Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: Enemies of the Commonwealth | |
Author: Trixta (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 05:00:05 11/06/04 Sat Just a stirrer to see what people think. Who are the main enemies of the Commonwealth? Who stands to lose most from unification or, at least, greater and more consistent co-operation? Oh yeah, and why do our own politicians seem so hell-bent on avoiding greater intra-commonwealth co-operation? If you've read my previous posts (poor you) you'll probably know my own feelings, if not then please don't - I want to know what everyone else thinks. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: My view... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:41:48 11/08/04 Mon My own view is that the opposition fits into two camps - the neo-cons in the US, and the Europhiles in France and Germany. To a lesser extent, China and Russia. The Anglosphere folks want to see the Commonwealth come together, but I believe that they wish to see the United States take Britain's traditional role. That is, imagine a Commonwealth with the United States as a member, and having George W. Bush replace HM Queen Elizabeth II as its head. The French certainly do not want the Anglophone world to consolidate for obvious reasons. As for the Chinese and Russians, well, it's the competition. As for our politicians, I believe that if we wait for them to bring the Commonwealth together more, we won't live long enough to see it. As for the "Francosphere", there are at least 3 countries that are members of both the Commonwealth and la Francophonie - Canada being the most notable. My country could be a bridge that allows the broader francophone world to cooperate with the anglophone world - without kissing France's "derriere"... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Old world, new bridges? | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:39:28 11/08/04 Mon Hmm, you may have something there. Given the position of both the UK and Canada to act as bridges then the idea of a Commonwealth and a French alliance could work I suppose. The UK is already, in essence, a trilateral bridge in its position in the Commonwealth, Europe and NATO. France is likewise, with the obvious exception, but surely would come on board with the idea if it stood to gain (which it would). Canada is ideal in bridging the Commonwealth, Francophile and even, dare I suggest, the New World countries. What's the mood in Canada to acting as a bridge between the Commonwealth and the understandably suspicious Francophile world? (Understandably suspicious of the Commonwealth I mean, not in general). As for China and Russia, well the UK has a comparatively good relationship with each and could easily act to reassure those countries that a strong Commonwealth represents no direct threat to them (which it shouldn't in principle, I would hope). I agree with you on our politicians (hell, on all politicians - I rank them only slightly above journalists on the low-life table). There is, however, perhaps a way around them - but that's for another posting (another of my pipe dreams). The idea of the US in the Commonwealth makes me shudder - you're right, of course, that they could never accept HM as head of state despite the advantages of having one so detached from the politics. They'd no doubt argue blind that a powerless monarch is somehow less democratic than a president who has more power than most absolute monarchs. Surely that is part of what makes the Commonwealth so credible - that our joint head of state has no real influence on our political decisions. I know I'm biased, but to me that is quite possibly the ideal state of affairs. So, the UK could bridge Commonwealth, Europe and NATO - Canada (correct me if I'm wrong) could bridge North America (inc. NATO), Commonwealth and the Francophile world. Both would be working together in 2 out of the 3 spheres. Is it just me or does this sound to good to be viable? Where's the down side - I can't see one? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: intriguing | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 07:20:23 11/08/04 Mon I rank them only slightly above journalists on the low-life table). There is, however, perhaps a way around them - but that's for another posting Ohhh I am intrigued. please do share. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Intrigue must continue (sorry) | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:55:23 11/08/04 Mon I have a pet theory on a political system of administration that: -Retains the monarch as head of state -Develops the role of monarch to act as mandated representative of public opinion -Replaces the one-man-one-vote with one-man-many-votes -Gives us all a more constructive way of voicing our opinion more often than once every four years -Solves world hunger, war and injustice (Okay, the last one's a lie) Unfortunately I'm still hammering out the idea into the vaguest of skeletons and it would probably be better suited to another forum than clogging up the FCS board. Let me know if you're interested and I'll set it up - many minds are better than one and I'd appreciate all the help I could use. For now, though, I don't want to be drawn or I'll end up hogging the forum. PS I've also created my own forum to discuss whether Orwell was right about the UK if you'd like to visit - its at www.voy.com/187589/ - feel free to pop in for a cup of Victory coffee. :-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: not sure about changing the role of the monarch | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:43:46 11/09/04 Tue I'm interested to know what you mean by a "mandated representative of public opinion". I feel it is risky to try and shift the monarchy from a symbolic to a representative role. I'd also like to know how your multiple vote system would work. People with more education or with a proven record of public service get more votes? Here in Brazil, where we have very poor and uneducated people in far greater numbers and reproducing much more prolifically than anyone else, I have been known to suggest a system whereby you gain the right to have one child when you finish primary school, two children when you finish secondary school a third when you finish an undergraduate degree, and so on. People tend to assume that I am joking. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Multiple Voting | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:55:08 11/10/04 Wed Okay, you've convinced me - I'll open the forum. Hell, I could really use other minds better than mine to resolve the conflicts in the theory. As regards the 'mandate' for monarch it is really an evolution of the concept of crown as it stands today. Bear with me here, for this is the slightest glimpse at what would be a hideously-complex principle. Basically (oh, I hate that word) what if the crown became a representative for public opinion in a definitive form rather than, say, a poll of x,000 Londoners (as is common). Think 'yougov' where the opinions of those who feel strongly enough about something can register their objection to legislature passed, for example, mid-term. Take the Iraq war (no, please, take it) - suppose Tony says 'we do not need a second UN resolution'. Then suppose that the crown-administered system registers a majority voting No to the motion 'Should the UK go to war without a second UN resolution?' The electorate, i.e. the poor sods who will die in any retaliation, get to control our parliament more directly on key issues. As it is crown-run, then when TB turns up at the palace to let HM know that the UK intends to go on regardless of the UN our monarch can step in and say 'Based upon the wishes of the British people I refuse to accede'. Would create quite a stink, obviously, but also mean that when enough of us thought the 651 numpties in Westminster weren't listening to us we could veto them directly by, in effect, going over their heads. Uh-oh, I'm doing what I didn't want - going on ad infinitum about my own theory in the wrong place. Tell you what, keep an eye out and I'll post the address of the forum when I've got it setup - we'll discuss it there. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Intriguing forum | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:18:59 11/10/04 Wed Right, I've done it. The forum is now open at www.voy.com/187701/ Please feel free to pop in and share your thoughts. It's still in the most basic form and I'm looking for like-mindeds who wouldn't mind bouncing the idea about. Cheers :-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: What I am thinking | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:43:46 11/08/04 Mon For me, I am hoping that my Commonwealth Free Trade book gets some attention and gets people talking. In Canada, there may be some sovraintistes in Quebec who don't like the idea, but I plan on using the "success" (fingers crossed) of the book to argue that Canada should launch the effort for a parallel francophone organization. It puts France on the spot if they argue against UK participation in Commonwealth Trade but want to pursue this. If they don't, then Canada dominates "L'Association de livre-echange de la Francophonie" or ALEF. Canada, Cameroon, and Kiribati - I believe - are the 3 nations with a foot in both the anglosphere and the francosphere - combining for a total of over 100 nations. I see Canada acting as a lynchpin for the Anglosphere, the Francosphere, and the Americas, and have gone so far as to argue this to people in my party... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: my opinion | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:53:08 11/08/04 Mon In my view, I think that everyone that is not a part of the commonwealth, would in some way, not want it around. It would be find at first, until they all began to get paranoid that the commonwealth was becoming powerful (which it obviously would). Unless the commonwealth became very nice, and became just a big friend and really proved itself. Of coarse without kissing 'derriere' [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: anglo-alliance | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:23:40 11/08/04 Mon I believe that the USA may actualy be happy to see a united commonwealth. The two would make natural allies and I think the two would be the balancing axis against an increasingly united europe and any other challengers. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Not much will change... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:16:32 11/08/04 Mon The CANZUK nations all have good relationships with other Western nations. Since the territories would be so widespread there would be a need to protect the sea-lanes between each component nation. Between Canada & the U.K. there are no forseeable problems. However, if it were decided to station large numbers of troops/ships/aeroplanes at our existing bases at Gibraltar, Cyprus & Diego Garcia to guard shipping-lanes from the U.K. to Australasia then perhaps, in light of recent actions, this may make middle-eastern countries understandably nervous. Personally, I feel that the U.S. as well as France and her bitches would exert pressure to prevent a CANZUK union from forming, although once formed these countries would actually be extremely cordial toward us. Presently the U.S.A. enjoys good individual relations with CANZUK as seperate entities and if they were to join along the lines proposed by an F.C. this would in fact dilute their influence. They like having the odd tiny contribution from these countries in operations abroad, but in the event of a CANZUK union this block, that regularly provides small services, may actually be able to deny any military help altogether. France, sadly, is becoming increasingly defensive and lacking in self-confidence. The last thing French politicians want is to be seen allowing the formation of another "Saxon" superpower. I doubt though that if the formation of an F.C. were handled with good diplomacy that these powers would have anything to fear. An F.C., looking at the current political make-up of the component nations, would not in fact be or act like a superpower. The benefits would be political independence for the component nations as a collective, this not being a problem since all nations in the union have so much in common. The interests of an F.C. would be primarily ensuring that trade can take place peacefully. The F.C. would be the largest foreign investor in the U.S. by miles (or kilometers in the parlance of the dominions) and would be very involved in the E.U., the rest of the Commonwealth and China. This gives the proposed F.C. massive bargaining power. The problems of currency have not yet been resolved but supposing one country with one currency is the aim, the F.C. would be a zone with never-ending economic activity as the sun revolves around the earth. I doubt that an F.C. would have any real enemy nations. We would be treated with suspicion by many whose interrests are to block a resurgence of "British" influence. The trouble is that we need to follow our own interests first and if the Indians, Americans etc... are nervous then we will show them through our actions that they have nothing to fear. The question is do we have the political will? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: nationalists | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:30:44 11/08/04 Mon For me, the greatest enemies of Commonwealth federation are the narrow-minded nationalists of our respective countries and the political classes that would not want to have their power diluted by being part of something bigger. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Yes, | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:41:58 11/08/04 Mon If we had the will to federate, external influences could not stop us from doing so, although the external interference would be strong. I fully agree that petty, location-based nationalism is our greatest enemy. However: Suppose that I were Canadian, say. I might favour the idea of an F.C. because it could reduce "Liberal" influence. Equally the Liberals might fear an F.C. for the same reason. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Le monde Francophone. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:12:35 11/08/04 Mon Hm. I am sceptical about all this 'bridging' stuff. The impresion which I get is that the French are all for a United States of Europe because they saw, in the 1930s, that British dominance was on the way out, but then in 1945 found that the UK had been replaced with another Anglo-Saxon, English-speaking, free-market country, which was even less friendly and more arrogant than Britain! Conversely, our relegation into Class Two amongst the nations was a softened blow, since we were replaced by a country which shares a language and common cultural patrimony... I imagine that, had we been replaced by a more alien country than the US, we, like the French, would be rabid Europhiles. Note that the Treaty of Rome quotes Jean Monnet: "We intend to create a political, economic and military super-power to resist the encroaching dominance of Anglo-Saxon values." Why, in the current situation, should the UK - the template of Anglo-Saxon values - vote to resist them? Do turkeys vote for Christmas? But, if we had been replaced by, say, China, we would gladly sign up to an organisation which "intends to create a political, economic and military super-power to halt the encroaching dominance of Sino-Tibetan values," or whatever. The EU is their chance, for the first time in three centuries, to have a major power in the world which is not English-speaking. I really don't think that, if the USA and the Federal Commonwealth emerged (as they would) as the first and second super-powers, our neighbours in Europe, especially the French, would be especially pleased, notwithstanding their good wishes for Quebec, Cameroon and Kiribati. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |