Commonwealth

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#21

Zimbabwe was still very successful until a few years ago when Comrade Bob, beloved of the British left, went mad.

I guess it depends on how you define “a few years” and “successful”, my ex-girlfriends family had to leave Zim 5 years ago because the economic situation had totally screwed the family business, (brick factory; when Africans are better off, they will often buy a few bricks a week to add to their homes. Once the economy started slipping down the pan, they stopped buying.) and they were never terribly enamoured with Mugabe, they felt the country had been going down the pan ever since Bishop Wotisface got ousted in 1981/2. They did agree that Mugabe had really started losing the plot since they left though.

It’s a shame Mbeki is still being a prick and won’t stop supporting Mugabe, otherwise I can’t see it getting a lot better there. ZANU-PF won’t be folded while they have that support and subsequent legitimacy, I don’t think. I have also heard rumblings that SA might be seeing some ‘land reform’ soon, as the old ANC hard core are starting to rumble, and Mugabe getting away with it has given Mbeki confidence that the international community will let him get away with it. Thoughts anyone? (PArticularly SQ military!)

#22

good post! south african politics=MESSED UP :!: (thts all i got to say ((for now)))

#23

good post! south african politics=MESSED UP Exclamation (thts all i got to say ((for now)))

Well I hope you don’t get any ANC ‘war’ (terrorist :x ) vets squatting in your house in the near future, I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy,let alone you. :x :x

Just out of interest, whereabouts in the country are you located?

#24

Today, the “Commonwealth” is only a word. The British Empire ended in the early 20th century. The Queen has no political authority whatsoever. The UK today has no military or political authority over any nation outside the British Isles. Britain no longer taxes other nations because she can. There is no more sharing of another country’s wealth with GB. GB is not a superpower. There is no longer a “Commonwealth”.

Like that band in the 70’s said…

“I keep holding onto yesterday…”

#25

Mid 20th Century is probably more like it.

To say that Commonwealth is only a word suggests that your understanding of it extends as far as the correct spelling and little further. To save me reproducing entire websites, I direct your attention to www.thecommonwealth.org . I didn’t realise how much it actually did - most impressive.

And finally, the powers of the Queen. I wish I had as little political authority as the Queen. To get start, she can dissolve the parliaments of (to name a few) the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ at will. No need to refer to elected officials at all. In 1975, the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General of Australia, dissolved the Australian parliament (without, I believe referring back to Her Maj. first, which ruffled a few feathers on both sides of the globe). A quick investigation reveals that the Governor-General in New Zealand can be even more specific, having the authority to fire Prime Ministers, refuse to allow an election and block legislation. The Queen’s political powers are actually an important safeguard on the democratic nature of the UK, her Empire and Commonwealth.

Again, to prevent misunderstandings: I state now that I know I have cited the greatest powers the Queen has. In other Commonwealth countries she has varying degrees of authority, often none at all.

Edited to add: The post above has been stealth edited. Not only that, but stealth edited to make it appear as if I have not properly addressed the points raised. I’m sure there are site rules about such underhand behaviour.

#26

Whatever. It’s over isn’t it? So is the “Commonwealth”.

Holy guano Batboy. You’re wack. There is no nation today over which Britain has the political authority to dissolve it’s government. You are in outers space dude. Come back.

:lol: She said it was so and waved her wand and it was magically delicious! Sure. I imagine the Aussies fell for that one eh? They just went along with it eh? Puleeeeze. Come back to Earth. Come back!

Hell, the US is the only real superpower in the world today. I guess if we parked an aircraft carrier on the coast of New Zealand, the Governor-General in New Zealand would not show up for work either. Having the military might to get your way does not equate to political control or a willingness of the people.

You need to prevent your own mis understandings. There is no Commonwealth any more. Britain does not tax any nation, there is no sharing of wealth with Britain as they share it with each other by economic cooperation, Britain has no political authority over a collection of nations.

Read this carefully.

[b]“The Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II, is the Head of the Commonwealth; this title, however, does not imply any political power over member nations.”

“The Commonwealth is not a political union of any sort, and does not allow the United Kingdom to exercise any power over the affairs of the organization’s other members.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commonwealth[/b]

Now go back to the song.

#27

Another example of not reading the provided info (and the official site of the Commonwealth definitely trumps its wikipedia entry). It does an awful lot for something that supposedly doesn’t exist, eh? And I guess that if it didn’t exist, Zimbabwe couldn’t have been kicked out of it recently?

Blatant trolling, methinks…

#28

Yes, I read it, and so did you. I suppose all sources are incorrect because you want them to be. :lol:
Here is the information. Read it again.

[b]“The Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II, is the Head of the Commonwealth; this title, however, does not imply any political power over member nations.”

“The Commonwealth is not a political union of any sort, and does not allow the United Kingdom to exercise any power over the affairs of the organization’s other members.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commonwealth[/b]

Now go back to the song.

#29

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

Holy guano Batboy. You’re wack. There is no nation today over which Britain has the political authority to dissolve it’s government. You are in outers space dude. Come back. [/quote]

On the contrary. I even gave an example of when this has happened and yet you still come screaming back like a small child after too many e numbers! Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second has the authority to dissolve the parliaments of a number of countries, not limited to the following:

New Zealand: http://www.gg.govt.nz/role/powers.htm
Australia: http://www.gg.gov.au/html/fset_role.html
Canada: http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role-crown_e.asp

The Queen will usually act through her representative, the Governor-General, in these matters.

Maybe next time you’d care to be a little less rude about me whilst displaying more ignorance about the subject at hand.

#30

She’s the Queen of Canada, NZ, Australia as well as large chunks of the Bahamas & some other small rocks in various places. And she does have the power to dissolve parliaments in many places - in fact, she (or the Governor General on her behalf) dissolves them before elections.

The Commonwealth has nothing to do with taxation - where do you get this stuff from?

#31

Why is it that the Wikipedia entry on the Commonwealth is seen by some to carry more weight on matters pertaining to the Commonwealth than the website of the Commonwealth?

Try harder IRONMAN. Your trolling is normally challenging to prove, but today I’m afraid your heart just isn’t in it. You’ve been proven totally wrong in less than three pages. Previously, you’ve managed to be misinformed for over 20, despite our best efforts. Now that your trolling is done, can the rest of us have a normal debate without wild, unsbstantiated claims being thrown about.

Many thanks, Crab_to_be

#32

I’m not sure exactly where he got it from, but I suspect his fingers are brown after digging for it.

#33

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

She said it was so and waved her wand and it was magically delicious! Sure. I imagine the Aussies fell for that one eh? They just went along with it eh? Puleeeeze. Come back to Earth. Come back! [/quote]

Yes, they did. Try a little googling for it, or even your beloved wikipedia. Only one person in the entire world disputes that it happened, and that person would be you. I suggest you find LargeBrew (I think) and borrow his spanner to assist you in winding your neck firmly back in.

As a parting comment, would you mind being a little less confrontational about your replies. It makes you look silly, especially when you are utterly wrong, as is the case here.

#34

I suppose that the games in Melbourne will be cancelled then.

Then again I must have made up the fact that the final court for a number of Caribbean countries is the House of Lords.

JAMAICA — Human rights and fundamental freedoms — Mandatory death penalty for murder — Whether compatible with individual’s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment — Whether amending legislation under which penalty imposed saved from invalidity as “existing law” — Offences against the Person Act 1864 (as amended by Offences against the Person (Amendment) Act 1992), s 3(1A) — Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council 1962, s 4(1), Sch 2, ss 2, 17, 26 (8.)

Watson v The Queen [2004] UKPC 34

PC: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Zacca J: 7 July 2004

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council so held when allowing the appeal of Lambert Watson against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica on 16 December 2002 of his appeal against the mandatory sentence of death imposed on him following his conviction in the Supreme Court of Jamaica on 18 September 1997 for two murders committed on the same occasion. The appeal was one of three heard together by an enlarged Board to arrive at a definitive ruling on the interrelationship of constitutional savings clauses and powers of modification: see Boyce v The Queen [2004] UKPC 32 and Matthew v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] UKPC 33.

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040825/cleisure/cleisure3.html

This issue is relevant because one of the pivotal arguments for retaining the Privy Council based in London as Jamaica’s final Court of Appeal is that the Privy Council would not be subject to political pressure as a Caribbean Court of Appeal. Based on the recent ruling of the British Court of Appeal, the Privy Council might be immune to the Caribbean political situation but it would be susceptible to the British political climate. That detainees, who are suspected of being involved or associated with terrorism, can have their statements, given under the pressure of torture, used against them in a court of law, shows that the political climate of Britain, which has placed that territory on high alert for terrorism, influences the judiciary.

edited to change the smily to an 8 in hte first quote.

#35

I’ve heard nothing that negates:

“The Queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II, is the Head of the Commonwealth; this title, however, does not imply any political power over member nations.”

“The Commonwealth is not a political union of any sort, and does not allow the United Kingdom to exercise any power over the affairs of the organization’s other members.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commonwealth

I mean, isn’t this really common knowledge around the world? Hey, I’m all for Britain. But the Queeen is a figurehead, a ceremonial icon. Surely the English Bill of Rights and all that came afterward has not been undone.

#36

You’ll notice that I have never disputed that the being a Commonwealth member implies any kind of political control or authority by the UK. In fact, I specifically state that the authority over Commonwealth countries by the Queen varies from the powers already described to none at all.

Take note that ‘does not imply any political power’ is not the same as ‘has no political power’.

I believe it is fair to say that all countries where the Queen holds political authority are Commonwealth countries, although the Queen does not hold political authorities in all Commonwealth powers. It is also worth noting that the powers are those of the Queen, in her role as head of state, and not those of the government of any country.

The Queen is rather more than a figurehead and ceremonial icon in many countries, having the political powers described previously. That they are rarely used without the consent of the relevant government does not detract from the fact that they exist, and may be used without consent from any government. I believe that these powers are actually a strength of the democratic system in these countries.

Finally, in future would IRONMAN mind being less wild and abusive when disputing what I post. I bothered to type a post which is entirely factually correct, only to have it met with:

Both of these were posted in response to factually correct claims that could be easily verified by in less than a minute of googling. Stopping stealth editing would be nice too, especially as it’s a site rule.

#37

I’m unable to make a connection with the link provided, do you have another ?

#38

Just delete the full stop from the end of the url given. I tried it, and it worked for me.

Edited to replace ‘period’ with full stop. I don’t know why I bothered, seeing as the post is obsolete and may as well be deleted anyway. I must be bored.

#39

Problem fixed. I just went back and edited the posts so they should all work now. :smiley: Yea…

#40

“Period”? Have you gone over to the Rebels Crab?