PDA

View Full Version : Should the Commonwealth be abolished? [ENDS 12/02/2012]



Grig
30-01-2012, 12:26 AM
Should the Commonwealth be abolished?
Ends: 12/02/2012


http://Habbox.com/assets/images/331/1327883164_COMMONWEALTH.png

The Commonwealth in general is a group of organizations, that are largely an inheritance from British imperialism. However, with Jamaica's recent referendum to leave the common wealth, it calls to question the purposes of such an organization itself. Those who say that it should stay present arguments such as building links between countries, being a positive force. The Commonwealth makes sure it adheres to human rights and all have a similar justice system modeled on the pretty successful British one. The Commonwealth contributes a lot to the world such a giving funds to the UN and helping its smaller and less developed nations form ties in commerce between each other.

Others argue that it simply celebrates Colonial aggression by Britain and that things like that should not be celebrated. There are also arguments that the actual organization has no role and little power, and it is more or less a bunch of nations talking over issues with nothing concrete happening out of it. Also, many question why some nations which are dictatorships are in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth also solely focuses on the self-interests of its members, examples include not placing any form of sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s.

Anyway enough blabbing, there are plenty more arguments that can be said. I want to hear from you. What do you think about this issue. Should it stay or should it go, or are you really indifferent?

-:Undertaker:-
30-01-2012, 01:02 AM
Jamaica aren't deciding to whether to leave the Commonwealth by the way, they've simply discussed becoming a Republic - and of course you can remain in the Commonwealth as a Republican nation.

But as for my opinions on the Commonwealth, I have to say I am torn. Whilst I think the British Empire was a positive force for the world and gave much more than any other nation of Empire to the world (its roads, its schools, its rail, its justice, its form of Westminster government, its civil liberties) as it was a economical Empire much more than a military Empire, I do wonder what purpose I would like to make of the Commonwealth without turning it into a EU-style state in the making or an imitation of the European Union such as forcing a group of nations [the Commonwealth/EU] to put sanctions on another nation like Iran for example.

The Commonwealth is a hangover from Empire of course, and I fail to see much point in it especially as it seems to often now take the role of a Britain-still-provides-for-you charity along with allowing other nations which weren't even part of the British Empire to join in order to stick a hand in the the begging bowl. I do suppose it could be retained purely as a concept or minimal organisation, with emotional and cultural attachments such as the High Commissions being retained - but as for its present/possible future role of a trading bloc, a sanctions body or an aid basket - no thank you.

So my stance would be, retain the Commonwealth - but keep it strictly stuck on emotional and cultural bonds as a true family of nations, as opposed to financial/political/economical bonds like the European Union.

GirlNextDoor15
30-01-2012, 04:21 AM
Commonwealth should stay because what benefits will abolishing it give to all commonwealth nations? As you have said, Commonwealth has helped a lot of low income countries to become developed countries. For example, Malaysia and Indonesia. When both of those countries were having conflicts regarding MAPHILINDO, Commonwealth helped to resolve those conflicts and thus, creating better diplomatic and foreign relations. So, that is one of the many ways Commonwealth has helped its nations. Therefore, abolishing it is really ridiculous. If you abolish Commonwealth, then I believe NAM, ASEAN and OIC can be abolished as well.

the.games
01-02-2012, 06:52 PM
I think it should stay. The commonwealth shows countries that were influenced by British rule and is should be remembered. With the empire fallen, the commonwealth is the only main link that Britain has to those countries.

God save the queen.
Ryan

GirlNextDoor15
02-02-2012, 04:41 AM
I think it should stay. The commonwealth shows countries that were influenced by British rule and is should be remembered. With the empire fallen, the commonwealth is the only main link that Britain has to those countries.

God save the queen.
Ryan

Wait a sec. I don't really get it. You think it should stay for the sake of commonwealth or for the sake of history??

the.games
02-02-2012, 07:21 PM
Mainly for the sake of the countries within the commonwealth, but being a historian I can't deny I would like it to stay for the sake of history also.

MotorStefan95
06-02-2012, 05:11 PM
The Commonwealth should stay because it shows how important it is to keep other countries as friendly allies. The Commonwealth has helped many lower income countries become self-sustaining development countries. It is also the last remnant of this British Empire and should stay there to support the remnants and help people understand how big the British Empire was and how it impacted on the world in a positive way.

If the Commonwealth is to become something like the European Union then they might as well abolish it. We really donít need another EU.

GommeInc
06-02-2012, 06:44 PM
I quite like the common wealth, it's one of the only institutions that brings together this sense of "connection" and "community" between nations, which doesn't force views onto other nations or attempt to control them with strict guidelines and a numbing of cultural differences. As it goes now, I think the Commonwealth is doing a decent job, with the interests of the countries and its people coming first rather than an attempt at exploitation. We help out and advise, it's all we need to do - there's no need to attempt to control these countries nor any reason for them to control us.

jasey
10-02-2012, 12:01 AM
I quite like the common wealth, it's one of the only institutions that brings together this sense of "connection" and "community" between nations, which doesn't force views onto other nations or attempt to control them with strict guidelines and a numbing of cultural differences. As it goes now, I think the Commonwealth is doing a decent job, with the interests of the countries and its people coming first rather than an attempt at exploitation. We help out and advise, it's all we need to do - there's no need to attempt to control these countries nor any reason for them to control us.

I totally agree with this. I am in full support of the Commonwealth and I think it's a great institution to bring together nations who have British elements as part of their heritage. We have our own French version of this called the 'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie' or just 'la Francophonie' for short. French colonisation was heavily concentrated in Africa, though, so there are not as many powerful countries in la Francophonie as there are in the Commonwealth. Even still, I think they are both important organisations. As for Jamaica, as I believe it was brought up in this thread - it can be a very backwards country at times with its stance on LGBT rights and that kind of puts me off. I wouldn't be bothered if it left the Commonwealth should I have been a British citizen.

HotelUser
24-02-2012, 08:40 PM
It's a waste of money for Canada to take part in common wealth and it's a waste of money for Canada to have a senate of people who are appointed and not even elected. By law the Governor General (representation of queen) and Senate have to sign laws before they come into play but they're not allowed to flat out refuse to sign bills therefore the position is only one for historical reasons and is completely irrelevant and a waste of tax payer money.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!