Talk:Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Constitutional links to members

So this means that Portugal would be eligible, since it has a constitutional link with Mozambique. Or how about not only Portugal, but all the other EU members which have a constitutional link to the UK by being in the EU? TharkunColl 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is very much the point I was trying to make above. Taking a very literal interpretation, that would be one valid conclusion (indeed, they have constitutional links to 3 members: Cyprus and Malta, too). However, membership is decided on a case-by-case basis, and only those that would pass that discretionary test would be allowed in. It is simply implausible that they would. Similarly, it's a ridiculous statement that Germany or the Netherlands would be eligible for their past personal unions or that Honduras would qualify because it incorporates a tiny sliver of the Mosquito Coast.

Portugal is a more interesting case (Mozambique is in, Angola and East Timor want to join, Portugal once controlled most of East Africa; Goa is a state of India; Anglo-Portuguese Alliance is the world's oldest alliance, and so on). Nonetheless, I think it unlikely that anyone prominent would really say that Portugal qualifies.

To reverse this orgy of original research, I suggest that a proper scouring of reliable sources be done. I'm sure there have been lists of the obvious ones (the likes of Egypt, Republic of Ireland, and Burma), so that leaves just the Nicaraguas and Togos. If a constitutional expert thinks they qualify, then they should be included. Otherwise, they shouldn't be. Related to this, Eritrea was previously under qualifying countries, despite the quoted source by Victoria te Velde-Ashworth stating that Eritrea doesn't qualify. Bastin 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that when Norway applied it was rejected on the grounds that it had its own monarchy - something that is no longer grounds for rejection. Norway and the England have a long history of close relations and were in personal union under Canute the Great (he of the wet feet) from 1028 to 1035. TharkunColl 12:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Careful to not go that far back in time & when parts of areas were held , especially in contention/dispute. Part of being in a modern day organization such as this should still see commonality as the basis of being grouped up. Just got to wait & see what the outcome will be when a review on the matter is done in the forthcoming meeting. That-Vela-Fella 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the Membership Criteria really going to be changed?

I see references to the fact that the current members have agreed in principle to review the membership criteria to allow new members in that have not had constitutional links with current members. However, on the Commonwealth Secretariat website itself, the communique for the Summit in which this agreement in principle supposedly happen says nothing of it. In fact, here's the section of the communique that deals with Commonwealth membership, quoted in full:

Commonwealth Membership

• 87. Heads of Government reviewed the recommendations of the Committee on Commonwealth Membership and agreed on the following core criteria for Membership:
  • (a) an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances;
  • (b) in exceptional circumstances, applications should be considered on a case-bycase basis;
  • (c) an applicant country should accept and comply with Commonwealth fundamental values, principles, and priorities as set out in the 1971 Declaration of Commonwealth Principles and contained in other subsequent Declarations;
  • (d) an applicant country must demonstrate commitment to: democracy and democratic processes, including free and fair elections and representative legislatures; the rule of law and independence of the judiciary; good governance, including a well-trained public service and transparent public accounts; and protection of human rights, freedom of expression, and equality of opportunity;
  • (e) an applicant country should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions, such as the use of the English language as the medium of inter-Commonwealth relations, and acknowledge Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of the Commonwealth; and
  • (f) new members should be encouraged to join the Commonwealth Foundation, and to promote vigorous civil society and business organisations within their countries, and to foster participatory democracy through regular civil society consultations.
• 88. Heads of Government also agreed that, where an existing member changes its formal constitutional status, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership provided that it continues to meet all the criteria for membership.
• 89. Heads endorsed the other recommendations of the Committee, including a four-step process for considering applications for membership; new members being required to augment the existing budget of the Secretariat; and countries in accumulated arrears being renamed ‘Members in Arrears’. They also agreed with the Committee’s recommendations on Overseas Territories, Special Guests and strategic partnerships.

What I find strange is that one source claims members agreed in principle to change the rules, but the communique clearly states that "Heads of Government reviewed the recommendations of the Committee on Commonwealth Membership and agreed on the following core criteria for Membership: an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances....". It also seems strange that one significant change hasn't even been mentioned in the other sources or in this article: the fact that "Heads of Government also agreed that, where an existing member changes its formal constitutional status, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership provided that it continues to meet all the criteria for membership" - which means that should any Commonwealth realm now become a republic (and theoretically vice-versa) it will automatically continue in the Commonwealth unless in so doing it now fails other membership criteria.

Looking at the Committee on Commonwealth Membership's report itself it stated that Mozambique, after a decade of membership, should "cease to be regarded as an exceptional case" and that in the future there could "also be other new members, which may not have had an historic constitutional relationship with an existing member" but in that context "regional relationships with Commonwealth members should be recognized as especially relevant." Overall the summary of their recommendation on that point reads thus (italics added):

The Committee agreed that an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had an historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, or a substantial relationship with the Commonwealth generally, or a particular group of its members, for example, in a common regional organization.

I suspect this is to give leeway to allow countries like Rwanda to join, although others like Algeria would seem to have less grounds for admission.72.27.73.175 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, has this been further looked into & been made into policy yet as from the recommendations made? If need be, the source could be given & updated into the article here then on this matter as said above. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like this will become policy before or at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, but it still seems strange that two almost radically different conclusions are drawn from one meeting depending on the media you look at. The official communique says one thing and some newspapers say another (one of them was a Ugandan newspaper and perhaps that paper's journalist was somewhat partial to Rwanda joining the Commonwealth and so emphasized those aspects that would seem to pave the way for Rwanda's entry).72.27.93.49 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's eligibility

What would be the status of Puerto Rico in terms of being eligible for admission?75.47.161.42 08:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Ky

None whatsoever. It has never been ruled at any time by the British. That-Vela-Fella 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the United States were first admitted. Binabik80 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that the British took over the island for several months? It explains it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Puerto_Rico#Europeans_fight_over_Puerto_Rico--75.43.217.241 (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Several months during wartime would not count, otherwise other places held for a brief period of time under occupation would also need to be included. Also no significant time was given to have a British colony set up. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico's eligibility is a non-issue anyway since the place is a dependency of the USA and dependent territories of even current Commonwealth members are not eligible for membership unless they themselves also become independent. So the only way Puerto Rico could realistically be eligible is if it became independent after the USA joined the Commonwealth or if the brief periods of British military control over the island were taken into account should Puerto Rico become independent without the USA first joining the Commonwealth. In either case it really doesn't matter since Puerto Rico doesn't look close to figuring out what status is wants any time soon.72.27.73.175 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot that PR could become a state of the US. Then if the US joined PR would also be in. 12.216.166.246 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unreferenced claims

Right, I think it's about time the countries that people are claiming would qualify were based on reliable sources, rather than original research. Colombia would never get into the Commonwealth. When Castro claimed in 1996, on the visit of Secretary-General Emeka Anyaoku to Cuba, that Cuba qualified, it was a joke and is now used as an example of how ridiculous some of the claims of eligibility are.

Every item on the list requires a reference proving that an academic also thinks that they qualify. A reference saying that a country was briefly administered by the UK or Great Britain or England or Botswana is not enough; to qualify under Wikipedia's reliable source rules, it must state that they would qualify under that criterion. This has gone on for too long, given that this article could be a Good Article if it weren't for all the original research bolted onto the end. Bastin 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Prospective members queries

Three queries about prospective members:

1. If they ever gain full independence from Denmark, surely the Faroe Islands would be eligible? They were under UK administration during the German occupation of Denmark during WWII.
2. Given the wording of the Edinburgh Declaration, which refers to "a direct constitutional link with an existing member", wouldn't Portugal be eligible through its links with Mozambique?
3. Would Nicaragua be eligible, via the abandoned Mosquito Coast settlements?

Grutness...wha? 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly not on any of those counts. By the letter, of course, yes, they would, but the United Kingdom has administered a part of almost every country of the world at some point in its history or its predecessors' history. Accession is entirely at the discretion of the existing members, and, time and time again, they have rejected similar claims to the Faroes one above.

However, there are now new criteria, with a new round of applications and reports due at the CHOGM in November. We'll see how they're interpreted and if the likes of Rwanda get in. Nonetheless, whilst Rwanda has been heavily covered in the media, the above suggestions have not: because they're not plausible. If there is not a reliable source suggesting that these countries can become members, they ought not to be listed. Bastin 11:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Quebec

Under seccessionist movements, does Quebec belong there? It would seem to qualify under the Edinburough principles, but I'm not sure enough myself to add it. 216.121.141.237 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it most certainly does, as it has been repeatedly touted as a potential Commonwealth member by reliable sources. Added. Thanks for pointing that out. Bastin 03:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Misc

If racism and discriminatory constitutional provisions are grounds for disqualification, then why has Malaysia (which has an explictly racist constitution) remained a member in good standing? I wonder whether Fiji's constitution is really more intentionally discriminatory against specific ethnic groups than Malaysia's is...

Also, the link http://www.cpsu.org.uk/downloads/future_aide.pdf which is heavily relied on in the references, doesn't seem to work... AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There are minor tensions between Malaysia and Singapore over that issue, as both countries harbour ambitions of 'second-tier' leadership positions in the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, the difference is that so-called 'positive discrimination' ('affirmative action', but wait while I laugh at the concept) is tolerated almost universally for the purposes of development (unlike the discrimination in Apartheid-era South Africa, which did lead to its expulsion).

It's worth noting that Fiji's suspension was not on the grounds of racial discrimination, but for refusal to hold democratic elections. That hasn't been the case in Malaysia.

Thanks for pointing out that. I have updated the link to a *.doc version. Bastin 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "Affirmative action" in connection with Malaysia is quite misleading, since the purpose of Malaysian preferences is not to assist disenfranchised and historically marginal groups, but instead to yet further increase the entrenched power of the already politically-dominant group. Furthermore, "affirmative action" cannot cover the constitutional and legal provisions whose main purpose seems to be to prevent non-ethnic-Malays from exercising political power proportional to their share of the population of Malaysia.

I have no in-depth understanding of the Fijian situation, but it strikes me as quite odd that Malaysia's actions in creating a racially-defined dominant native bhumiputra class, and discriminating against descendants of long-ago immigrants from India are allowed to pass without any comment by the Commonwealth, while Fiji is severely censured for doing pretty much the same thing. And was Malaysia censured when the prime minister of Malaysia effectively fixed an election by putting the leading candidate to become the next prime minister on trial on transparently phoney trumped-up sexual immorality charges? AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Scessionist movements etc

So many other editors were clearly engaged in imaginative flourishes that I could not resist adding the Donegal entry below. I admit it is as nonsensical as the Hawii listing....But please, can we simply delete this sill specualtive section in its entirety? I've postes an important warning to readers to regard these entries as highly imaginative. Here it is:

Secessionist movements and other territories

There are several secessionist movements and other sub-national territories that, were they to gain independence, would be eligible to join the Commonwealth. The following countries would be eligible under the Edinburgh criteria (but not necessarily Harare):

• Hawaii:The Kingdom of Hawaii was a British protectorate from 1795-1843, and still retains the Union Jack in its flag. See legal status of Hawaii
• Palestinian National Authority: part of the British Mandate for Palestine until 1948. The Palestinian Authority has shown interest in joining the Commonwealth upon independence
• Quebec: as a province of Canada, a member since the Commonwealth's foundation. The Quebec sovereignty movement is a major political movement in Canada.
• Sikkim: Part of British protectorate until 1947, annexed to India in 1975
• Somaliland: former British protectorate until 1960 when it joined Somalia, has unilaterally seceded from Somalia but has yet to receive international recognition
• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus: Turkish part of the island of Cyprus
• West Papua: Indonesian occupied half of New Guinea island, which claims constitutional links with Papua New Guinea
• County Donegal: There may be a Donegal Liberation Front and if there is, if it achieves independence for Donegal, the Donegalese Republic would be eligible to apply for Commonwealth membership. However, the DLF has little prominence and a Donegalese Republic seems unlikely (but this is probably no less likely than Hawaii becoming independent etc) The reader should note that many of these entries are simply very imaginative.

-There is some support for a Donegalese Republic....Note: [1] and [2].

Regards. Staighre (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Other potential Commonwealth member

This is the text I inserted:

One could speculate at great length on the names of territories that could be eligible for membership some day if certain events happened that have not happened yet. For example, if Quebec cedes from Canada some day, it would fulfil the Edingburgh criteria (although not necessarily the Harare criteria). The same too would apply if Scotland, County Donegal or East Uganda became sovereign states. In a smilar vein Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom each have dependent territories that are not eligible for Commonwealth membership because they are not sovereign states. Like Scotland, County Donegal and East Uganda, they would be similarly eligible for Commonwealth membership if they attained independence. The following article: List of dependent territories contains a list of dependent territories of each of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Given the endless possibilities for new states to be formed, it serves no useful purpose to single out those particular territories (such as Scotland or the Falkland Islands) and list them in this article.

I know there is a strong desire among many to list off territories where "dependencies" fly a "mother-country" flag etc...But the above is a far more logical explanation....Why on earth should the Falklands be specifically listed but places like Scotland not be? I would of course, prefer to delete the speculative nonsense in its entirety. This is an encyclopedia, not a "magic ball" or "tabloid". Regards. Staighre (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This section fails the MOS as it is a self-reference, so I have removed it. I have replaced it with a comment (visible only to those editing the article) reminding users of WP:CRYSTAL, and requesting that a source be provided for any entity to be listed there. Any new entry that is included without a source should be removed. Pfainuk talk 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

United States eligibility

The date of their sovereignty could be considered POV, they declared independence on 4 July 1776. They had already been in open armed rebellion for over a year. They unequivocally won the revolution. The Treaty of Paris was signed on 3 September 1783 at which point the Crown acknowledged their sovereignty. But other sovereign states recognized the sovereignty of the United States much earlier than 1783 and France entered the war as an ally of the United States in 1778, even signing a Treaty with them that restricted Frances ability to negotiate treaties with other nations (they were always referred to in the plural at that time). There is no point quibbling over the exact date of sovereignty or the last date they were technically colonies. We should just say that they were simply "former British Colonies", and only some of them were British Colonies, many were never held or claimed by the Crown.

The whole idea seems sort of spurious, the Declaration of Independence directly and unequivocally rejects the Crown as having any continuing role, even as a mere figurehead.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright then since putting a date on when it actually took effect would seem contentious, stating it in a neutral way would be the proper way of doing it. Thanks. That-Vela-Fella 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What constitutional association?

I haven't seen anything associating the USA with any existing Commonwealth member in the US Constitution, except for the language. So I'd suppose a constitutional amendment would be needed for Commonwealth membership (and even then, I'd suppose that Canada would make a better "link" than old England). 192.12.88.7 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirteen of the states that are party to the Constitution were formerly British colonies (the Commonwealth of Virginia is the exact same institution that once styled itself the Colony of Virginia). Most of the others are sited on at least some territory that was one British colony or another. Bastin 15:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Philippines

Can the Philippines be considered an eligable Commonwealth member? It was occupied by the British from 1762-1764 and it was a former colony of the United States (another eligable Commonwealth member). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.200.107 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Two years of temporary military occupation of only one part of the country is not enough, and being related to another eligible country is also not a criterion (although, indisputably, were the USA to join - and it is eligible - the Philippines could after that). However, feel free to prove me wrong by verifying that it is eligible using reliable sources. Bastin 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Of course the Philippines could join....Almost any country can join now....Rwanda has just done so even though it had no linkes to England at all. 84.203.72.24 (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Map

The idea of a map showing the 'maximum extent' of the Commonwealth is absurd. It is predicated on conjecture, and not verified by reliable sources. For it to be a useful addition, the following has to be proven:

1. That no other countries qualify. Proving a negative seems very difficult to me. It claimed, for example, that Rwanda did not qualify. And, yet, Rwanda's now a member. Thus, it clearly was not a depiction of maximum extent; it was a depiction of what we've found reliable sources to show. That isn't the same.
2. That the territories that are depicted all qualify. The map was not related to the list of referenced claims in this article. As such, it included personal opinions and original research that is unacceptable.
3. That the existence of the map would be useful or something that a reliable encyclopaedia would produce if it had infinite space.

I don't see how any of these has been realised. Bastin 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you can argue away one of the problems with having the map in there (I think I know which map you mean). The territories involved in the map in question were correct as of the article's list at that time of creation. The C of E (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

But that only serves any purpose as a self-reference (what would the caption be, except 'These countries have been verified as eligible for Commonwealth membership by Wikipedia editors'?), which Wikipedia should avoid. Oh, yeah, for the record, it's this image. Evil. Bastin 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I must also agree, having a map like this just makes things more confusing, since some states on there may never join and others that may get accepted (like Rwanda recently) are left out. The map will also create more problems, as in changing edits every time a state is added or deleted from this article. It does seem to be total guess work & as said before, not reliably sourced. Having a map for the sake of something visual is odd, at least in this sitution. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make a similar point about a table on this article. It seems to be too subtle for some people. jnestorius^(talk) 10:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the map idea...even if it is a piece of nonsense....the only thing is, I would not agree with the map because now any country (except maybe very undemocratic ones like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea could joint the Commonwealth. No historic link with England or any other Commonwealth country is needed. Rwanda has just joined....Hence such a map would cover most of the world....84.203.72.24 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh and Kampala

GettingOut's obsession with deliberately conflating the Edinburgh Declaration (issued in 1997 and establishing the membership criteria until 2007) and the Kampala Communiqué (2007, reaffirming Edinburgh except weakening the constitutional link clause, and establishing the current criteria) is getting tiring. It covers multiple articles. I have attempted to expand this article to make reference to Kampala without losing the history (it's in a section called 'History'), and he or she has repeatedly reverted it to a format that, as I have stated, conflates Edinburgh and Kampala.

Burying major changes under loads of minor edits is exactly what an editor not interested in consensus and improving the encyclopaedia would do, and is not the hallmark of supposedly 'reverting manually', as his or her edit summary claimed. Bastin 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not been trying to burry anything. I made a substantive change by inserting that the membership criteria as laid down at Kampala in 2007 is as follows:

":*(a) an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances;

• (b) in exceptional circumstances, applications should be considered on a case-by-case basis;
• (c) an applicant country should accept and comply with Commonwealth fundamental values, principles, and priorities as set out in the 1971 Declaration of Commonwealth Principles and contained in other subsequent Declarations;
• (d) an applicant country must demonstrate commitment to: democracy and democratic processes, including free and fair elections and representative legislatures; the rule of law and independence of the judiciary; good governance, including a well-trained public service and transparent public accounts; and protection of human rights, freedom of expression, and equality of opportunity;
• (e) an applicant country should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions, such as the use of the English language as the medium of inter-Commonwealth relations, and acknowledge Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of the Commonwealth; and
• (f) new members should be encouraged to join the Commonwealth Foundation, and to promote vigorous civil society and business organisations within their countries, and to foster participatory democracy through regular civil society consultations."

That is in the article now so I am satisfied with that....You had insisted on removing it previously. GettingOut (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

China

Hong Kong was a British colony, and since Hong Kong is part of China, wouldn't that qualify China for membership? The dog2 (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. Please provide a reference from a reliable source to verify it. Thanks. Bastin 08:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On the same basis, both Germany and Spain would qualify for membership via Heligoland and Minorca, which were British colonies during the 19th and 18th centuries respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.239.213 (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. They were once included in the article. I requested a reference suggesting that they qualified. One wasn't forthcoming, so they were deleted. I am now going to delete the other ones that have been tagged since 2008. Bastin 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not yet part of China, It's under their control but it is a separate entity from China until at least 2047 The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Hong Kong is a part of PR China, but under one country, two systems, they are allowed to maintain 'capitalism' until that date. Bastin 11:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Prospective members

I have two qualms with the 'Prospective members' section as it is:

• Whilst the original purpose of this article was to list countries that could qualify under the first Edinburgh criteria (that is, having constitutional links to another Commonwealth member), I think it ill-advised to treat it as though that were the only requirement. Many (if not most) of the existing countries that qualify under Edinburgh would fail miserably under Harare, making a mockery of the idea that these countries all qualify. The disclaimer must be given greater weight, although I struggle to see how that would be executed without incorporating the change into the section title or adopting the inherently POV practice of individually assessing each country's Harare credentials.
• Although I initiated the expansion of the list, I have now reconsidered. Fundamentally, the criteria are assessed by the CHOGM, which rules on whether the constitutional links meet the standard required. Yes, Tangiers (1661-1684) and Tortuga (1631-35) were briefly British in the seventeenth centuries, but I doubt that such qualifications would have any bearing on the CHOGM's decision today. Even periods of possession of Minorca (1714-83) and Weihaiwei (1898-1930) would have trouble persuading any reasonable person that Spain and PR China belong in the Commonwealth. Thus, the measure should be interpretated as the CHOGM would: direct constitutional predecession or personal union. Under that definition, Libya, Senegal, and France would still qualify, but Haiti, Greece, and Honduras wouldn't.

Any approval or amendment of either point would be appreciated.

Bastin 18:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On 30-Dec-2009, Bastin's edit was:

• Remove France - that was the 50s, not today; find a reference that says they'd qualify under the current criteria

I think this edit needs to be re-considered, as :

• By Bastin's own comment (dated 20-Sep-06, above) "France would still qualify"
• The introduction to this section says "There are a range of other countries that have expressed formal or informal interest in joining the Commonwealth or have merely made enquiries about membership (expressing no view on whether they wish to become members), despite not meeting the Edinburgh criteria as they are now" - no mention of the "qualify under the current criteria" rule Bastin now seeks to impose

So for reasons of internal consistency, therefore, can I contend my original edit should be restored?

Somersetlevels (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't 'internal consistency'. My position has changed in the past 3 years, as can be seen below. Wikipedia's policy has not changed, and has demanded references throughout, but, as the encyclopaedia has improved, adherence to those standards has become stricter (one consequence of this is that there are now hundreds of former featured articles). And no matter what criterion you are using, you need references to back up the assertion that the government of France has expressed interest. Bastin 11:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguably whether or not Wikipedia has "improved" is a subjective judgement based on whether one tends to an "Inclusionist" or "Deletionist" posture. I tend towards the former, but accept I may have an unreasonably high expectation that all readers should exercise crictial skepticism of anything that they read on the Internet. I bow to the deletionist approach if that is the consensus of this page's editors. NRN (no response necessary). Somersetlevels (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Greece

Are Greece eligable for membership as part of their territory (Ionian Islands) were once part of The British Empire as a British Proctorate? Surely it would be eligable like how the USA is eligable even though only part of them was British The C of E (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I seem to remember reading that there had been discussions in some quarters in the 1950s (when Enosis was a consideration). But that was also when France and Norway were considered for membership and Malta was on the verge of being annexed into the UK proper: indicating, perhaps, that the criteria then were in no way indicative of the criteria now. As far as I know, noone is seriously suggesting it nowadays. As such, it will be difficult finding reliable sources to verify it. If you can, great. If not, then it ought not to be included, no matter what our opinions on the matter are. Bastin 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no perhaps about it; Greece is certainly as eligible and really, being honest, more "eligible" than "Commonwealth Countries" like Mozambique etc! Links to empire are no longer a Commonwealth requirement! Regards. 109.78.73.8 (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ireland or Eire?

It's a very minor point, but I'm unhappy with this:

Ireland: Part of the UK 1801–1922, British dominion 1922–1949. Ireland was formerly a member under the name 'Irish Free State' (1922–37) and the name 'Ireland' (1937–49).

My question is whether the Commonwealth, insofar as it had an existence separate from its members, recognised the name "Ireland" in 1937–49. As names of the Irish state says, the UK did not recognise the name; neither did some other dominions, at least initially. One might assume the Commonwealth would implicitly accept a member's own view of its own name, unless it explicitly stated otherwise. However, by the same token, Ireland was silent on the question of whether it continued to consider itself a member of the Commonwealth, in which it took no active part. The Republic of Ireland Act did not explicitly declare Ireland to have withdrawn from the Commonwealth; it was left for the Commonwealth to read between the lines. Really what's needed is an explicit citation from a document created by the Commonwealth secretariat or some such body distinct from any of its members: how did such a document, produced in 1937–49, refer to the Irish state? As "Ireland", or "Eire", or something else? And was this consistent throughout the period? jnestorius^(talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some facts in life that make us happy, others unhappy: the name of the Irish state has been "Éire" (in Irish) or "Ireland" (in English) since 1937. That may, regrettably, make you unhappy. It's all discussed at great length at Names of the Irish state which has loads of great sources where you can dig down deeper. Never rely on WP. Here is what the British actually said though, when Ireland adopted its name - they (the country with the biggest problem with the name) even expressly acknowledge, at that time that "Eire" or "Ireland" would continue on as a member...If you think the Commonwealth took an official position refusing to accept that "Ireland" was the Irish state's name, I would be very interested to learn about it (an official "Commonwealth" position mind...- whether indivisual states like the UK - which despite the statement below recognising both names would go on in later years to use only "Eire" is not what your question above is about):

This is the text of the communiqué defining the attitude of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the new Constitution of Ireland. The communiqué was issued by the Office of the Prime Minister on 29 December 1937. The text is as reported in The Times’ edition of 30 December 1937.

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have considered the position created by the new Constitution which was approved by the Parliament of the Irish Free State in June, 1937, and came into force on December 29. They are prepared to treat the new Constitution as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free State, in future to be described under the new Constitution as 'Eire' or 'Ireland', as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have ascertained that his Majesty's Governments in Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa are also prepared so to treat the new Constitution.

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom take note of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the new Constitution. They cannot recognize that the adoption of the name Eire or Ireland, or any other provisions of those Articles, involves any right to territory or jurisdiction over territory forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or affects in any way the position of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They therefore regard the use of the name Eire or Ireland in this connexion as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known as the Irish Free State.

84.203.72.24 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my question, but no matter. Rather than the irrelevant quote you give, the most relevant point seems to be from point 6 of DEA/7545‑B‑40:

It was observed that the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee, in its minutes of January 27, 1938, "took note that the Repre­sentative of the Irish Free State would in future be referred to as the Representative of Ireland."

I've added this cite to the relevant passage. jnestorius^(talk) 02:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yip, your quote is spot on. 109.78.73.8 (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Benefits

What are the benefits of joining the common wealth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.188.56 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are a Head of State, you get an excuse to go to conferences with some of the Great and Good etc; That surely is one advantage. I expect the President of Malawi likes attending (I think Malawi is in...). Sports competitotrs get the Commonwealth Games too. 109.78.73.8 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ireland was a dominion until 1949

Some one insists on deleting my change re Ireland i.e. I say it should read Ireland: -“a British Dominion from 1922 to 1949* (*according to the British Ireland Act 1949)”; while others insist on deleting that back to “1937”. That ignores British law and the position the Commonwealth took in 1937 that Ireland had not left the Commonwealth when it adopted its new constitution. 84.203.37.240 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It was 1937 when they adopted their new constitution what virtually removed any reference to the King in Irish politics but there was still King of the Irish Free State until the Ireland act in 1949 so you are correct. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you agree with me....even if I don't completely agree with what you have said above..."The Irish Free State" ceased to exist in 1937 but the King continued to be King in "Ireland" until 1949. Its not relevant to what we are talking about here...but in case any confusion is in your mind...the King in Ireland during the 20th Century never had a title like "King of Ireland"...He always had the same title everywhere in the world...the longwinded titles of the time...It was only in the 1950s that each realm got its own title for the monarch.....I am off point! Thanks for agreeing with me! I will see if the article has been amended otherwise I will change it again. 84.203.77.232 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Also it was not the Ireland Act as such that made hims cease to be King in Ireland....It was the Irish "Republic of Ireland Act"...but this was expressly recovnised for the purposes of British law under the Ireland Act. Once again, not what I should be typing about here....bit off topic...84.203.77.232 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

POV

We need to be careful not to put in "Western" POV etc in the article.

Example: The intro stated that Zimbabwe withdrew "over its consistent non-compliance". The Zimbabwe Government gave its reasons for its voluntary withdrawal. It never stated that it was withdrawing because it was not complying with Commonwealth norms etc. That was not the Zimbababwe Govnerment's perspective on their withdrawal.

109.78.73.8 (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Western POV or the Commonwealth's perceptive? It is a fine line, but your edits are fine with me either way. Outback the koala (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Outback animal...but its purely a question of "fact"...Zimbabwe's withdrawal was voluntary... The reasons Zimbabwe's government gave for the departure had nothing to do with "Zimbabwe's consistent non-compliance" etc! They gave other reasons...possibly something to do with imperialism or racism or some such...! 84.203.77.232 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of that. Hopefully more can be added in to clarify the situtation. But even still, the relationship up to the withdrawl was still very abrasive. Outback the koala (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

France

Why isn't France on the list? Much of it was occupied by England for the better part of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.119.95 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because no reliable source has been provided that says that France would qualify. There was some discussion a few decades ago, but it seems implausible under the current, more formalised membership criteria: hence the lack of media coverage and hence exclusion. On the subject, though, I started an article on France and the Commonwealth of Nations, which is well over-due expansion. Bastin 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that France should qualify...it has a historic connection with the Commonwealth and has the apt. values (democracy etc.). Probably, there is no source because France has probably not seriously considered joining... 84.203.74.92 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New map

I created the map in the article from the map of the Commonwealth. I based it on the information in the article. I'm not sure whether I've coloured in all the small islands. There may be a better blank map that could be used, such as one that highlights small islands. If you could improve the map, please do so. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done; thanks for your diligent work. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Eritrea

Surely Eritrea has the same criteria as Libya? After world war 2 the colony came under British and Italian control for a few years? Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)