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: My view... | |
Author: Brent (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 01:41:48 11/08/04 Mon In reply to: Trixta (UK) 's message, "Enemies of the Commonwealth" on 05:00:05 11/06/04 Sat 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"... [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |