Commonwealth of Nations

[McClef]

Interestingly countries which were never part of the Empire have joined the Commonwealth such as Mozambique and Rwanda and the new country of South Sudan has applied to join.

[TheOfficialBren]

That is interesting. What are the qualifications for a country to join the Commonwealth if there is no historical precedent?

[Carlo]

That is interesting. What are the qualifications for a country to join the Commonwealth if there is no historical precedent?

Membership Criteria

All member states, except for Mozambique (which joined in 1995) and now Rwanda (which joined in 2009), have experienced direct or indirect British rule or been linked administratively to another Commonwealth country. At the 1997 summit in Edinburgh, Heads of Government considered the criteria for Commonwealth membership and agreed that in order to become a member of the Commonwealth, an applicant country should, as a rule, have had a constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member state; that it should comply with Commonwealth values, principles and priorities as set out in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991; and that it should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions.

At the 2005 summit in Malta, aware of a growing interest in the Commonwealth from many countries, including outstanding applications to join, Heads of Government mandated a Committee on Commonwealth Membership that would prepare a report on the various issues of membership for the next CHOGM in Kampala, Uganda, in 2007. The committee – chaired by P J Patterson, former prime minister of Jamaica – met twice (in December 2006 and May 2007) prior to submitting its report to Commonwealth leaders for their consideration. Heads of Government subsequently set out their agreed 'core criteria' for membership in the Kampala Communiqué.

The application of the Republic of Rwanda for membership of the Commonwealth was considered by Heads of Government in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, in November 2009. This was done in accordance with the criteria and procedures agreed at their meeting in Kampala in 2007. At the end of their deliberations, they warmly welcomed Rwanda into the Commonwealth family as its 54th member.
Quote: http://www.commonwealthofnations.org...ship-criteria/

[Singlemalt]

I completely agree with everything that Nathan and others have said. But, there is also an emotional connection, now I will admit it used to be stronger in my youth when the Empire was not such a distant memory. I can remember in public school we had to learn and identify all the countries in the Commonwealth on the map right after we got all the Provinces down. It was a warm an comforting feeling that we had friends with a common history and traditions representing all races, speaking many languages and in all corners of the world. In those old school maps and globes all the Commonwealth countries were all in a warm pink colour. I can remember the great pride I felt as a small boy when I noticed that mine was the biggest!

[JohntheBiker]

This website is very instructive:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandco...da/canada.aspx

Not all commonwealth contries are the same. They have their own parliaments and they have negotiated their relationship to the Monarch in different ways.

Canadians used to recieve British knighthoods and lordships but due to our liberal belief that all people are created equal under the law, Canadians are no longer legally entitled to accept hereditary British Peerage titles and remain Canadian Citizens. Lord Conrad Black famously relinquished his Canadian citizenship to accept Her Majesty's lordship.

Instead, Canadians of such merit are inducted into the Order of Canada, a three leveled program that is similar to modern knighthood but does not confer the title "Sir" etc...

I can't speak for other commonwealth nations and realms regarding peerage.

in a Parliamentary system, the leader of the party with the most seats effectively weilds executive power (power to declare war etc...). In a republican system the President is elected outside of the legislature. There is often conflict betwen the executive branch and legislative branch in republican systems.

In a Parlimentary System, the Prime Minister is like combination of the President and the House Majority Leader in the USA.

There is often a non-elected upper house in Parliamentary systems but this is not universal. Some have no upper house and others elect their upper chamber. In the UK the upper house is called the House of Lords and membership can be hereditary.

In Canada, the Prime Minister appoints Senators (two per province) to sit in the Canadian Senate.

In Canada, the elected Parliament (the House of Commons) is supreme and the upper house is a chamber for sober second thought.

Slight correction, the Canadian Senate has 105 seats distributed geographically as follows:

• The Maritimes Division — 24
(New Brunswick — 10, Nova-Scotia — 10, Prince Edward Island — 4)

• The Ontario Division — 24

• The Quebec Division — 24

• The Western Division — 24
(British Columbia — 6, Alberta — 6, Saskatchewan — 6, Manitoba — 6)

• Additional representation — 9
(Newfoundland and Labrador — 6, Northwest Territories — 1,
Yukon Territory — 1, Nunavut — 1)

[aonghas]

We respect and owe fealty to HRH Queen Elizabeth II. She is our Mediator when we need an arbitration. A last voice for us.

[Nathan]

Slight correction, the Canadian Senate has 105 seats distributed geographically as follows:

• The Maritimes Division — 24
(New Brunswick — 10, Nova-Scotia — 10, Prince Edward Island — 4)

• The Ontario Division — 24

• The Quebec Division — 24

• The Western Division — 24
(British Columbia — 6, Alberta — 6, Saskatchewan — 6, Manitoba — 6)

• Additional representation — 9
(Newfoundland and Labrador — 6, Northwest Territories — 1,
Yukon Territory — 1, Nunavut — 1)

Absolutely correct! I was temporarily confusing our Senate with the Senate of some other country. *blush*

[Singlemalt]

The topic of Canadian's accepting British Peerages is an interesting and complex one. It is consistent today that we cannot accept them and retain our citizenship. However it was not always so. In fact in the early part of the 20th century it went back and forth quite a bit with Liberal governments apposing them but Conservative ones allowing them or relaxing rules. In 1964 the very powerful Ken Thomson (the commissioner of what is now considered the Thomson family tartan and powerful global media mogul) was appointed Baron Thomson of Fleet. He was such a powerful figure here it was wondered if the Liberal Prime Minister of the day Lester Pearson would have the nerve to stick to his position. It was answered the next day when the newspapers pressed Pearson for a comment. His reply was "I want to pass on my sincere congratulations to a former Canadian". Thomson went on to accept British citizenship which suited him quite well he said it allowed him to enjoy the best of both worlds. "in London I am addressed as Lord Thomson in Toronto everyone calls me Ken".

[TheOfficialBren]

What about in Australia and New Zealand? Are peerages part of theier societies or do they follow the Canadian trend?

[Downunder Kilt]

Many Commonwealth countries have a system of government called Constitutional Monarchy and are governed by the Westminster Parliamentary system. The Commonwealth is a group of Countries that share a Monarch and who are tied together by their shared history as former subjects of the British Empire.

Aside from the fact that many residents of commonwealth countries feel a loyalty to the sovereign, there are also more practical considerations for the continued association.

In a Westminster Constitutional Monarchy, the Monarch is the symbolic head of state and represents the executive branch of Government.

While in practice, the executive power is weilded by the Prime Minister, s/he is actually part of the legislative branch of government being the leader of the party with the most MPs (Members of Parliament) elected to sit in a Parliament.

In Canada, the Queen is represented by a Vice-Roy in the form of The Governor General of Canada. The Vice Roy signs bills into law on behalf of the Queen, reads the Speech from the Throne prior to a budget etc...

The Commonwealth participates in summits and events such as the Commonwealth Games, and while it has traditionally been a vehicle for trade and preferred status for immigration, in recent years, the associations have become more symbolic.

That said, the courts of Commonwealth jurisdictions that use common law have been known to refer to legal precedent from other commonwealth jurisdictions in the absence of a domestic legal precedent. This common law is often admissible but it typically does not hold the same weight as a domestic precedent.

If a country wanted to cut ties with the commonwealth, it would involve replacing the Head of State with some form of elected president. This would mean an overhaul from a parliamentary system to a republican one. Many commonwealth residents feel that aside from nationalist sentiment, there is little reason to believe that a country would be better governed by such a move but that opening up such a "can of worms" would be divisive and ultimately quite expensive.

Incidentally, you refer to HRM Queen Elizabeth II as the "Queen of England". This is just one of her titles. When in Canada, she is referred to as the "Queen of Canada". She is also the Queen of Scotland, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Queen of New Zealand, The Queen of Australia, the Queen of Bermuda etc...

Does this answer your question?

Excellent summary Nathan.