaps representative of the uses of the Crown for decolonization.

On one hand, and a Republican Congress on the other on inheriting the

Raj. On the other, Mountbatten explained the reluctant ruler of dol-

poor that he had, quote, never been able to understand Your Highness’s

point of view, that if you sign the instrument of accession, you will find yourself

linked against your will to an independent government without a monarchical head.

If you as seed now, you will be joining a dominion with the King as head.

If they changed the constitution to a republic and leave the British Empire, the

instrument of accession does not bind you in any way to remain within the

republic. This was a complete lie.

And and Mountbatten was able to add a personal royal gloss by

claiming, quote, I know that His Majesty would personally be grieved

if you elected to sever your connection with him while he was still king

of India on the eve of independence after the accession documents had been

duly signed. The Maharajah quote, with tears in his eyes,

told the last viceroy of India that it pained him to sign. But Mountbatten

consoled him that the king’s role had not gone, but merely changed.

Such scenes, with varying lachrymose levels were repeated across the subcontinent,

where rulers and the rule were promised. Not only that their relationship

with Britain and the Commonwealth would endure, but their rights and their positions would

be protected in any new setup. This was not

the reality, but few knew that at the time.

Harold Macmillan, representing Churchill as leader of the opposition and the second reading of the India

Independence Bill debate, said that the prince’s states, quote, had firm and

devoted association with the glorious reigns of Empress Victoria,

the great and succeeding emperors. He hoped, therefore, that a flexible instrument

of British constitutional development is capable of finding a suitable formula

of association by which their loyalty and devotion to the crown

may find a new expression in harmonious association with the British Commonwealth

and with the United Nations. As Ian Copeland has argued,

though, George, the sixth operated and ruled, arraigned under the conventions

of constitutional monarchy, had nevertheless. Had the capacity to cause a lot of headaches

for the government if he chose to make an issue of the rulers dynastic connections

to his house, which again I think links to his daughter

at present, who is called by some sides to intervene in the crisis, which we

going against the conventions. She has the power to do so through the royal prerogative,

either by, for example, not giving her royal assent to any bill or by

dissolving parliament. So this is used by both sides as it was

in nineteen forty nine. The great grandson

of the Queen Empress towards the sixth was saddened by the loss of his imperial title

Emperor of India. But in the words of his official biographer, he was no Borbon,

since he never confused the substance with the shadow.

No longer emperor. After the 15th of August 1947, George Stick’s

was able to reassure his supporters in India and the Empire Commonwealth that he was

still formally their king till January 1950. The fiery

and heartfelt polemics of Indian nationalists against the Crown and Commonwealth

had briefly to be quelled and Republicanism kept at bay as

the Congress leadership engaged in the negotiations for their new state in

order to attract the princely states and prevent being isolated and

surrounded by Commonwealth realms, especially, of course, their arch enemy

of Pakistan. However, the Republican sentiment was embedded in their

methods. As a Canadian diplomat observed accurately of at least the Congress

quote, One thing is certain amid so many uncertainties is that

India is determinative Republican in spirit and a central feature

of Republicanism. As Indians understand it is that the individual citizen is subject

to no one person. To ask Indians to accept allegiance to

any man is bad enough and becomes far worse. When that man happens also to be

the king of Great Britain, the Indian Communists Socialists were joined by

left sections of the Congress Party in accusing Nehru,

who would become the first prime minister of India and accusing the Commonwealth of

racism and imperialism and having the King anywhere near their independent

constitution anathema. And Cottrill contradicting the eviction

of colonialism. Though even Harold Laski, who is named as

one of the last the Republicans and a great friend of the Labor Party, even

he failed to find a substitute for the Crown as the basis of Commonwealth

Association says something of the similar hurdles that we are finding at the moment

to find agreement among different parties. The king emperor also had bouts

of frustration and was very worried that his

something that he had vested his entire reign towards and that of his ancestors

may all be dissolved and perhaps the British monarchy with it. Even in Britain

itself, the Commonwealth Nexus has documents from Whitehall

and Commonwealth capitals called. It was viewed rather like the European Union is

rightly seen today as an important network for many countries

to secure arms, aid and access to all manner of diplomatic

intelligence and economic information and preference. This is 1949

for Indian moderates, especially those trained in English law and history like Satish

Bahaa Supper and the famed Indian civil service like Scourge

Bajpai. The Commonwealth offered security and the New Zealand Prime Minister’s phrase

independence plus. Unlike Fraser, however, and despite personal

sympathy for constitutional monarchy, they saw that the writing on the wall spelled

an Indian Republic. The highly respected supper wrote in April 1948

of his belief, quote, The Republican form of government about which eloquent speeches

were made in the Constituent Assembly was by no means inconsistent with alliance

with England via the Commonwealth. Nehru agreed with this argument.

And as the great Imperials and Commonwealth scholar Nicholas Manser,

a scholar also of Ireland and India, remarked, the Indian form of Republicanism

did not, quote, possess the doctrinaire on uncompromising character

of Irish Republicanism, despite comparable distaste towards British

rule for the old dominions. The addition of the Brown Dominions,

as the Times termed them, saw an opportunity to rebrand and legitimize

the older Commonwealth in a new age, but nonetheless maintain their

cultural and symbiotic relationship and identity under the mantle

of the crown. The tune would change when India wanted to be a republic and

disrupt this comfortable situation and displayed displace

this hallowed relationship between Crown and Commonwealth.

Is looking at as a foreign king, so this is a again, I’m sorry, a grainy picture

of Nehru here in Delhi. Lady Mountbatten

and Aymond, developer in the the the the great Irish leader

in Delhi, just prior to sorry, just after Indian independence

in I think it’s November 1947 that pictures taken.

Inevitably, there were grave reservations of breaking the crown as the constitutional link and the Commonwealth

changed and forsaking allegiance and alliance to it

with all the states involved with multiple perspectives and the passions rose in a comparable

manner. We now see between Brexiteers and Remainers like few other

constitutional issues, which normally as someone who teaches constitutional history in political history,

it’s difficult to get your students very excited sometimes about such things. But this really like

the European connection, did get people very excited,

just as it did in nineteen forty nine.

The Irish in 1946, with their very famously combustible relationship

with Britain and the Crown, saw their constitutional obligations to the King as purely

figurative and in their words, and tenuous and already acted, quote,

in effect, a republic before this was achieved. A few years later,

also in 1949. Nonetheless, in the same

memorandum by the an Irish civil servant also saw the usefulness

of keeping a link to Britain and the Commonwealth not only for diplomatic relations

with other Commonwealth states, but closer to home to seeing the Crown as

helpful in the ambition to bring about, quote, These are definitely not my words restitution

of the occupied area of the six counties. So thinking again of Northern

Ireland today. This was also thinking of the Irish.

In 1949, the same memorandum also prefigured the formulation

that would arrive in April 1949, 70 years ago.

Quote, The position of the king in Ireland has become so attenuated that in fact

and in law, he is nothing more than a symbol of our external association

with the nations of the Commonwealth. That position had long been argued by

developer and Castelo as the working methodology to

exist methodologies exist independently before being acknowledged as

such. Dublin finally removed the sovereign from their constitution

when the Republic of Ireland was proclaimed 70 years ago this month on the 18th

of April, and consequently seceded from

the Commonwealth. Perhaps in July the 4th was the first six

years, but Ireland was doing it in April forty nine. However,

like much in Anglo Irish relations, this was not quite the full picture.

By mutual agreement, both states created a treaty relationship that provided a

privileged, privileged relationship for citizens of both countries whereby they

were not treated as foreigners and remained. They remained the bailiwick

of the Commonwealth Relations Office, not the Foreign Office. George, the sixth

meeting, the Irish minister of External Affairs, Sean McBride, a few weeks

later quipped, quote, What does this new legislation of yours make me an island,

an undesirable alien? Nonetheless, the Irish ambassador was placed

immediately after the Commonwealth High Commissioners and before all other

heads of foreign delegations at the King’s funeral. Not long after, in

held something of a dangerous precedent for nineteen forty nine. The Burmese had originally

showed showed mild interest of remaining in the Commonwealth to expiate

independence after the end of the Japanese occupation of Burma. The British

hoped to convince the Burmese on the traditional Dominion Road to

independence like Australia, New Zealand and so on. But local leaders like Tacon,

New and Mount Gayl said that they had been, quote, fighting the British

for a hundred years and could not stomach the British before

Commonwealth of Nations, as it was called in the British Commonwealth of Nations. David

Reece Williams, the minister of Colonial of Colonial Affairs, sympathized

and thought United Commonwealth of Nations was a better formulations.

However, the main hurdle, like, in his words, the Southern Irish, was allegiance

to the crown, which the governor of Burma, Sir Hubert Rance, believed would prevent

Burmese membership. The Burmese leaders, like many

others across the world, believed India would never join when India and Pakistan did

in fact become dominions, and council quaintly held the Georgia six

as their head of state. The new times of Burma reacted that the announcement

that the two Indias will have to swear allegiance to the British crown has, quote, simply

taken our breath away. Ramos believed in June 1947

that the time was ripe for a new conception of the Commonwealth countries that have no

ties of blood, culture or religion. His words and saw

with humble respect to His Majesty that the Crown may prove not immediately, but ultimately

a difficulty. Lord Le Stohl recalled that if it were not for the communists

and greater effort for the British Cabinet. Aung San Aung San Suu Kyi, whose father, of course,

may have tolerated the royal link that eventuated and thus stay in the Commonwealth.

Again, thinking of these things, it’s the Burmese are now thinking potentially of

joining the Commonwealth today. [INAUDIBLE] knew he can credibly suggest

as an alternative for the Commonwealth. There might be instead a lead from Britain’s Labor Party

to create a political, in his words, a political federation based on

the integration of socialist parties throughout the world. The crimson

thread of kinship which Sir Henry Parkes believed bound the British world, would

have taken a new meaning, and one can only imagine what the king would think. Sitting

in this red commonwealth. So the settler king.

So this is a picture of the king’s brother, the Duke of Gloucester, Henry

Duke of Gloucester, with the Australian Cabinet, where he was governor general

during this time in 1949. This was a Labor government headed by

Ben Chifley. I’m going to spend the least time on this section because I’m going

to focus later just on New Zealand. But these this this looks at how,

as has been discussed before by many scholars, the the

the Britannic realms of Australia, New Zealand and South

Africa and Canada. This was it, says Phillip Murphy,

cause head near fanatical followers of what he calls British Shintoism,

the concept of pseudo religious reverence to the British monarchy. So this

discussion coming in, in nineteen forty nine, hacked and

attacked this concept and this religious belief of many

Canadians, Australians and Africans and Kiwis.

As David MacIntyre reminds us, the concept of Sir David loh’s idea of a Britannic

alliance of crowns grayed, gained wide currency and demonstrated

the Crown’s geopolitical ambitions and UCITS.

And this was seen that the Crown ultimately, and someone like John Darwin has argued,

underscored a belief in defense ties, trade ties and

a certain racial exclusivity. And these were very

much at the heart, not just of parties of the right, but also

parties of the left, such as the Labor Party here in Australia,

in Australia. And interestingly, thinking of them, parties

like this thing in India, in the organisation, let alone as a republic,

was to people like Robert Menzies, a grave insult.

And they were very keen to ditch Dutch

the Indians as Walter Crocker, a very erudite Australian diplomat

diplomat, noted, the Australian prime minister, quote, had no curiosity

about and no interest in India or Indians and long simmered

in the company of Nehru during their long tenures of office.

South Africa, of course, with its large Indian population and racialist policies,

had complex objectives about Indian membership and the Crown Yan Smaltz

as prime minister and from 1948 leader of the opposition,

was incensed at Indian membership on Republican terms. Leo

Amory tried to soothe his old friends fears about the Asian members.

Not long after the London Dock Declaration in 1949, he said, quote,

I realise all the difficulties which may arise and are partly colored Commonwealth.

But if that commonwealth can hold together, it may avert an ultimate war of

races. End of quote, the movie, in his opinion, could open

the way for Iceland, Norway and even the United States to join

in his idea. Amory thought the move had removed a serious conflict

and pondered it as, quote, Is it inconceivable that

one of these days Republicanism may become the black man’s slogan,

an all white stand together as monarchists, end of quote? Smuts confided,

confided to Churchill that India should not have been accommodated and that his opponents,

the nationalists, were jubilant with the Republican issue and a new prime minister.

Daniel Milan would use the conference as a stepping stone to full secession

from the Commonwealth and for links with Britain. And in hearts,

ironically, their own segregationist policies in in

South Africa. OK, sure, sure.

So this was this was a major aspect so quickly finished by

looking at it. Quick to end on looking at New Zealand’s link into

this. So in the end today, looking at this like the system cited earlier,

New Zealand, the UK accounts for just 2.7 per cent of New Zealand’s exports

and 2.9 of its imports, whereas in 1950,

would you believe over 50 per cent of New Zealand’s exports went to the United

Kingdom? Which, of course, was a huge amount. And

New Zealand’s economy was there. So when Howard Macmillan announced in

July 1961 that he wished to join the European Community,

this was seen as if you’d like the first Brexit for

New Zealanders since they saw that their economy would be in a disastrous

state and may well collapse. And so Sir Keith Holyoake, the New Zealand prime minister here

with then Lord Privy SEAL. Edward Heath, we’re trying

to get special conditions for New Zealand. And

there was a there’s a lot of discussion. There may be New Zealand should have a public campaign

which was supported by Lord Beaverbrook to have a publicity campaign said, would

you rather back New Zealanders or those we fought and defeated

in the Second World War? So this was an Beaverbrook and Holyoake didn’t do it, but there

was a lot of discussion and support from both aisles, both sides of

the House and both chambers, I should add, as well. And I have here I got to

read all out, but a memorandum that was sent to the queen in nineteen

seventy two from the Social Democrat Party in New Zealand, asking her

to withhold the Royal Assent to the European Communities Bill

that would be going to Parliament, because in their view, the right to do

for it to pass would end the Commonwealth and destroy

the allegiances and affiliations that countries like that they had.

And interestingly, thinking of today’s debates undermined British sovereignty

and Commonwealth ties and create a racially exclusive

organisation. And I think that’s a very

important fact. And to end, I couldn’t come to Texas with having without having a picture

of Lyndon Johnson here. And this is a picture. He was the first ever

American president to visit America in New Zealand in October

This is Brigadier Sir Bernard Ferguson. This isn’t an Edinburgh

link. He was the Governor-General of New Zealand and LBJ

is in New Zealand. And this is speaks to in some ways New Zealand,

despite what had happened before with its, you know, almost religious loyalty

to Britain, saw the writing on the wall after nineteen forty nine and especially

and they should have to diversify and look to new directions, which does not just mean

having military connections with somewhere like the United States, but also

which is in some ways very difficult for someone like Keith Holyoak to look to Asia

for greater economic connections. And if you look at those statistics, I was saying to you earlier,

it’s now without question almost that the vast majority of New Zealand’s

trade and this is merde with countries like Australia is with with

with Asia and America rather than an other Commonwealth states

rather than the two per cent we see with Britain. So

I’ll I’ll go in there and thank you very much for having made your wonderful university.