The Commonwealth is an anachronism.

[coconuttella]

Yes, it had its purpose as the U.K. extricated itself from its empire, but as it’s over 50 years since most countries were given independence, what’s the point? I’m thinking it should pass away when the Queen does. I really can’t see the point in an organisation of diverse countries whose sole common denominator is that they were once part of the British Empire many years ago. By all means the U.K. should have strong relationships with its former colonies, but an umbrella organisation isn’t needed to facilitate this.... it’s a pointless relic from a bygone age.

Its up to the individual nations and states to decide whether or not they want to be part of the Commonwealth.

It’s likely that Australia will have a republic referendum after the Queen dies, and I hope that this time we vote to become a republic.

I can’t see Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other wealthy nations choosing to stay under Britain’s thumb for the next 50+ years.

The OAU (Organisation Of African Unity) want out. Wealth has nothing to do with it.

The Commonwealth is a voluntary organisation which fosters international cooperation.

The Queen has been a wise head of it, probably saving Ghanaian from a bloody civil war being among her biggest triumphs. Understanding the relevance of ancient history to modern foreign policy is incredibly important and being non-political allows the Head of the Commonwealth to do things which would otherwise be impossible.

RedDwarves - How do you think these countries are "under Britain's thumb" exactly?

As far as I can tell Canada is extremely happy with its relationship with the head of state and the UK.

I think it's weird but it's not my call.

I can’t see Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other wealthy nations choosing to stay under Britain’s thumb for the next 50+ years.

Speaking as a Canadian, we aren't under Britain's thumb and haven't been in 150 years. While the Queen is technically the head of state, she's really just a figure head and saves us the hassle and expense of a presidential election or finding some other head of state who would probably expect something more than token power.

Also the role of Governor General allows us to honor some really deserving people.

The Commonwealth is really more about celebrating our linked heritage, which is fine.

I've never really seen the point of it.

The Queen has been a wise head of it, probably saving Ghanaian from a bloody civil war being among her biggest triumphs.

That was in 1961, just 4 years after independence. Things have moved on in the past 57 years.

Look, I get it’s a voluntary club and I have nothing against it as such... I’m not exactly going to campaign for its abolition and if countries see the value in it then that’s fine... I just think it’s past or at least rapidly approaching its use by date.

I can’t see Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other wealthy nations choosing to stay under Britain’s thumb for the next 50+ years.

Wierd comment that would have been out of date in 1918 let alone 2018.

"Things have moved on in the past 57 years."

Yes but all voluntary members obviously still think they benefit from being in it.

"an umbrella organisation isn’t needed to facilitate this"

Yes it is.

Yes but all voluntary members obviously still think they benefit from being in it.

I wonder how much of that is out of courtesy and respect for the Queen?

Isn't the commonwealth the basket that brexiters have put all our eggs in...

uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1HM0Z5?__twitter_impression=true

(but the approach to the windrush generation has probably messed that up)

I wonder how much of that is out of courtesy and respect for the Queen?

Very little. It's more trade and access to international sporting events, etc.

Very little.

I love Aussies but courtesy and respect and reverence aren't their forte.

I suspect that because the Queen is the head (her personally, not the title) the Commonwealth has been so great for the last half century or so. Hopefully it survives Charles. I can imagine William would be good in the role.

It's also about being able to work/travel in other Commonwealth nations with relative ease. I know if Canada we have the opportunity (and give the opportunity) to youth under the age of 30 to get a work visa in other Commonwealth nations without actually having a job secured. It's also easier to get permanent residency if you're from a Commonwealth nation. It's a way of supporting immigration.

Commonwealth membership is also open to countries which were never part of the former empire. OK, only one has joined, but it can and has happened. No country is compelled or expected to continue membership, and it doesn't make any difference to who the country chooses to have as head of state.

I think such international groupings are good thing, just like ASEAN etc, and one that is based on common purpose and good will is just as valid as one that's geographically based.

Would the British be so interested in the Commonwealth if they decided not to have Charles as their head ?

The British aren't especially interested in the Commonwealth. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a long time have made their disdain known.

Whilst Charles doesn't automatically inherit the title / position there have been no moves by anyone to change this or question it.

Have you been reading the Grauniad?

RedDwarf It’s likely that Australia will have a republic referendum after the Queen dies

The sooner, the better.

In my opinion, it was a real pity the last one failed. Strangely enough, it was the generation of post WWII migrants from non-British countries who were especially against a republic, as many of them came from countries with tumultuous political histories and saw the Monarchy as contributing to the historical long term stability of the Australian government (at least that's how many Labor supporters perceived its failure).

Let us not forget that what can probably be considered as the greatest constitutional crisis that Australia has faced - the Dismissal in 1975 - was brought about about largely by the actions of then Governor-General, John Kerr.

No one forces any nation to be part of it.

I think it's fine for commonwealth countries themselves to decide whether or not to continue in the commonwealth. That said, countries within the commonwealth receive important benefits. These include shared defence, so small nations without their own standing armies can rely on the military support of their commonwealth neighbours. The commonwealth also runs a good scholarship programme and funds developmental projects for the poorer nations of the commonwealth.

It allows pressures to be placed on counties of the commonwealth in respect of human rights abuses (although could certainly do much more in this area).

There are also trade benefits. Commonwealth African countries are noticeably more affluent than non-commonwealth ones.

Fibally, It helps enforce democracy and the rule of law.

These are all good things and if commonwealth nations want to continue to participate in these benefits I think they should be allowed to. The UK has a terribly and bloody debt to pay following the British empire - the commonwealth (while it could be much better) goes some way to repaying that debt.

cueominousmusic I agree 100%.

And it doesn't matter that we're not literally under Britain's thumb. We were dragged into both World Wars because we were a part of the Commonwealth, the colonisation of Australia by the British has had a pervasive and lasting impact on white relations with Indigenous people, the British influence on Australia is still strong enough that we've got the Union Jack in the corner of our flag. We don't need the UK anymore. We can maintain cordial and trade relations with them without being a part of the Commonwealth, in the same way that we are one of the US' closest relationships/allies without having any formal tie to them.

Both the current Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition support the republican movement, and I'm reasonably confident that there will be a referendum again when the Queen dies.

We were dragged into both World Wars because we were a part of the Commonwealth

No you weren't. The Australian government on the advice of its lawyers took the view that a British declaration of war automatically bound Australia.

As it happens, NZ didn't agree. So what did they do? They declared war on Germany too.

Which is precisely what the Australians would have done had their legal advice been different.

If you're seriously suggesting that Australia didn't wholeheartedly join the anti-fascist effort (and wouldn't again now), there's some seriously odd ideas going round in the Lucky Country.

The Commonwealth didn't exist during the two world wars. The Empire was a completely different beast,and NZ, for one, wasn't dragged anywhere...

Round these parts (NZ) the Commonwealth has become invisible. Clearly it means little for trade, ever since the UK went behind the trade barriers of the EC. It boils my piss that the EU fanclub has no perception of just how the EC stiffed the NZ economy, or how the UK (together with the rest of the EC) rallied round France when its agents committed murder by sinking the Rainbow Warrior.

In terms of economy and the military, the Americans are the only game in town, and have been for the last 50 years, but are increasingly challenged by the menace of China.

The UK had huge cultural reach round here, and wasted it on EC entry. The reality is that it's probably too late to get it back, although the fact we voted to keep our flag (with Union Jack) is more significant than is generally realised.

In the meantime, NZ will probably continue to morph into a poor man's America.

(Crossposted with Dunedingirl)

There was a kind of commonwealth of dominions before the war (Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia, NZ, UK), not part of the Empire, and all independent of one another, just under the same monarch.