Do you think the Commonwealth is on its way out?

[KenDodd]

Thinking about Barbados talking about removing the Queen as HofS. I think other countries may follow. If lots follow it might then throw into question the whole purpose of the Commonwealth and the fact that the UK is head of the Commonwealth, especially in the light of the BLM movement and our colonial past.

I don't really know much about the Commonwealth or Common Realm or what it does (if anything). I think some of those countries individuals have a final right of appeal in legal cases to the Law Lords?

Anyway, I put this in aibu just to enable voting to see what others think.

Yabu- No way will the Commonwealth end
Yanbu - The end is nige

For what it's worth, I think lots of countries might remove the Queen as their HofS (especially after she dies) and any legal oversight the UK has, don't think they will leave the Commonwealth altogether though.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-54174794

The monarch didn't make the decision to prorogue the Parliament in the UK, Goosefoot.

Boris Johnson (well, Cummings more like) did. He had to use the Queen as his mechanism, but it was neither her decision nor could she refuse without creating a different constitutional problem.

The attempt to illicitly prorogue the UK Parliament in order to prevent it from scrutinising the government was solely the responsibility of this Tory government. They'd have done the same if we'd been a republic, using whatever mechanism they could find to hand.

The monarch does make a convenient scapegoat for behaviour like this, though. As did the EU. Problem is, once you've slaughtered your scapegoat, you're still left with the people who actually caused the problem.

I'm inclined to look at what an institution or organisation is actually providing, and what an alternative would actually look like, before ditching it.

@Boscoismyspiritanimal

Are the Commonwealth Games still a thing?

Yes! In Birmingham in 2022

@PerkingFaintly

The monarch didn't make the decision to prorogue the Parliament in the UK, Goosefoot.

Boris Johnson (well, Cummings more like) did. He had to use the Queen as his mechanism, but it was neither her decision nor could she refuse without creating a different constitutional problem.

The attempt to illicitly prorogue the UK Parliament in order to prevent it from scrutinising the government was solely the responsibility of this Tory government. They'd have done the same if we'd been a republic, using whatever mechanism they could find to hand.

The monarch does make a convenient scapegoat for behaviour like this, though. As did the EU. Problem is, once you've slaughtered your scapegoat, you're still left with the people who actually caused the problem.

I'm inclined to look at what an institution or organisation is actually providing, and what an alternative would actually look like, before ditching it.

The point is that the PM doesn't get to do it and can be refused.

This kind of thing has also come up in other Westminster types of systems. It came up in Canada under Harper when he prorogued in order to avoid a non-confidence vote. There was a huge question as to whether our Governor General would let him and a real chance she would refuse. (And IMO should ought to have.) In Australia there was also a situation which not identical, but similar, where their GG had to make a decision around a PM who was not able to pass legislation because of senate opposition.

It's really important that these kinds of decisions aren't made politically.

Cecelori Furthermore. I do find it baffling we live in 2020 yet we still have a monarchy how behind are we?

Not behind at all - we tried not having the monarchy from 1649 - 1660, then invited them back. Been there, tried that, and perhaps a monarchy suits the UK, as it does some of the Nordic countries, the Benelux countries and Spain (who reinstated their monarchy).