The Commonwealth.

[Anchorman]

      So, the so-called "Duke of Rothesay" has just opened the Commonwealth Games down Under. Nice pics. So, what's the point of the commonwealth,

[floo]

      So, the so-called "Duke of Rothesay" has just opened the Commonwealth Games down Under. Nice pics. So, what's the point of the commonwealth,

None these days, imo.

[Steve H]

It's one of my favourite pipe tobaccos.

[jeremyp]

      So, the so-called "Duke of Rothesay" has just opened the Commonwealth Games down Under. Nice pics. So, what's the point of the commonwealth,

Does it need one?

Anyway, it's nice to have an athletics competition without all those arrogant Americans and drug soaked Russians. You should be especially pleased since it means Scotland gets to compete as a nation.

[Nearly Sane]

Does it need one?

Anyway, it's nice to have an athletics competition without all those arrogant Americans and drug soaked Russians. You should be especially pleased since it means Scotland gets to compete as a nation.

And indeed one that four years ago in Glasgow, I thoroughly enjoyed. If all it achieves is people visiting other countries and seeing sport, that's enough for me.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes indeed NS.

The Commonwealth may be an anachronistic organization, but the games do no harm and bring some people much happiness and pleasure (not me) and boost the profiles of the host cities and bring much needed income to same.

All seems a bit of anti-royalist humbuggery on the part of someone...... 

[Anchorman]

Anti Royalist? Yep...I'll own up to that,. But apart from a second rate sports fest every four yearsk is there any need for a commonwealth?

[Nearly Sane]

Need? Maybe not. But can it have some benefits, then yes. Any means of nations talking with each other has the chance of getting things to happen. That this is a grouping of nations with many different circumstances seems even more a good thing. And yes, the history is not one of sweetness or simple glory but that colonialism might give rise to a group of equals at somepount who can work together seems a positive to me.

[Anchorman]

Has the commonwealth worked together, though? Has it, as a body, been a peace keeping force, or managed to demilitarise a situation, or even aleviete a disaster? Oh, individual nations have  launched efforts - last year's horrendous hurricane in the West Indies springs to mind, as does Scotland's partnership with Malawi - but has the comonwealth itself done anything recently? There are a feew paltry educationvschemes, but they would continue regardless of whether the commonwealth existed ior not. That it is an echo of empire was demonstrated recently when the Daily Fail threw a wobbly at the mere suggestion that the next head of the commonwealth should be elected by its' members, rather than be automatically passed to Charles Windsor when, in the fullness of time, his mum dies.

[Nearly Sane]

I hope that it never does have a peace keeping role; that really would seem a form of sacrilege but diplomacy is a dark art and influence to a minimum standard seems to me beneficial. That the membership is voluntary and as noted already covers so many different interests seems to me a good thing for maintaining dialogue.

[ippy]

Anti Royalist? Yep...I'll own up to that,. But apart from a second rate sports fest every four yearsk is there any need for a commonwealth?

I largely agree with Trent, although apart from Rugby I have very little interest in any other sport, but people obviously look forward to these occasions, any excuse and all of that

The royals, you comment on, it looks like we'll be suffering this anachronism for a few years yet, I do my best to sweep around them Anchor and try to not let them annoy me too much, It's the daft principle not the individuals for me, the worst bit is whenever you see anything reported about royals, it's the gormless stupid grin on the faces of the people talking about them, I'm sure the cameras will be zooming in on them at every opportunity during the games, as though somehow they're important.

Regards ippy     

[Enki]

I also agree with Trent. I'm not a particular supporter of the Commonwealth, and certainly not a Royalist, but I still think that the Commonwealth Games has the ability to bring people(young people especially) together in a spirit of friendliness. Hopefully, these Games will still be deserving of the epithet, 'the friendly games'.

[Nearly Sane]

Even with the improvement from 4 years ago, should the Commonwealth have this large a group of nations that are institutionally homophobic?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/commonwealth-games/43750056

[Rhiannon]

Even with the improvement from 4 years ago, should the Commonwealth have this large a group of nations that are institutionally homophobic?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/commonwealth-games/43750056

I guess that the argument is whether the Commonwealth has any influence, directly or indirectly. For example, does a sports event at which a married gay man can talk about this encourage gay rights activists and open the eyes of lawmakers? I don’t know, but it seems better than just leaving them to their own devices.

[Nearly Sane]

I guess that the argument is whether the Commonwealth has any influence, directly or indirectly. For example, does a sports event at which a married gay man can talk about this encourage gay rights activists and open the eyes of lawmakers? I don’t know, but it seems better than just leaving them to their own devices.

Except that being in the Commonwealth is precisely not leaving them to their own devices. It's providing support. The head of state is happy to be that for places that are institutionally homophobic.

[Rhiannon]

Except that being in the Commonwealth is precisely not leaving them to their own devices. It's providing support. The head of state is happy to be that for places that are institutionally homophobic.

Well not all Commonwealth countries have Her Maj as their head of state, although she is head of the Commonwealth. But I wasn’t suggesting leaving them to their own devices - isolating countries seems a dangerous thing. Rather I was wondering whether being a part of an organisation that includes more liberal countries could potentially lead to some of those liberal ideas rubbing off on some of the less liberal. I don’t know, but expelling homophobic states isn’t going to make them change their minds.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know either, and while the Queen isn't head of state in all Commonwealth countries, she is iin some and the Commonwealth provides support of it is accepted. Should Sth Africa have been accepted when there was apartheid because expelling it wasn't going to change its mind?

[Rhiannon]

I think the thing with apartheid South Africa is that the condemnation against it was fairly global. To readmir it before the end of apartheid would have led to condemnation of the Commonwealth. By contrast there are plenty of Western countries who don’t have marriage equality. And I don’t think that expelling Northern Ireland from the Commonwealth is going to happen.

[Harrowby Hall]

It is not particularly easy now to see what exactly the Commonwealth is.

On the surface, it appears to be a modern face for the former British Empire and Commonwealth, but its membership now includes Mozanbique (a former Portuguese colony) and Rwanda (a former Belgian colony).




Not really related to the topic - but I note that I posted this exactly 12 hours - to the second - after Rhiannon's contribution 

[SusanDoris]

It doesn't matter - the Commonwealth has come about as a result of all sorts of historical events and has become what it is today. Those who want to sweep it - and the monarchy - away will have to design something so much better, so superior to anything we have in the world today, that it will  be accepted and adopted by all, also be efficient and practical enough to take over from the UN.

We're human beings; we muddle along, doing our best to cope with each changing situation as it arises, making what turn out to be, with hindsight, mistakes, but on the whole making progress and achieving much along the way, both individually and collectively.

Edited to remove extra I at start.

[Rhiannon]

I can’t think of any other organisation that is so diverse and is exempt from from the politicking of the US and Russia.

[Aruntraveller]

And there is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/uk-rows-back-on-plans-to-promote-gay-rights-at-commonwealth-summit

[Rhiannon]

And there is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/uk-rows-back-on-plans-to-promote-gay-rights-at-commonwealth-summit

Probably a Brexit or something in their thinking.

But even this I see as an opportunity. The leaders will be coming to London and they will not be ble to miss the pickets, the negative press coverage and the equality in London in general. Without the need to attend the Commonwealth summit they can stay cosy in their homophobic bubbles, only coming out for the next meeting on the Anglican Communion.