Here's my refix of the tinorangatiratanga flag...softer, nicer, less in your face with added star value :)
...but following on from the devil being in the details, here's some treaty issues i was wondering about.
At what point did Maori chiefs cede their right to self governorship over their peoples ? Sure they ceded...
to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.
...in exchange for the rights and privileges of british subjects.
But that doesnt mean to say that by accepting those rights and privileges that they, as people, allowed themselves to be governed by british rule/law or that because of the signing they became british subjects. Seems implied that there is a choice to then, decline rights and privileges of british subjects and remain autonomous as Tuhoe, who never signed.
Even so, having rights and privileges means you are afforded the protection under british law as any traveller to the UK would have, but without a passport and citizenship, you are not a subject of the british gov't. Maori were and still are, as defined by the treaty, a native population with self governance over their own peoples.
They gave up sovereignty to land and sea as it applies to the territories, but the people should be an entirely different matter...yeah ? Like if i gave up sovereignty to my house, that doesnt mean to say i've ceded sovereignty over my family who live here ? It's not like we're slaves /chattels who came with the property and are gifted as part of the deed.
By that reasoning, Maori chiefs have a duty/obligation to still continually govern and provide for their own peoples if, by way of having resources, they have the power to do so ?
If on the other hand, it's implied that the chiefs ceded their right to exercise power over their subjects, as part of the rights they possess over their territories, then doesnt that mean the chiefs do not have any power to further be/act as chiefs on behalf of said subjects and territories with regard to sovereignty or any matter ?