4 ms·

As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people

As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island nations are one thing, but Canada? Australia? Dont get it

trhway 5y ago
do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? >their laws can be overriden at any time only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and i think it is no coincidence that their power was the most limited compare to the failed monarchies of Russia, Austria, Prussia. I'm kind of fascinated by the steel will and nerves of the Queen who is maintaining that image of "granny" and is making sure to not show any teeth - and thus she is accomplishing the grand task of the survival of the monarchy on her watch. It it like the only thing that keeps her going is the high chance of failure of the monarchy if Charles gets the crown and she just can't let that happen.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI No, the UK wasn't the only monarchy of a WWI belligerent to survive the war: On the allied side, Luxembourg, Siam/Thailand, and Japan survive to this day; Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Romania, Greece, survived WWI, and Hejaz and Nejd (the latter of which became the monarchy of Saudi Arabia) got monarchies created in WWI. On the central powers side, Bulgaria’s monarchy survived the war.
  - trhway 5y ago
    you're right. I kind of meant the big ones, emperors/empires. The Ottoman Empire is also in the list of the fallen ones.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? AFAICT, they go from paying for the Queen's ceremonial representative, the Governor-General, to paying for a elected ceremonial president.
rsj_hn 5y ago
It's evidence of a minimum viable standard for rule of law. Take, for example, Barbados, which is dependent on foreign tourism and foreign investment. If you are going to invest in Barbados, you'd like to know that your property rights will be respected, that contracts will be honored, and that there will be due process in case there is a dispute. Being a commonwealth nation is one of the things that helps sway that in your favor, particularly for small island nations, primarily due to the British history of respect for property, English common law (which is less amenable to be changed by fiat), and an impartial judiciary. Obviously that's not the only thing you'd look at, but it's one of the things you'd take into account. On the other hand if you are a major nation like Australia it doesn't matter. But if you are an island like Barbados, you need all the help you can get to demonstrate to investors that their investment will not be confiscated the next time some populist comes to power.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? Are you confusing leaving the Commonwealth with transitioning to a Republic? They are largely unrelated: many members of the Commonwealth have dropped the monarchy. > Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. The Commonwealth is neither a set of vassal states nor a defensive pact (and many of the Commonwealth nations have strong defense commitments from, and to, the UK. > Are people really so enamored by the crown? I think they are often happy with the relative lack of drama of a locally appointed non-executive “President” exercise ministerial functions without the even the symbolic prestige of being even a figurehead head of state, with a formal head of state with no interest in intervening in government. > Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? No, they probably realize that the actual power of a government actor isn't what's on a piece of paper but what people will back, and that intervention that is formally forbidden but political practical is a risk, while that which is formally permitted but politically impossible is none.
- unmole 5y ago
  > The Commonwealth is neither a set of vassal states nor a defensive pact Countries within the Commonwealth have gone to war against each other.
_ph_ 5y ago
One practical reason might be inertia. They have a system which doesn't have any urgent downsides, as the Queen is only formally the head of state but doesn't interfere with things. Which actually might be nice, as she is a known entity while an elected president might do a worse job. This could change quickly when the Queen dies. T Then there is the effort required to establish an alternative system, both on the design and implementation side. Such a change is a huge step legally. So people might not be in a huge hurry unless driven by need. And then there is of course the sentimental side. There is always a group of people who think the Queen should be the head of state and things shouldn't change. Even in many modern democracies, there are still a few supporters of monarchies. This all isn't of course driven by rational reasons. Just look at some of the sentiments driving the UK out of the EU despite pretty obvious risks for the trade which more and more manifest themselves by now.

trhway 5y ago

do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? >their laws can be overriden at any time only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and i think it is no coincidence that their power was the most limited compare to the failed monarchies of Russia, Austria, Prussia. I'm kind of fascinated by the steel will and nerves of the Queen who is maintaining that image of "granny" and is making sure to not show any teeth - and thus she is accomplishing the grand task of the survival of the monarchy on her watch. It it like the only thing that keeps her going is the high chance of failure of the monarchy if Charles gets the crown and she just can't let that happen.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI No, the UK wasn't the only monarchy of a WWI belligerent to survive the war: On the allied side, Luxembourg, Siam/Thailand, and Japan survive to this day; Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Romania, Greece, survived WWI, and Hejaz and Nejd (the latter of which became the monarchy of Saudi Arabia) got monarchies created in WWI. On the central powers side, Bulgaria’s monarchy survived the war.
- trhway 5y ago
  you're right. I kind of meant the big ones, emperors/empires. The Ottoman Empire is also in the list of the fallen ones.
throw0101a 5y ago
> do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? AFAICT, they go from paying for the Queen's ceremonial representative, the Governor-General, to paying for a elected ceremonial president.

rsj_hn 5y ago

It's evidence of a minimum viable standard for rule of law. Take, for example, Barbados, which is dependent on foreign tourism and foreign investment. If you are going to invest in Barbados, you'd like to know that your property rights will be respected, that contracts will be honored, and that there will be due process in case there is a dispute. Being a commonwealth nation is one of the things that helps sway that in your favor, particularly for small island nations, primarily due to the British history of respect for property, English common law (which is less amenable to be changed by fiat), and an impartial judiciary. Obviously that's not the only thing you'd look at, but it's one of the things you'd take into account. On the other hand if you are a major nation like Australia it doesn't matter. But if you are an island like Barbados, you need all the help you can get to demonstrate to investors that their investment will not be confiscated the next time some populist comes to power.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? Are you confusing leaving the Commonwealth with transitioning to a Republic? They are largely unrelated: many members of the Commonwealth have dropped the monarchy. > Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. The Commonwealth is neither a set of vassal states nor a defensive pact (and many of the Commonwealth nations have strong defense commitments from, and to, the UK. > Are people really so enamored by the crown? I think they are often happy with the relative lack of drama of a locally appointed non-executive “President” exercise ministerial functions without the even the symbolic prestige of being even a figurehead head of state, with a formal head of state with no interest in intervening in government. > Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? No, they probably realize that the actual power of a government actor isn't what's on a piece of paper but what people will back, and that intervention that is formally forbidden but political practical is a risk, while that which is formally permitted but politically impossible is none.

unmole 5y ago
> The Commonwealth is neither a set of vassal states nor a defensive pact Countries within the Commonwealth have gone to war against each other.

_ph_ 5y ago

One practical reason might be inertia. They have a system which doesn't have any urgent downsides, as the Queen is only formally the head of state but doesn't interfere with things. Which actually might be nice, as she is a known entity while an elected president might do a worse job. This could change quickly when the Queen dies. T Then there is the effort required to establish an alternative system, both on the design and implementation side. Such a change is a huge step legally. So people might not be in a huge hurry unless driven by need. And then there is of course the sentimental side. There is always a group of people who think the Queen should be the head of state and things shouldn't change. Even in many modern democracies, there are still a few supporters of monarchies. This all isn't of course driven by rational reasons. Just look at some of the sentiments driving the UK out of the EU despite pretty obvious risks for the trade which more and more manifest themselves by now.