NationStates Jolt Archive

Just an idea Now in a moment of clarity or a moment of madness i dont know yet. But i had an idea. Now my apologies go out to anyone who may have voiced this before but.....

What would happen and would it be possible to....

India, Kenya, Australia, Canada. The commonwealth, a collective of previously British countries who still have the Queen of England as their head of state. ( I really, as an Australian, cannot even know All of them. somewhere in the 100 - 130 range is it?? )

reform the commenwealth empire into an EU style super country, scattered around the world. Now this would also mean populations such as India could be given the option of moving to say, build a city on the west coast of australia, and of course 1 currency. Also, with so many countries involved, we would also have every natural rescource on the planet.

Now would such an idea actually be feasible??? my minds been over it a few times and i cant actually see a problem with it.

Comments??? :(

What commonwealth empire?

Also, what countries are you talking about?

Original Post isn't exactly crystal.

is that clearer?? ( sorry dude, still new to this mate )

You know you're a nerd when: you see commonwealth and think "Andromeda" - and you don't even like andromeda that much

I veto that suggestion. It sounds...so...weird.

India, with its rising economic and political power, won't be too satisfied to be part of an "empire" unless they are the head.

I doubt few nations would be willing, while it is possible it will never happen.

Will never happend to many countries would be unwilling particulary India who didnt exactly get the greatest deal from British imperialism.

yet they have starving millions and lack room with each day.

yet they have starving millions and lack room with each day.

The more reason to be independent and deal with their own issues, no? Unless they are on the verge of breakdown...

There is not much point in building closer relations with commonwealth nations but not the rest of the world. We may as well work on more free trade, and more freedom of movement between all countries. If you have free trade and peaceful relations with other nations then the fact that you get resources from another country is no different from getting resources from another state or province within your country. I'm not sure if Australia and New Zealand are intergrated enough to make a single currency practical. There's a chance that it would end up being a disadvantage for New Zealand, so it will be a long time before Australia and India will be able to share a currency. Fortunately calculators make exchange rate calculations easy and if needed we can use the current defacto world currency, the U.S. dollar.

So I suggest more of a world commonwealth. I mean this quite literally. All the people of the world working for their common wealth, or well being.

It's an interesting idea. I don't think it would work on a practical level, if only because of the scattered geographical location of the countries. I think it would be very hard to have economic/administrative bloc like Europe when very few of the countries have a common border & some of them are 20+ hours flying time away.

The idea works well for the EU for two main reasons:

1) They share borders, and are on a comman land mass. This makes trading easy, quick and hassle free, you can send something via train directly from east to west Europe, with minimal hassle.

2) The are all each others largest trade partners, they were all already trading with each other (for centuries) so each country is "famous" for producing a particular resource, and so this allows people to make informed economic decisions.


The two above reasons (and a third below) are why a Commonwealth style EU would not work, very few (if any) commonwealth countries share borders, and economically it would be unviable to trade over the large distances with the rapidity required (Australia to UK takes hours buy plane, impossible by train/truck, and takes the greater part of a year by ship). The third reason is that most of these countries are african nations and would "drag down" established economies like UK, Canada, Australia as well as emerging economies such as India. There is also to much of a cultural difference between commonwealth countries

Joseph Chamberlain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Chamberlain) wanted to do something similar and effectively turn all the Dominions of the Empire into one country, (as a side note he also hoped to regain the United States and make her a part of this) the idea never really took off however.
The kibosh was finally put on any such plans with the Statute of Westminster 1931. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931)

I like the idea of the Commonwealth of nations. As the U.S. erodes the significance of the U.N., smaller diplomatic groups of countries like the Commonwealth and the E.U. will become more important.
I don't think the Commonwealth countries should be as close as E.U. countries are, our links aren't as strong as theirs and there would be issues.

I dont think it would be a very good idea, primarily because it would just appear to the rest of the world to be a reborn British Empire. Although we might be quite pro-Empire and look favourably upon such an idea, no one in any other Commomwealth nation would, and many of them hate Britain so much that I don't think they could bring themselves to do it. As such it's totally impossible...

I don't see the point of it.

Anyway, the EU is hardly an example to emulate. The EU belongs with the "Don't Let This Happen To You" Crowd.

What about a neo-British empire, but without Britain as the head? What about one of the Commonwealth countries being the head of the empire? Perhaps on a rotating basis? Totally impractical I know, but interesting possibiliites nonetheless.

Aren't there calls in most of the larger commonwealth countries for them to become republics? I know a lot of people in NZ are keen for it to happen, but I don't think its worth the hassle.

Aren't there calls in most of the larger commonwealth countries for them to become republics? I know a lot of people in NZ are keen for it to happen, but I don't think its worth the hassle.

That's true, I'm a republican myself, although not in the USA meaning of the word. I believe we should should have our own head of state, nothing against Lizzie of course, she's a lovely lassie. I don't see why we can't become a rebublic and still retain our ties with our traditional friends/remain within the Commonwealth of Nations.

yet they have starving millions and lack room with each day.
..And more than enough of them come to Canada as it is.

Aren't there calls in most of the larger commonwealth countries for them to become republics? I know a lot of people in NZ are keen for it to happen, but I don't think its worth the hassle.
New Zealand isn't a larger commonwealth country =P

With the whole republican thingy in Australia a few years back I supported the idea, but now I see a lot of value in being a member of the Commonwealth of countries. It's always good for a country to be a part of a group of countries with a strong(ish) standing in the world rather than just be republics. Republics are boring. Countries need to be part of something larger to be pressured into doing the right thing by the rest of the world, not just for their own benefit.

I personally dont like the idea. Being a rather patriotic Canadian I would find it hard to just haul up roots and join some sort of mega-nation. Each of the commonwealth nations have their own traditions/currencies/capitals/etc etc and to try and blend them all would be a nightmare, both logisticly and to those who love their countries as they are.