Terrorism is the exertion of power through fear among the common people. When an established system and its law manage to force citizens to knowingly act against their own interests because they would otherwisely be killed or incarcerated, then this system is terrorism. The Galactic Empire was a terroristic system.
@@dannyarcher6370 You're right, I'm just kidding around. Aussies and kiwis have a love hate relationship like that. If aus did want to join us I'm sure we can amend our constitution
A lot of the African countries that have joined did to to break ties from the French. Rwanda has undergone a massive anglicisation because the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (FPR) was exiled in Uganda after the country's independence. The FPR invaded to stop the genocide and has since sought to replace the French language in schools, on road signs and within government. Partially because they saw the French as partially responsible for the genocide as they fled the country during its time of need, and because they wanted to shed their old colonial language imposed by the Belgians, but also because the largely Tutsi minority FPR ruling class which had picked up English while in exile wanted to ensure the French-speaking Hutu majority groups that had ruled the country in the lead-up to the genocide were put at a disadvantage. Gabon and Algeria have also had very public falling-outs with the French as well.
It's no longer true. While you're right that for a while Rwanda tried to distance itself from France because of its supposed role in the genocide and globally because of Françafrique ; it nows re-established good relations with France following the recent report made by government appointed historians from France and Rwanda on the genocide, and also because of an ease of visa related issues. French is now again taught in schools, the country is still massively francophone and both presidents said that they liked each other. TL;DR : what you're saying is old news now.
France had no business throwing herself into Rwandan affairs anyway. Rwanda was a German colony then Belgian mandate, so they can hardly claim an interest as a former colonial power there.
The strength of the Commonwealth is perhaps the late Queen's greatest legacy. Great to see King Charles heading out for the CHOGM, especially pausing his cancer treatment to do so
@@ionen QEII was a driving force behind Commonwealth consolidation and transition during decolonisation. She visited nearly every member state, over 200 visits and supported efforts at CHOGMs over the years, particularly in 1985 to push South Africa to end apartheid. It was one of her main priorities over her reign, and definitely had a huge impact. She loved the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth loved her :)
@@TheBlazingRedcoat Edited original comments. It's debatable the amount influence, Mrs. Windsor had in former colonies that were not white such as India. It could be argued economic and diplomatic benefits(somewhat a micro UN) contribute more towards the success of the commonwealth.
I think people misunderstand the commonwealth. It is an association of states whose goals are freedom and peace. It is, not a throwback to empire but an acceptance of the fact that it did happen and whether you like the empire or not, it affected everyone. Countries that joined even though they were never British colonies was because they approve of the ideals of the commonwelath. It gives countries that would otherwise be ignored a chance to converse with more powerful countries on an equal level.
It's mainly an organisation aiming at closer economic and diplomatic ties between its member states, it's not the british empire but it's the attempt of the UK to keep having good economic deals with its old colonies because their independence could make accessing their resources harder
A lot of the African countries that have joined did to to break ties from the French. Rwanda has undergone a massive anglicisation because the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (FPR) was exiled in Uganda after the country's independence. The FPR invaded to stop the genocide and has since sought to replace the French language in schools, on road signs and within government. Partially because they saw the French as partially responsible for the genocide as they fled the country during its time of need, and because they wanted to shed their old colonial language imposed by the Belgians, but also because the largely Tutsi minority FPR ruling class which had picked up English while in exile wanted to ensure the French-speaking Hutu majority groups that had ruled the country in the lead-up to the genocide were put at a disadvantage. Gabon and Algeria have also had very public falling-outs with the French as well.
I love how the Commonwealth is basically the political equivalent of "if you're cool, you can hang out with us", its just a bunch of stable, friendly nations that get together and have a chat Also, would just like to add that we're usually top 5 itw in sports, with only the 21st highest population, so yes we are objectively "amazing" at sports
It is a little odd that the Commonwealth continues to exist. It is harmless but it also does so little that I question what value it actually provides to its members.
In the north-east US you hear the term "Commonwealth" a lot. It relates to their initial seven or five or something states, and is still in use officially and on business names etc as far as I saw on my quick visit to Boston this year; also maybe it's used there as a kind of generic term. I've wondered if it's confusing for Americans that we throw around "Commonwealth" as if it only means one organisation and the one that has been run "so far" under British monarchs. We also use the term separately in Australia, as officially our nation is the "Commonwealth of Australia" and therefore this is on the currency and everywhere else. One of our biggest banks (previously government-owned) is the Commonwealth Bank.
@@andyf4292 not winning doesn't exactly mean bad though. Just not quite good enough. We're actually quite excellent at most - even football which we literally never win, are still consistently reaching quarters, semis and even finals. We're a threat that can't seem to get that final step. I don't think that means we suck
4:50 Mozambique 🇲🇿 was indeed the first Commonwealth country never to have had _any ties whatsoever_ to the British Empire. 🇬🇧 That said, Namibia 🇳🇦 and Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬 (which both joined years earlier) were also never British colonies but rather _trust territories_ of South Africa 🇿🇦 and Australia 🇦🇺, respectively.
Britain did invade and kick out the Vichy French government in World War Two. So it was sort of part of the Empire for a few years before they gave it back to the French after the war.
@@Dave_Sisson I think you have your facts wrong. Mozambique was Portuguese until 1975. Namibia and PNG were German colonies until WW1. None of them had anything to do with the French.
@@Dave_Sisson No problem. That was quite an interesting campaign. I know quite a few Malagasy who are positive about joining the Commonwealth. Almost all Madagascar's neighbours are members.
I'm the (paraphrased) words of the leader of Rwanda, "the Commonwealth represents good government". This is especially true with regards to Africa, where many of the wealthiest and most stable countries (Like Botswana, Kenya, etc). are former British colonies.
the commonwealth seems a bit like an exclusive tea party that everyone who wants to seems sophisticated wants to join, but practically does very little
0:12. That is not an acronym, but an initialism. Acronyms are when the condensed letters are pronounced as a word (like NASA, Laser, Radar, Gif, NATO), initialisms are when you pronounce each letter seperately (BBC, USB, U.N.)
Somaliland would be great fit considering a shared history with most other members of the club and its strong adherence to the membership criteria and values of the organisation.
I read a good book recently about the Commonwealth called "The Empire's New Clothes." The author struggles to come up with a justification for the Commonwealth's continued existence, arguing it's accomplished basically nothing, with even its supposed "role" in ending apartheid being largely overrated when compared to other, vastly more consequential factors. As is said in the video, its most unambiguous function is that it gives a random group of small countries the arbitrary privilege to occasionally interact with the leaders of large, rich countries, though the real-world consequences of this have been pretty slim as well. I feel like British culture encourages Brits to have a lot of fantasies about the Commonwealth. I often meet British people who assume the reason they can fairly easily get a visa to live and work in Canada, for instance, is some sort of "Commonwealth" thing as opposed to just the overall generosity of the Canadian immigration system, especially for young western Europeans.
My first thought is that there are different reasons why you would want to join the commonwealth depending on the country. The commonwealth at its economic core comprises, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India - each being wealthy nations. For developing countries the commonwealth provides another way for them to strengthen their economic and diplomatic relations, and (as pointed out in the video) a way to strengthen relations with their neighbour. Are there other international forums to participate in that provide the same function, sure. But if you're looking to improve the conditions in your country why wouldn't you take as many opportunities as you can. For the developed member nations, the commonwealth is a way to exert soft-power globally, and maintain close cultural and economic ties with each other. I think the explosion in the popularity of CANZUK a few years ago is a clear expression of that desire (at least by the inner-anglosphere).
@@Altobrun Canzuk is literally nothing. And I think it’s very hard to argue Canada has particularly close relations with any “small” commonwealth member. Canada has incredibly bad relations with the world’s largest Commonwealth member, India, in fact.
@@JJMcCullough I'm fully aware of the issues with Canada-India relations. I would say Canada has good relations with the Caribbean Commonwealth Nations. I know for a fact the Canadian defence industry has worked with the Jamaican government on numerous occasions, and Canadian banks have worked closely with Caribbean banks and governments. Is this significant on a large scale for Canada, I'm not informed enough to say tbh, but idk if there would be a Canadian presence at all if there wasn't a commonwealth connection. I used CANZUK as an example because (at least where I was at the time: Ontario and Nova Scotia) it seemed to be very popular regardless of its feasibility. I heard colleagues talk about it frequently, and even heard people around town talking about it, and (at least to my memory) always in a positive light. iirc it was even adopted as part of the CPC platform at one point. I know you're in BC so maybe it was different over there.
@@Altobrun There would obviously still be a Canadian presence in the Caribbean without the Commonwealth because we’re located in the same hemisphere! There was a Canadian presence in the Caribbean even before the Commonwealth was a thing! Relationships between countries are usually grounded in geographic proximity. This is the same reason why “CANZUK” is such a dumb idea. It’s not grounded in geographic realities. Canada does not want or need to trade more with New Zealand. It’s too far away and no one in Canada cares.
too ambitious, remember britain exited EU because of the inability to control her borders (and many other factors). Why would India, Australia, Canada, Bangladesh and Pakistan get into the british commonwealth without getting something back in return? which for most developing economies are more visas for their citizens.
Cecil Rhodes (of _Cape-to-Cairo_ and _Rhodes Scholarship_ fame) proposed turning the British Empire into a single kingdom with all parts of her electing members of Parliament. This, however, would have made white people a minority at Westminster, and while that may be accepted today, it certainly wasn't in the 19th Century.
@@abhimanyudas7621 Actually not true. India gained independence as the Union of India in 1947. The Union was a dominion which retained the monarchy despite being an independent state, with George VI holding the title King of India. India only became a republic in 1950, 3 years after independence
@@mabeSc Yes just like Canada but it was after partition. Upon partition and independence both Pakistan and India became independent states but retained the monarchy. India became a republic in 1950, with George VI being the only King of India, but Pakistan retained the monarchy all the way until 1956, meaning that Elizabeth II was actually Queen of Pakistan for 4 years. This situation has the somewhat hilarious consequence of meaning during the First Indo-Pakistan war King George VI was technically at war with himself because in his capacity as King of India he was at war with the King of Pakistan, which was himself
“Under Elizabeth the first, when settlers successfully set up a colony in Jamestown”…. Which was named after James VI/I who was king after Elizabeth I had died?
I think people have a nostalgic view of the English that is seldom reflected in England. I wish them well and look forward to a future where former/never colonies espouse the virtues they champion just as the memory of them fades in the homeland
Lol no one outside England and the white colonies are nostalgic of the Empire LMAO. I'm a Malaysian and i have not heard of a single Malaysian with that view.
@@giantWario I'm Australian, maybe 90 years ago people liked england, but they kinda trolled us in ww2 and USA saved us. Also reckon most people here are anti-nobility. India is even worse, all of my Indian mates are extremely anti western countries especially UK, holding onto colonization grudges.
"Lose groupings of states that... nonetheless seem to enjoy hanging out." I think we cannot underestimate how much of diplomacy is just diplomats who like to hang out LOL
To just say "followed by South Africa in 1910" completely glosses over the Second Anglo Boer War, therefore I believe that a follow up video about the leadup to that decision in 1910 needs to be made.
I am from a non-commonwealth country and have never heard it said out loud. But I always assumed it must be pronounced "Chogum" because the alternative was too unwieldy
5:44 Oh, chill with the British self-deprication a bit. We are amazing at sport, objectively so. We hold some of the top global sporting events and compete competitively in so many globally appreciated sports (Cricket, Tennis, Athletics, Cycling, Football, Boxing, Rugby etc.)
I've always liked the Commonwealth on principle, but never realised that it was getting larger. I'd assumed it'd just gradually fade away over time, so it's nice to know that's not the case, and that it actually does something useful.
@@antiwufei553 it’s easy to say it’s bad, yet in practice people from Africa are voting with their feet and flooding into England to the tune of over a thousand a week. More africans are falling under English rule today by choice than we’re ever subject to English rules via colonialism.
I would support all of Ireland being in the Commonwealth. It would be one fewer obstacle to Irish re-unification and maybe Dublin could host a future Commonwealth Games, an event that's future is currently looking uncertain at present.
TLDR team, you may want to revise the Description. It features a funding link that is no longer functional, and fails to provide the current link to your online store. Instructive video. Thanks for providing it. I may be mistaken, but I get the sense that the Commonwealth is indeed a mostly diplomatic organization. Which is a good thing. It is nearly always a good thing when different nations give themselves the opportunity to peacefully learn more and listen more to each other. Diplomatics, even more than politics, dwells on a lot of intentional ambiguity and even deliberate paradoxes. It is hardly your fault, but I could not help but find it funny when (2'45") you reminded us that there was a decision to declare equalilty of status among members. I am fairly sure that status does not work that way. Still, there are not many other ways of being diplomatic.
I want to see closer economic ties with commonwealth nations. Most of them have high poverty rates and rapidly growing populations. We should invest in their infrastructure and industry. 1. It will benefit us, by strengthening Britain's "soft power" and by providing sources of cheap manufactured goods, similar to China. 2. It will benefit them by improving stability and quality of life, and creating local jobs. 3. It can reduce migration, by giving people living in developing nations fewer incentives to leave to work in the UK or other developed nations directly. 4. It can weaken China, by providing alternate sources of cheap manufacturing, and by reducing taking away opportunities for the Chinese to invest in these developing nations themselves (which they are currently doing on a large scale as part of their "belt and road" initiative).
the funding link is broken: Oops! That page can’t be found. It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search? Also where is the poster?
The commonwealth actually does do a lot. You're regarded as a citizen in each country no matter what from a legal rights perspective and get other perks..
As Zimbabwe demonstrated, it also provides some protection fro good governance. Governments do not want their countries to fall into disrepute, and having something like the Commonwealth criticising when they do bad helps keeps things somewhat orderly. This is actually the same reason many countries like Canada, NZ, and Aus keep the Monarch as head of state, simply because it helps keep things orderly... even if not entirely necassary. It may be that a mroe developed Commonwealth may become the UN replacement in 100-200 years, since unlike the UN, the Commonwealth does not have veto powers in a few countries, a situation that is very contentious in the UN.
@@christianbolisca1493 i think you missed the point. The monarch in NZ/CAN/Aus is more of a figurehead who only has power in a very extreme situation. Essentially a Fascist situation is impossible in such countries because the monarch can dissolve the parliament if it gets to such a situation. Consider that people are warried about Trump becoming a fascist leader in the US, well in Australia that is not a worry because such a leader would be removed very quickly by dissolving the parliament.... which is never needed since parliament is aware such a thing could be done so they don't try it. Basically itis like a watchdog that never bites. You dont bother it and it wont bother you.
The monarch is not only ceremonial. The monarch has reserve powers. The Prime Minister rules at the pleasure of the crown. Best example of exercise of reserve power was the dismissal of the Whitlam government in Australia where the Queen's representative dismissed a government which enjoyed the support of the House of Representatives The Governor General refused to take the advice of the elected Prime Minister. If you don't think this is possible in the UK you are crazy. In a crisis the monarch can dismiss the prime minister and appoint someone else. If push comes to shove the monarch is also the commander in chief of the armed services.
The monarchy is not entirely ceremonial no, but that was not the claim. The claim was that the position of Head of the Commonwealth is entirely ceremonial, which it is. The Head of the Commonwealth for example does not appoint the Secretary-General or hold any power within the organisation
@@AmateurHEROduelistnot really. It's not unthinkable that the monarch would be asked to come down on constitutional issues. There was talk of it during brexit
@@lewis123417 It’s not just not unthinkable it has actually happened, though admittedly not in the UK. In 2013 in the small pacific island country of Tuvalu, which retains the monarchy, the Prime Minister lost his parliamentary majority in a by-election. The opposition moved a vote of no confidence in the government but the PM refused to summon parliament. The Governor-General, the Queen’s representative, overruled the PM and summoned parliament anyway. The PM’s allies sabotaged the sitting preventing the no confidence vote, and then the PM wrote to the queen advising her to dismiss the Governor-General. Traditionally the monarch always follows the advice of their prime minister but in this instance the Queen refused. The Governor-General subsequently dismissed the PM and replaced him with the opposition leader
Does it though? I'd be surprised if many of them have even heard of it. From what I've seen some of them struggle to name another country besides 'Africa'
I can assuredly say the vast majority of Americans have no strong opinions at all about the Commonwealth. It just doesn't factor in their thinking. And many of them seem to actually like the Monarchy.
absolutely NOT, the US tends to dominate and take over every international body they join whether it's NATO, OAS or G7. More developed Commonwealth Countries like UK, Canada and Australia don't exercise hegemonic power to bully African, Caribbean and Pacific nations at CHOGM, but if the US joins that is exactly what they will do, the agenda will be whatever they want it to be and the world has had enough their hand being in everything. There should be organisations that are entirely free if their influence and the Commonwealth is perfect for that. In addition, the US will never accept any monarch as Head of the Commonwealth, they will want to replace King Charles with the POTUS and we cannot have that. I say KEEP THEM OUT
I only now am reminded that India is also a nuclear power. That's actually a great sign that they won't be the first to break the nuclear taboo when the war for Himalayan glacial meltwater resources eventually has to be settled. It is in Indian and Chinese culture as it is with the rest of us who all recognise that history had the right idea to keep war ritualistic with agreed melee combat over the civilians and not with the civilians.
yes, in fact the viceroy quickly became the governor-general with Lord Louis Mountabatten the last viceroy of the british raj and the first governor general of the dominion, followed by the indian statesman chakravarti rajagopalachari
@@Waterford1992 So all King George VI did while being "King" of India is watch as India and Pakistan went to an inevitable war over horrible borders drawn by the King's men in the UK? Sounds about right.
Hi Brit here. I would say habit. We have to say "King George the 6th" because he's unfamiliar and to emphasize who we're talking about. Everybody knows who one is talking about if you say "Elizabeth the 2nd". Similarly, many are used to calling King Charles the third: Prince Charles, Charles or The Prince of Wales. The title change is new. I disagree with @SaintGerbilUK as I don't see it as a dis. Even royalists called the Elizabeth the 2nd that way when speaking about her in the third person. Monarchy is crap, it should be gotten rid of and the UK should leave the Commonwealth.
It's interesting that this video left out the only country to leave. Britain's neighbour, the Republic of Ireland, left in 1936. Of course, the UK didn't recognise it until it was formalised in 1949. It seems the 700 years of occupation, and the disputed territory in the North of Ireland, left a bad taste.
That should hopefully be resolved in a generation or two as Christianity declines and as such so does loyalty to being protestant or catholic. So more will identify with their nationality than being tied to religion and which country that religion aligns with. That and leaving the EU against their own wishes left another sour taste. I can definitely see a referendum within a generation or two. At the end of the day it's up to the people of Northern Ireland and that is enshrined in the good Friday agreement too.
I’m cool with the commonwealth as a club as a Kenya, let’s just change that British monarch thing. I’m interested in knowing how in theory, the head can be from any country.
Unfortunately, there are some commonwealth member nations whose people have a fairly sentimental attachment to the monarchy. Or, at least they did to Queen Elizabeth II It's not clear yet if those sentiments were transferred over to King Charles III. Expect the crown and Commonwealth to tread carefully before making any big changes. But ... There's still a number of African dynasties who survive (even if they aren't in political power.). How cool would it be if an African Queen could be put in charge of the Commonwealth? I know this is a romantic idea on my part, but still ...
The commonwealth had a vote and unanimously chose King Charles to be head of the Commonwealth. If they had voted for somebody else then they would have been head. It's purely ceremonial anyway so people probably thought let's continue with tradition. The fact that the King has no political baggage probably means a lot too.
Perhaps former french colonies arr choosing to join tbe commonwealth js related to the hidden french empire which is a very much a more coeecive neo colonial project
It's really not nearly as "coercive" as some ideologues have claimed. It's almost entirely an economic international dynamic and if you actually listen to economists talk about it (instead of political activists), you'll hear more than one side of the story. Was France less willing to let go of Empire than Britain? Yes. The history is fairly clear on this. But it wasn't quite as pernicious as some believe. I do think it has caused France more POLITICAL problems than it was worth. Russia is really exploiting that lately - especially with its devious activities in the Sahel.
When the business is closed but the group chat still going
That's brilliant!
Or when the classes graduates but the group chat is still active
Algeria wanting to join the commonwealth as a final gotcha against France is pretty funny
Exactly my thoughts.
And so, the unofficial British foreign policy of messing with the French continues to this day
More like a middle finger to the French which Togo and Gabon did exactly that
Especially considering the shi the British also did in africa nearby
@@awellculturedmanofanime1246 You mean like what China and Russia are doing in Africa right now without you knowing?
The Empire strikes back ?
Nope
UK will cease to exist if they tried that
@@Aceshigh451 the empire spreads its legs easy
They did in Falklands
Don't forget, the strike didn't last long...
The prelude to a Galactic Commonwealth.
Commonwealth of man
Queen Elisabeth II ... IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE !!!!!!!!!
The First Galactic Empire was the goodie in Star Wars. Luke and the lads were terrorists.
Terrorism is the exertion of power through fear among the common people. When an established system and its law manage to force citizens to knowingly act against their own interests because they would otherwisely be killed or incarcerated, then this system is terrorism. The Galactic Empire was a terroristic system.
@97Corvi I heard Opras voice reading this..... 😂
Dominion of New Zealand being left out like the country is in maps
New Zealand is always welcome to join into the Commonwealth of Australia 😊
@@Mat-xe8pt Australia can always join NZ
@@navinthehouse4710 No. NZ can join Australia. It's in the Aus constitution not the other way around.
@@dannyarcher6370 You're right, I'm just kidding around. Aussies and kiwis have a love hate relationship like that. If aus did want to join us I'm sure we can amend our constitution
@@navinthehouse4710 I'm a Saffer, bro. I'm well aware of the rivalry.
New Zealand: Australia's Canada.
A lot of the African countries that have joined did to to break ties from the French. Rwanda has undergone a massive anglicisation because the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (FPR) was exiled in Uganda after the country's independence.
The FPR invaded to stop the genocide and has since sought to replace the French language in schools, on road signs and within government. Partially because they saw the French as partially responsible for the genocide as they fled the country during its time of need, and because they wanted to shed their old colonial language imposed by the Belgians, but also because the largely Tutsi minority FPR ruling class which had picked up English while in exile wanted to ensure the French-speaking Hutu majority groups that had ruled the country in the lead-up to the genocide were put at a disadvantage.
Gabon and Algeria have also had very public falling-outs with the French as well.
It's no longer true. While you're right that for a while Rwanda tried to distance itself from France because of its supposed role in the genocide and globally because of Françafrique ; it nows re-established good relations with France following the recent report made by government appointed historians from France and Rwanda on the genocide, and also because of an ease of visa related issues.
French is now again taught in schools, the country is still massively francophone and both presidents said that they liked each other.
TL;DR : what you're saying is old news now.
I mean, Algeria, becoming an independent country was what that whole falling ouy was about.
France had no business throwing herself into Rwandan affairs anyway. Rwanda was a German colony then Belgian mandate, so they can hardly claim an interest as a former colonial power there.
@@dod4004 The US has no business in most of the world, that doesn't stop them.
@@mildlydispleased3221 perhaps both they and the French should butt out then.
The strength of the Commonwealth is perhaps the late Queen's greatest legacy. Great to see King Charles heading out for the CHOGM, especially pausing his cancer treatment to do so
I hope to see India out of this grouping before someone else occupies that throne
It has not to do with the King and Queen anymore. The Commonwealth would likely grow even if the UK or the monarchy quit.
Edit: "anymore"
@@ionen QEII was a driving force behind Commonwealth consolidation and transition during decolonisation. She visited nearly every member state, over 200 visits and supported efforts at CHOGMs over the years, particularly in 1985 to push South Africa to end apartheid. It was one of her main priorities over her reign, and definitely had a huge impact. She loved the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth loved her :)
@@TheBlazingRedcoat Edited original comments.
It's debatable the amount influence, Mrs. Windsor had in former colonies that were not white such as India.
It could be argued economic and diplomatic benefits(somewhat a micro UN) contribute more towards the success of the commonwealth.
@@pavankumaryendru817don’t let the door hit you on the way out
I think people misunderstand the commonwealth. It is an association of states whose goals are freedom and peace. It is, not a throwback to empire but an acceptance of the fact that it did happen and whether you like the empire or not, it affected everyone.
Countries that joined even though they were never British colonies was because they approve of the ideals of the commonwelath. It gives countries that would otherwise be ignored a chance to converse with more powerful countries on an equal level.
Exactly any country can ‘join’ the commonwealth.
It's mainly an organisation aiming at closer economic and diplomatic ties between its member states, it's not the british empire but it's the attempt of the UK to keep having good economic deals with its old colonies because their independence could make accessing their resources harder
There's practically nothing significant that this Commonwealth group has contributed to the non western member states
@@kebab3854 exactly
A lot of the African countries that have joined did to to break ties from the French. Rwanda has undergone a massive anglicisation because the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (FPR) was exiled in Uganda after the country's independence.
The FPR invaded to stop the genocide and has since sought to replace the French language in schools, on road signs and within government. Partially because they saw the French as partially responsible for the genocide as they fled the country during its time of need, and because they wanted to shed their old colonial language imposed by the Belgians, but also because the largely Tutsi minority FPR ruling class which had picked up English while in exile wanted to ensure the French-speaking Hutu majority groups that had ruled the country in the lead-up to the genocide were put at a disadvantage.
Gabon and Algeria have also had very public falling-outs with the French as well.
Newfoundland and New Zealand were given Dominion status in 1907; before South Africa.
I love how the Commonwealth is basically the political equivalent of "if you're cool, you can hang out with us", its just a bunch of stable, friendly nations that get together and have a chat
Also, would just like to add that we're usually top 5 itw in sports, with only the 21st highest population, so yes we are objectively "amazing" at sports
India and Pakistan aren’t really friendly to each other and some countries like Sierra Leone and Mozambique aren’t stable.
India and Pakistan aren’t friendly and Sierra Leon and Mozambique aren’t stable.
It is a little odd that the Commonwealth continues to exist. It is harmless but it also does so little that I question what value it actually provides to its members.
@@RobespierreThePoof Not doing much is precisely why it still exists.
TBF like half of those you made up just to good at them 😂
so its a networking hub that creates a common ground?
Yeah, something like EU.
@@nothereandthereanywhere Well the EU is an economic Union, the commonwealth is purely a diplomatic forum.
It is the British-royal discord server for countries.
@@An_Attempt Most accurate description in comments.
@@uptank8461 Diplomatic forum to get a better economic growth?
As a British man it is my honour to welcome all Commonwealth Nations!
‘A Commonwealth of Nations’ was first called such by PM, Lord Rosebery.
In the north-east US you hear the term "Commonwealth" a lot. It relates to their initial seven or five or something states, and is still in use officially and on business names etc as far as I saw on my quick visit to Boston this year; also maybe it's used there as a kind of generic term. I've wondered if it's confusing for Americans that we throw around "Commonwealth" as if it only means one organisation and the one that has been run "so far" under British monarchs.
We also use the term separately in Australia, as officially our nation is the "Commonwealth of Australia" and therefore this is on the currency and everywhere else. One of our biggest banks (previously government-owned) is the Commonwealth Bank.
'pretend we're amazing at sports'. Did you forget we generally rank in the top 5 *in the world* Olympics?
but we invented most of the sports.. ! and generally dont win
In some circles, it is seen as a sign of intelligence to hate your own country. Pathetic but these people do exist.
not this year tho, and 2nd world level country....
@@luka3174 7th is still ridiculously good given the top 2 are just a separate league nobody can come close to
@@andyf4292 not winning doesn't exactly mean bad though. Just not quite good enough. We're actually quite excellent at most - even football which we literally never win, are still consistently reaching quarters, semis and even finals. We're a threat that can't seem to get that final step. I don't think that means we suck
4:50
Mozambique 🇲🇿 was indeed the first Commonwealth country never to have had _any ties whatsoever_ to the British Empire. 🇬🇧
That said, Namibia 🇳🇦 and Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬 (which both joined years earlier) were also never British colonies but rather _trust territories_ of South Africa 🇿🇦 and Australia 🇦🇺, respectively.
Britain did invade and kick out the Vichy French government in World War Two. So it was sort of part of the Empire for a few years before they gave it back to the French after the war.
@@Dave_Sisson I think you have your facts wrong. Mozambique was Portuguese until 1975. Namibia and PNG were German colonies until WW1. None of them had anything to do with the French.
@@caeruleusvm7621 Sorry. embarrassing late night brain fade. For some reason I was thinking of the island of Madagascar.
@@Dave_Sisson No problem. That was quite an interesting campaign. I know quite a few Malagasy who are positive about joining the Commonwealth. Almost all Madagascar's neighbours are members.
Also Mozambique borders English-speakers. From Tanzania to South Africa.
I'm the (paraphrased) words of the leader of Rwanda, "the Commonwealth represents good government". This is especially true with regards to Africa, where many of the wealthiest and most stable countries (Like Botswana, Kenya, etc). are former British colonies.
Guys, New Zealand became a dominion in 1907, Once again, we're missed out of history. Come on TLDR, do your research properly!
New Zealand? I think I've heard of it, but I can't find it on any of my maps.
I assumed it was fictional as it only exists in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings
As a Kiwi I honestly feel like they did it on purpose to max 'NZ left out again' comment engagement 🤣
New Zealand is that not a set on the back lot of pinewood studios?
First the globe now this video. Maybe nz is fake 😧🤣
the commonwealth seems a bit like an exclusive tea party that everyone who wants to seems sophisticated wants to join, but practically does very little
0:12. That is not an acronym, but an initialism. Acronyms are when the condensed letters are pronounced as a word (like NASA, Laser, Radar, Gif, NATO), initialisms are when you pronounce each letter seperately (BBC, USB, U.N.)
🤓
🤓
🤓
@@mabeSc The BBC is an initialism. Unless if you pronounce it "buhbuhtsuh" 😂
🤓
Somaliland would be great fit considering a shared history with most other members of the club and its strong adherence to the membership criteria and values of the organisation.
* Brittania Rule the Waves sounding from the horizon, slowly getting louder and louder *
I read a good book recently about the Commonwealth called "The Empire's New Clothes." The author struggles to come up with a justification for the Commonwealth's continued existence, arguing it's accomplished basically nothing, with even its supposed "role" in ending apartheid being largely overrated when compared to other, vastly more consequential factors. As is said in the video, its most unambiguous function is that it gives a random group of small countries the arbitrary privilege to occasionally interact with the leaders of large, rich countries, though the real-world consequences of this have been pretty slim as well.
I feel like British culture encourages Brits to have a lot of fantasies about the Commonwealth. I often meet British people who assume the reason they can fairly easily get a visa to live and work in Canada, for instance, is some sort of "Commonwealth" thing as opposed to just the overall generosity of the Canadian immigration system, especially for young western Europeans.
Never thought I'd see JJ here
My first thought is that there are different reasons why you would want to join the commonwealth depending on the country. The commonwealth at its economic core comprises, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India - each being wealthy nations. For developing countries the commonwealth provides another way for them to strengthen their economic and diplomatic relations, and (as pointed out in the video) a way to strengthen relations with their neighbour. Are there other international forums to participate in that provide the same function, sure. But if you're looking to improve the conditions in your country why wouldn't you take as many opportunities as you can.
For the developed member nations, the commonwealth is a way to exert soft-power globally, and maintain close cultural and economic ties with each other. I think the explosion in the popularity of CANZUK a few years ago is a clear expression of that desire (at least by the inner-anglosphere).
@@Altobrun Canzuk is literally nothing. And I think it’s very hard to argue Canada has particularly close relations with any “small” commonwealth member. Canada has incredibly bad relations with the world’s largest Commonwealth member, India, in fact.
@@JJMcCullough I'm fully aware of the issues with Canada-India relations. I would say Canada has good relations with the Caribbean Commonwealth Nations. I know for a fact the Canadian defence industry has worked with the Jamaican government on numerous occasions, and Canadian banks have worked closely with Caribbean banks and governments. Is this significant on a large scale for Canada, I'm not informed enough to say tbh, but idk if there would be a Canadian presence at all if there wasn't a commonwealth connection.
I used CANZUK as an example because (at least where I was at the time: Ontario and Nova Scotia) it seemed to be very popular regardless of its feasibility. I heard colleagues talk about it frequently, and even heard people around town talking about it, and (at least to my memory) always in a positive light. iirc it was even adopted as part of the CPC platform at one point. I know you're in BC so maybe it was different over there.
@@Altobrun There would obviously still be a Canadian presence in the Caribbean without the Commonwealth because we’re located in the same hemisphere! There was a Canadian presence in the Caribbean even before the Commonwealth was a thing! Relationships between countries are usually grounded in geographic proximity.
This is the same reason why “CANZUK” is such a dumb idea. It’s not grounded in geographic realities. Canada does not want or need to trade more with New Zealand. It’s too far away and no one in Canada cares.
Any group without the US, China, Russia, and the EU doesn't sound like a terrible idea
🇪🇺 Ayo WHAT DID WE DO
@@itryen7632 You have fr*nce 😞
All of those listed are the true enemies of global peace.
You should include UK in that list of yours too
@@pavankumaryendru817 i mean EU + Commonwealth...thats how the UK really min-maxes its international standing.
I don’t think it would ever happen
However, an commonwealth Union which focuses in trade much like the European Single Market would work quite well
too ambitious, remember britain exited EU because of the inability to control her borders (and many other factors). Why would India, Australia, Canada, Bangladesh and Pakistan get into the british commonwealth without getting something back in return? which for most developing economies are more visas for their citizens.
Hardly. Commonwealth nations are far too geographically dispersed for a common market to make any logistical sense.
Cecil Rhodes (of _Cape-to-Cairo_ and _Rhodes Scholarship_ fame) proposed turning the British Empire into a single kingdom with all parts of her electing members of Parliament.
This, however, would have made white people a minority at Westminster, and while that may be accepted today, it certainly wasn't in the 19th Century.
You do realize that most brexiteers supported the EEC the prelude to the EU before they went power mad and undemocratic?
@TheToastieCakes I mean it already existed. For a long time britian had the "Imperial preference system" which was essentially a common market
"A republic with its own monarchy"...? Make that sentence make sense please.
India was never a unified monarchy? It went straight from being a British colony to a democratic republic. What are they talking about?
@@abhimanyudas7621 Actually not true. India gained independence as the Union of India in 1947. The Union was a dominion which retained the monarchy despite being an independent state, with George VI holding the title King of India. India only became a republic in 1950, 3 years after independence
@@LordDim1 So in a similar way to Canada before the split of Pakistan and India?
@@mabeSc Yes just like Canada but it was after partition. Upon partition and independence both Pakistan and India became independent states but retained the monarchy. India became a republic in 1950, with George VI being the only King of India, but Pakistan retained the monarchy all the way until 1956, meaning that Elizabeth II was actually Queen of Pakistan for 4 years. This situation has the somewhat hilarious consequence of meaning during the First Indo-Pakistan war King George VI was technically at war with himself because in his capacity as King of India he was at war with the King of Pakistan, which was himself
@@abhimanyudas7621 It became independent in 1947 and became a republic in 1950 after 3 years with King George VI as King of India.
There's something oddly satisfying in hearing an Englishman say the word "Empire"
Shouldn't be satisfying...The concept is no dear at all
@@terrapinalive6192 This would be why it's 'odd'
I'm South African and I agree.
@@terrapinalive6192”stop finding stuff I dislike interesting! ”
“Under Elizabeth the first, when settlers successfully set up a colony in Jamestown”…. Which was named after James VI/I who was king after Elizabeth I had died?
Yes and Virginis after her
2:10 actually, NZ slots in between here at 1907
Somehow, the British Empire has returned.
I think people have a nostalgic view of the English that is seldom reflected in England. I wish them well and look forward to a future where former/never colonies espouse the virtues they champion just as the memory of them fades in the homeland
Nah, no one likes England, most prefer Americans at this point.
@@luka3174not true, a large number of -weirdos- indians want to be under British rule again, it's very odd.
Lol no one outside England and the white colonies are nostalgic of the Empire LMAO. I'm a Malaysian and i have not heard of a single Malaysian with that view.
@@luka3174 That is such an incredibly weird and blatantly untrue thing to say that I must assume that you're trolling.
@@giantWario I'm Australian, maybe 90 years ago people liked england, but they kinda trolled us in ww2 and USA saved us. Also reckon most people here are anti-nobility. India is even worse, all of my Indian mates are extremely anti western countries especially UK, holding onto colonization grudges.
"Oh my God! Okay its happening. Everyone stay calm" - Michael Scott
"Lose groupings of states that... nonetheless seem to enjoy hanging out." I think we cannot underestimate how much of diplomacy is just diplomats who like to hang out LOL
To just say "followed by South Africa in 1910" completely glosses over the Second Anglo Boer War, therefore I believe that a follow up video about the leadup to that decision in 1910 needs to be made.
The video isn't about the Anglo-Boer War? It's about the Commonwealth.
0:08 In Australia we always pronounce it as an acronym like "Choggem". I don't know if the English usually do or not or just TLDR doesn't know?
As someone from the UK I don't even have a fucking clue what choggen could even be referring to
😂@@benjaminjankowski4488
I'm South African. African countries say "Chogom"
Amongst people who know of it, we do use "Choggom". But I think people probably don't really know about it!
I am from a non-commonwealth country and have never heard it said out loud. But I always assumed it must be pronounced "Chogum" because the alternative was too unwieldy
5:44 Oh, chill with the British self-deprication a bit. We are amazing at sport, objectively so. We hold some of the top global sporting events and compete competitively in so many globally appreciated sports (Cricket, Tennis, Athletics, Cycling, Football, Boxing, Rugby etc.)
The British are strong at self-deprication except on the issues that really matter
We hardly win in any of those. We keep getting beaten time and time and again. We invented football and we haven't won anything of value since 1966.
Don't forget alot of the motorsports championships have brits in the top five usually.
@@antiwufei553 You and who hardly win?
@@antiwufei5537 x Champions League winners, something no other nation can say. Celtic, Man Utd, Liverpool, Forest, Villa, Chelsea and Man City
TLDR News: The Commonwealth Games where us bris get to pretend we're amazing at sports
Australia: Hold my Tooheys!
It was a very well presented and very interesting video thank you. Go Australia.
I've always liked the Commonwealth on principle, but never realised that it was getting larger. I'd assumed it'd just gradually fade away over time, so it's nice to know that's not the case, and that it actually does something useful.
It really throws a wrench in the typical framing of empire/colonialism being g bad and unwanted.
@@umwhaIt was/is bad. This half-assed entity doesn't change facts.
@@antiwufei553 it’s easy to say it’s bad, yet in practice people from Africa are voting with their feet and flooding into England to the tune of over a thousand a week.
More africans are falling under English rule today by choice than we’re ever subject to English rules via colonialism.
Ireland, get your shit together. It's been long enough. We want you back in the team.
Don’t think it’ll happen mate
Ireland is in a climate crisis, so...
"get your shit together" bruh
I think Ireland wants nothing to do with the uk
I would support all of Ireland being in the Commonwealth. It would be one fewer obstacle to Irish re-unification and maybe Dublin could host a future Commonwealth Games, an event that's future is currently looking uncertain at present.
I find it funny that some of France's former colonies have wanted to join, particularly Algeria and Madagascar.
The virgin British Commonwealth vs the chad Imperial Federation.
Canada is the only country that has Victoria Day, in celebration of Queen Victoria. It’s basically the big holiday to kick off the summer.
I think even Australia has something similar
It's like a chatting group of old school 😂
Imagine if the Commonwealth was a trade union?
Racing subsidies // national debts... 💯😂
Minor quibble: Australian colonies were more independence than not before Federation. Managing taxation, voting, infrastructure spending etc., etc.
Britain giving up Empire is 1 of the greatest tragedies of Western history
2:00 just a design suggestion, blocks of all-caps text are harder to read than lowercase
The commonwealth might be expanding but the commonwealth games is basically dead.
The Olympics doesn't have much life left in it either.
FYI, The king is not head of India. India is a free democracy unlike UK.
Nobody said he was. I think you'll find the UK is a democracy, and one that India basically copied.
TLDR team, you may want to revise the Description. It features a funding link that is no longer functional, and fails to provide the current link to your online store.
Instructive video. Thanks for providing it.
I may be mistaken, but I get the sense that the Commonwealth is indeed a mostly diplomatic organization. Which is a good thing. It is nearly always a good thing when different nations give themselves the opportunity to peacefully learn more and listen more to each other.
Diplomatics, even more than politics, dwells on a lot of intentional ambiguity and even deliberate paradoxes. It is hardly your fault, but I could not help but find it funny when (2'45") you reminded us that there was a decision to declare equalilty of status among members. I am fairly sure that status does not work that way. Still, there are not many other ways of being diplomatic.
The Sun never sets on the Commonwealth.
Well, you may have lost the Indian Ocean Territory but at least the Commonwealth is growing.
I want to see closer economic ties with commonwealth nations.
Most of them have high poverty rates and rapidly growing populations.
We should invest in their infrastructure and industry.
1. It will benefit us, by strengthening Britain's "soft power" and by providing sources of cheap manufactured goods, similar to China.
2. It will benefit them by improving stability and quality of life, and creating local jobs.
3. It can reduce migration, by giving people living in developing nations fewer incentives to leave to work in the UK or other developed nations directly.
4. It can weaken China, by providing alternate sources of cheap manufacturing, and by reducing taking away opportunities for the Chinese to invest in these developing nations themselves (which they are currently doing on a large scale as part of their "belt and road" initiative).
We're hosting CHOGM and the beauty of putting Samoa on the global scale...!!
the funding link is broken: Oops! That page can’t be found.
It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search?
Also where is the poster?
is that zac brown at 5:53? lol
lol yeah
No-one wants to host the Commonwealth Games anymore though! As I recall, Durban spat the dummy and subsequently Melbourne did too?
The empire strikes back
In Malaysia, we pronounce the acronym Chogm as a word.
It is, not a throwback to empire but an acceptance of the fact that it did happen and whether you like the empire or not, it affected everyone.
The commonwealth actually does do a lot. You're regarded as a citizen in each country no matter what from a legal rights perspective and get other perks..
The Commonwealth was useful in ending aparthied.
As Zimbabwe demonstrated, it also provides some protection fro good governance. Governments do not want their countries to fall into disrepute, and having something like the Commonwealth criticising when they do bad helps keeps things somewhat orderly. This is actually the same reason many countries like Canada, NZ, and Aus keep the Monarch as head of state, simply because it helps keep things orderly... even if not entirely necassary.
It may be that a mroe developed Commonwealth may become the UN replacement in 100-200 years, since unlike the UN, the Commonwealth does not have veto powers in a few countries, a situation that is very contentious in the UN.
I don’t think having King Charles as head of state in sovereign nation in this day and age would be a good indication of a government’s behavior.
@@christianbolisca1493 i think you missed the point. The monarch in NZ/CAN/Aus is more of a figurehead who only has power in a very extreme situation. Essentially a Fascist situation is impossible in such countries because the monarch can dissolve the parliament if it gets to such a situation.
Consider that people are warried about Trump becoming a fascist leader in the US, well in Australia that is not a worry because such a leader would be removed very quickly by dissolving the parliament.... which is never needed since parliament is aware such a thing could be done so they don't try it.
Basically itis like a watchdog that never bites. You dont bother it and it wont bother you.
The monarch is not only ceremonial. The monarch has reserve powers. The Prime Minister rules at the pleasure of the crown. Best example of exercise of reserve power was the dismissal of the Whitlam government in Australia where the Queen's representative dismissed a government which enjoyed the support of the House of Representatives The Governor General refused to take the advice of the elected Prime Minister. If you don't think this is possible in the UK you are crazy. In a crisis the monarch can dismiss the prime minister and appoint someone else. If push comes to shove the monarch is also the commander in chief of the armed services.
It can but it would ultimately spell the end of our constitutional monarchy if the monarch ever did such a thing out of line
The monarchy is not entirely ceremonial no, but that was not the claim. The claim was that the position of Head of the Commonwealth is entirely ceremonial, which it is. The Head of the Commonwealth for example does not appoint the Secretary-General or hold any power within the organisation
@@AmateurHEROduelistnot really. It's not unthinkable that the monarch would be asked to come down on constitutional issues. There was talk of it during brexit
Only in the commonwealth realm, which equates to 13 countries who have the king as their head of state.
@@lewis123417 It’s not just not unthinkable it has actually happened, though admittedly not in the UK.
In 2013 in the small pacific island country of Tuvalu, which retains the monarchy, the Prime Minister lost his parliamentary majority in a by-election. The opposition moved a vote of no confidence in the government but the PM refused to summon parliament. The Governor-General, the Queen’s representative, overruled the PM and summoned parliament anyway. The PM’s allies sabotaged the sitting preventing the no confidence vote, and then the PM wrote to the queen advising her to dismiss the Governor-General. Traditionally the monarch always follows the advice of their prime minister but in this instance the Queen refused. The Governor-General subsequently dismissed the PM and replaced him with the opposition leader
We are SO BACK
So, it’s useless, I what I learned. It doesn’t do anything useful but make people nostalgic for an empire that doesn’t exist.
Ireland would like out of your circle in the thumbnail
I'm a fan of the Commonwealth for the same reason I'm a fan of the monarchy: It annoys the Americans.
Does it though? I'd be surprised if many of them have even heard of it. From what I've seen some of them struggle to name another country besides 'Africa'
@@jwnomadAnecdotes don't mean anything.
This is just an anecdotal claim and can be dismissed on its weakness alone.
I can assuredly say the vast majority of Americans have no strong opinions at all about the Commonwealth. It just doesn't factor in their thinking. And many of them seem to actually like the Monarchy.
I guess annoying Americans is your only personality trait? They really make you jealous/angry themselves.
I guess the question is: should 🇺🇸 join the Commonwealth?
absolutely NOT, the US tends to dominate and take over every international body they join whether it's NATO, OAS or G7. More developed Commonwealth Countries like UK, Canada and Australia don't exercise hegemonic power to bully African, Caribbean and Pacific nations at CHOGM, but if the US joins that is exactly what they will do, the agenda will be whatever they want it to be and the world has had enough their hand being in everything. There should be organisations that are entirely free if their influence and the Commonwealth is perfect for that. In addition, the US will never accept any monarch as Head of the Commonwealth, they will want to replace King Charles with the POTUS and we cannot have that. I say KEEP THEM OUT
No , too full of themselves, it will become a UN 2.0
Make The Commonwealth Great Again!
Here we go again
The UK can still hang out with some guys after Brexit.
Commonwealth is good to expand.
5:30 the actual question
I only now am reminded that India is also a nuclear power. That's actually a great sign that they won't be the first to break the nuclear taboo when the war for Himalayan glacial meltwater resources eventually has to be settled. It is in Indian and Chinese culture as it is with the rest of us who all recognise that history had the right idea to keep war ritualistic with agreed melee combat over the civilians and not with the civilians.
3:29 India never had it's own monarchy post colonial rule
Yes it did from 1947 to 1950 with King George VI as the King of India.
yes, in fact the viceroy quickly became the governor-general with Lord Louis Mountabatten the last viceroy of the british raj and the first governor general of the dominion, followed by the indian statesman chakravarti rajagopalachari
Fun fact: Lord Louis Mountbatten was governor general of _both sides_ of the first Indo-Pakistani War.
@@Waterford1992
So all King George VI did while being "King" of India is watch as India and Pakistan went to an inevitable war over horrible borders drawn by the King's men in the UK? Sounds about right.
@@xijinpig8982 Not sure what that has to do with anything but ok and are you aware that the King has no say or control over anything really?
Good video.
3:32 it simpely makes no sence why you wouldn't say Queen in front of her name, but King in front of the rest.
It does seem like a dis doesn't it.
To be fair to them, most brits would say it like that. She was Queen so long that it went unsaid because no one could remember a time when she wasn't.
That may be due to them having more personal feelings to the Queen.
Hi Brit here. I would say habit. We have to say "King George the 6th" because he's unfamiliar and to emphasize who we're talking about. Everybody knows who one is talking about if you say "Elizabeth the 2nd". Similarly, many are used to calling King Charles the third: Prince Charles, Charles or The Prince of Wales. The title change is new.
I disagree with @SaintGerbilUK as I don't see it as a dis. Even royalists called the Elizabeth the 2nd that way when speaking about her in the third person. Monarchy is crap, it should be gotten rid of and the UK should leave the Commonwealth.
Nice... Charlie-boi gets to strut around and get people to bow to him... but how does this really benefit us (serfs)?
The tl;dr: some countries REALLY hate France lol
It's interesting that this video left out the only country to leave. Britain's neighbour, the Republic of Ireland, left in 1936. Of course, the UK didn't recognise it until it was formalised in 1949.
It seems the 700 years of occupation, and the disputed territory in the North of Ireland, left a bad taste.
That should hopefully be resolved in a generation or two as Christianity declines and as such so does loyalty to being protestant or catholic. So more will identify with their nationality than being tied to religion and which country that religion aligns with. That and leaving the EU against their own wishes left another sour taste.
I can definitely see a referendum within a generation or two. At the end of the day it's up to the people of Northern Ireland and that is enshrined in the good Friday agreement too.
@@vahalyr 700 years, that's nothing, I'm Welsh
the UK was supposed to be Canada's (possibly Australi's etc ?) backdoor into the EU market. But now, with brexit, there isn't much of a point.
It’s so important this happens. There needs to be another superpower that can confront the USA.
I’m cool with the commonwealth as a club as a Kenya, let’s just change that British monarch thing. I’m interested in knowing how in theory, the head can be from any country.
Unfortunately, there are some commonwealth member nations whose people have a fairly sentimental attachment to the monarchy. Or, at least they did to Queen Elizabeth II It's not clear yet if those sentiments were transferred over to King Charles III.
Expect the crown and Commonwealth to tread carefully before making any big changes.
But ... There's still a number of African dynasties who survive (even if they aren't in political power.). How cool would it be if an African Queen could be put in charge of the Commonwealth? I know this is a romantic idea on my part, but still ...
The commonwealth had a vote and unanimously chose King Charles to be head of the Commonwealth. If they had voted for somebody else then they would have been head. It's purely ceremonial anyway so people probably thought let's continue with tradition. The fact that the King has no political baggage probably means a lot too.
It's like a english only UN. Joining it only gives benefits and no costs
5:02
Are you serious? You literally mentioned Gabon, but not only it's not highlighted, it's also shown as part of (R)Congo for some reason...
Commonwealth expanding but commonwealth games dying is interesting.
Keep on CHOGMing on 😅
*Royal Britannia intensifies*
Perhaps former french colonies arr choosing to join tbe commonwealth js related to the hidden french empire which is a very much a more coeecive neo colonial project
It's really not nearly as "coercive" as some ideologues have claimed. It's almost entirely an economic international dynamic and if you actually listen to economists talk about it (instead of political activists), you'll hear more than one side of the story.
Was France less willing to let go of Empire than Britain? Yes. The history is fairly clear on this. But it wasn't quite as pernicious as some believe.
I do think it has caused France more POLITICAL problems than it was worth. Russia is really exploiting that lately - especially with its devious activities in the Sahel.
To be honest I thought this was gonna be about Bougainville
Many members were formerly French colonies but are now members of the Commonwealth
Only Togo and Gabon. Unless you're referring to the islands Britain took from France in earlier centuries.
Just when the Sun set on the British Empire for the first time.
Am I the only one to see the deep and severe irony in Algeria wanting to join the Commonwealth?
richard
--
No.
it is a pub
Which makes people happy and proud worldwide although the reality is pretty harsh 😂
So it just a tea party
did this guy used to have glasses or am I going crazy 😅
Well, it's clearly not pointless if countries are wanting to join, is it?
How may ex-British colonies and protectorates have dropped out of the Commonwealth? And why?
I honestly thought the British empire was back