To think the Commonwealth has had its day?

[antelopevalley]

The Commonwealth is a colonialist institution based on a history of conquest and slavery.

"The origins of the Commonwealth come from Britain's former Empire. Many of the members of the Commonwealth were territories which had historically come under British rule at various times by settlement, conquest or cession. The administration of such colonies evolved in different ways, to reflect the different circumstances of each territory."
www.royal.uk/commonwealth

The Commonwealth Games have never been held in an African country. Although there have been exceptions, most years it is held in Britain, Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Since 1930 it has only been held three times in other countries. Or seven countries if you include youth games and paraplegic games.

The Commonwealth has no clear role; it confers no trade privileges upon its members, does not coordinate their defence or foreign policy, and lacks both the budget and the executive authority to make a practical difference in the world.

It is a colonialist hangover that has no clear role and should be abolished.
AIBU?

Good points

Friendship between countries. That's nice, I think.

Whilst there’s more to it than that, I agree it’s nice. When someone asked my why I voted Remain, there were many reasons but I summarised that I thought it was better to be part of something than not!

It costs a lot of money for friendship.

No, simply stating that their decision not to have the queen as head of state any more suggests that they aren’t entirely sold on being part of a commonwealth with her at the head of it. It’s not a huge leap of logic.

The commonwealth was the hastily-assembled replacement for the British empire when the people living in those countries decided that they didn’t really want to be controlled by the British. Is someone going to argue that it’s been a vehicle for fair reparations to those countries? Maybe some of the members, starting with Barbados, are questioning what’s in it for them.

That they didn’t want the queen as their head of state any more doesn’t mean that they have to immediately flounce from everything commonwealth-adjacent, like the games.

You do realise that 2/3
commonwealth countries don’t have the Queen as their head of state?

Tom Daley is having a year out from all competitions, to spend more time with his family. Get your facts straight @antelopevalley!

Thanks for making my point for me. The Barbadian team’s attendance at the commonwealth games doesn’t demonstrate a love for or an affinity with the commonwealth. It just means that they want to compete internationally against a selection of nations with good athletes.

Nor does it mean that Barbados’s politicians have decided to stay in the commonwealth long term. You can’t know what they are thinking. We know what the Barbadians think of the head of the commonwealth, though.

I do. How many of them voted to reject the queen as their head of state in a democratic vote in the last couple of years? One member did, Barbados, and we know how they voted. What do you suppose the result would be if every member held a referendum? We’ve had a pretty strong indication of the feelings of the Jamaican people.

Of course it doesn’t say anything about the athletes desires. It does show that the Barbadian federations valued attendance at the games, despite having recently removed the Queen as head of state. Athletes don’t just show up for games. If Barbados were passionately against the Commonwealth and everything it stood for, why would they as a nation send more athletes than ever before to a competition representing something they are working so hard to remove from their national identity? Surely they would boycott, as nations boycotted South African events during apartheid.

I'm guessing that independent nations make their own judgements about what benefits them and how. If it doesn't work for them, they leave.

I think they get confused between the Empire and the Commonwealth.

And all the nations in the commonwealth have the free choice to pay that money if they wish.

As we've said several times, no country is forced to be part of it. They can leave at any point.

Neither the British government, nor the Queen, have any control over what the member nations do with their own laws or systems of government.

So why do you think they didn’t leave altogether?

A massive schoolboy error for two members of the RF

Hmm… last time I checked a country didn’t need “permission” to leave the Commonwealth any more than it needs “permission” to leave the monarchy.

Even though you may not like it, the British Empire, which had good and bad about it- history isn’t binary- evolved into the Commonwealth and member countries are free to leave at any time.

Those that choose to keep Queen as their head of state have no obligation to do so.

Those that continue to send their final legal appeals to the Supreme Court in London have no obligation to do so.

The relationships of the Commonwealth countries with the UK are all different,
complicated and historically interesting.

A lot is left out of the history of the Empire and Commonwealth based on the agenda of who is talking about it.

Conservatives tend to harp on about democracy, free speech and the rule of law as well as trains, roads, civil service etc and an historic sense of a benevolent civilising mission.

Socialists tend to harp on about slavery (abolished before most of the countries of the Empire actually became British colonies) and how those who set out to “civilise” were always in it for
themselves.

This binary view of “all bad” or “all good”
is unhealthy.

Like those who think that either:

Churchill was an evil racist who cannot possibly be a 20th century hero because of a few ill chosen words early in his political career…

vs

…those who think that Churchill was second only to God and that even to point out any of Churchill’s human faults is literally treason.

Read, read, read.

Educate, educate, educate.

Question, question, question.

Just be aware that whoever is writing may have an agenda and don’t believe everything that you read.

Final thought… if the Commonwealth was so bad surely all the members would have left except for maybe Canada and Australia who like to pretend they’re European to distance themselves from their US ally?

This is just @antelopevalley 's anti-establishment thread of the day. Tiresome or amusing, depending on how you look at it.

I attended several events during the Commonwealth Games, the atmosphere was great and everyone seemed very happy to be there.

This wasn't the first time this has happened, the full integration started in Manchester 2002

We only fought for independence

Was there actually any fighting, or is that a figure of speech?

Ignore my post above. It is way out of context.

Many Commonwealth countries are not supporting us against Russia, indeed instead of staying neutral (bad enough) are buying their gas/raw materials with the intention of increasing such trade.

Some friendship.

@ajandjjmum - that's good! There did seem to be a great atmosphere, and as I said upthread it was nice to see so many small countries doing well.

That most definitely is a positive :)

That's good to hear.

Neither country has made any indication that they wish to leave the Commonwealth. They could do so tomorrow if they wanted, as could all of the other members. Membership is entirely voluntary.

It's very likely that most if not all of the overseas realms will remove the monarch as HoS once Charles is on the throne. Again, that's something entirely withing their own control. But that's a very different thing from choosing to leave the Commonwealth, something which very few countries have done thus far. Clearly, they see benefits in membership.