Talk:Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Another couple of prospective member queries

A couple more quesries about prospective membership of the Commonwealth:

1. I note that both Scotland and Northern ireland are listed under the "if they were to gain indepoendence" heading. Under the same rule, bopth Wales and - in theory at least - England should also be listed, no?
2. The third paragraph of France and the Commonwealth of Nations seems to suggest that France is a potential member, unlikely though its application may be in practice.

Comments? Grutness...wha? 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The references are very shaky for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The SNP certainly isn't a reliable source to reflect Scotland's constitutional position (they think that the Scottish Parliament is the same institution as the Parliament of Scotland - huh?!). Undoubtedly, the Home Nations would be potential members (in fact, one could argue that England, being the probable successor state, would automatically become a member). However, the reason they aren't included is because no reference has been provided suggesting them as prospective members. Without references, we are arbitrarily listing secessionist movements, which is of negligible value. Instead, the utility of the list is mentioning members that are considered by experts to be worthy of listing!

I wrote France and the Commonwealth of Nations article, and I now see that problem. The suggestion wasn't that they do qualify, but rather that they did, when the criteria were loose (Norway and Greece were also suggested as members). Indeed, one could say that the negotiation over having the monarch as the shared Head of State would have made France eligible by virtue of that constitutional tie. However, they are currently not eligible under any reasonable interpretation of the rules, hence why no reliable source suggests their membership. Bastin 10:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wales is actually annexed into England and has country status in name only, that's why they have an assembley rather than a parliament The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(a) Wales has not been annexed to England since 1967. (b) None of the Home Nations has 'country status'. (c) That's not why they have an assembly. Bastin 10:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all countries, just not sovereign states. See Countries of the United Kingdom. Wales is by law a principality of England, it is united with England as England and Wales. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Wales a country then? Is England a country either? Are they simply the country of "England and Wales"? Was Wales "United" an equal (as the name "England and Wales" suggests)? or was it simply annexed (just like Pomerania was annexed to Poland after WW2)? 84.203.74.92 (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Did Ireland "leave" the BCN or was it "excluded"

The topic heading above speaks for itself. I dont exactly know the answer...but I am not aware that Ireland "left" the Commonwealth...I think it would be more accurate to say it was excluded (by operation of the BCN rules in place at the time...)...For example, is any one aware of Ireland notifying the BCN of its intention to "end" its membership? Surely, by viritue of declaring itself a Republic, it was "excluded"? This might not be a common way to describe the event...but is this not more accurate? 84.203.77.232 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Mansergh states that London and Dublin regarded the repeal of the ERA as "tantamount to secession". It was an expression of Ireland's "explicit desire' to leave the Commonwealth. The previous wording was more in keeping with Mansergh's take. RashersTierney (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Should it say that Ireland "sceded" from the BCN then? Not "left"? That seems to be the logical response to what you have written. 84.203.77.232 (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The present wording is perfectly clear. RashersTierney (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the current wording perpetuates more "urban wisdom" or some such; clearly, the rules of the time were such that becoming a Republic excluded a member from continuing its membership........but instead the word "left" is thoughtlessly used. There is no question that Ireland intended to end its membership but the wording is still not apt. That's my view but if no one backs me up, presumably the article will go on as is. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the best expression to use is that Ireland's membership of the Commonwealth "terminated" upon its becoming a Republic. This, I believe, is preferable to the expressions "leaving the Commowealth" and "membership laspsed " (as currently used in the article) or "was excluded" as suggested above. Davshul (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

”Recognition of the “Monarch” as HoC

Some one is insisting on saying that at one point “recognition of the “Monarch of the Commonwealth realms was a condition of membership. This is not true. The term “monarch of the Commonwealth realms” has NEVER been used in any official communiqué. Some one is pointing to a source that cannot be accessed over the internet as evidence for the use of this term...It is simply not true! Does any one seriously believe that a “wiki term” like “monarch of the Commonwealth realms” was used in a Declaration by the Heads of Government etc? Come on? 84.203.37.240 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a monarch of the Commonwealth realms and she is also the head of the Commonwealth but the two jobs are unrelated. The Commonwealth realms are those countries in the Commonwealth who have the British monarch as their monarch. So, yes, I highly doubt recognising Elizabeth II as a monarch is a condition of membership. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me a source for your claim that there is a "monarch of the Commonwealth realms" - where has that term been used in any significant public official document? Is not simply the case that 16 realms have monarchs of their own with their own titles (e.g. Queen of Barbados etc) who happen to be the same person?; Use of the term in the article is inaccurate and misleading - after all, the Commonwealth has never agreed that the next Head of the Commonwealth will be a Royal of any country at all. All they have ever agreed was that Queen Elizabeth (her personally, nothing about her successors or her capacity as "Monarch" of anywhere) is Head of the Commonwealth. This term "Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms" is absolutely unsuitable here....Any way, ultimately, its not about what I think....Its about sources....Please adduce sources to back up use of the term....For the time being, I have tagged the references for citation needed. Thanks. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Monarch of the Commonwealth realms" isn't a title but Elizabeth II is the monarch of the Commonwealth realms, as in she is the monarch of each Commonwealth realm (because, by definition, a Commonwealth realm is a country with Elizabeth II as head of state). It really has nothing to do with the modern Commonwealth. The sentence in question is about the London Declaration of 1949. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Great; Sounds like we are in agreement....So can I go ahead and remove the reference to "Monarch of the Commonwealth Realm" and replace it with references to QE2? Don't want to do so without any support - I might get in trouble. Thanks. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no need for input...As you have deleted my addition of requests for citation, it looks like we are fully in agreement; these references to "monarch of the Commonweatlh realms" were simply references to QE2; I have amended accordingly. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II wasn't queen in 1949. The rule applies to the monarch of the Commonwealth realms, not just Elizabeth II. The Head of the Commonwealth will, in all likelihood, pass on to Charles when he becomes king. It seems I was wrong that the rule has nothing to do with the modern Commonwealth; I just assumed they would have got rid of that pointless rule by now but I guess not. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right QE2 was not monarch in 1949; that's corrected; the principle is the same though....they have recognised an individual, not an officeholder (even if "Monarch of the CRs" was an office);when QE2 dies, the office of H of the CW may end. Your note that the H. of the C. title "will in all likelihood" pass on to the next monarch shows you agree with me. Who knows whether the 50+ Commonwealth Governments will unanimously agree to do that.....Frankly, I think it possible but not probable; 50/50 at best. Whatever the case, we are in agreement that the office is personal to the QE2 (as it always has been a personal office). 84.203.74.43 (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, the point is that, under the London Declaration, it is a rule that every commonwealth county must recognise the British sovereign as head of the Commonwealth. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the London Declaration (a copy of which can be viewed here), refers to "The King" (namely George VI) as "Head of the Commonwealth". As indicated above, the term "Monarch of the Commonwealth realms", although descriptive and its meaning clearly understandable, is not used in the Declaration nor, so far as I am aware, in any other official document. Davshul (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but clearly the criteria either doesn't apply today or applies in a slightly altered form. The article suggests that it still applies, in which case the criteria doesn't have anything to do with King George anymore. It applies to King George's successors, who are the monarch of the Commonwealth realms. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference in the article to King George (under the caption "Founding documents") is made in the historical context. The paragraph in question deals with the meeting in 1949 and what happened, namely, it was agree that The King (George VI) be Head of the Commonwealth. Davshul (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But clearly the Edinburgh criteria do not involve King George. The criteria were updated to cover whoever is monarch of the Commonwealth realms, not just Elizabeth II. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The website of the Commonwealth Secetariat states here that:

"The London Declaration of 1949 stated that the British monarch would be a symbol of the free association of independent countries, and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. ......... Thus when Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 she became Head of the Commonwealth."

Note, no mention of the "monarch of the Commonwealth realms". Davshul (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, "monarch of the Commonwealth realms" is not a title, it's just a description. The British monarch is the monarch of the Commonwealth realms (Australia, Canada etc.) as well. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Term “Independent Monarchies” in the Article

The article says “Thus, the independence of Pakistan (1947), India (1947), and Sri Lanka (1948) saw the three countries join the Commonwealth as independent monarchies;” I think this term “independent monarchies” is really inappropriate here. There was no such thing as a “King of Packistan” in 1947 etc; the monarch had the same title throughout the world; also – surely “Tonga” has an “independent monarchy” more so than say “Canada”. It seems confused. Any support for a rewording. For some reason (no reason given) my earlier clarification was rejected. 84.203.37.240 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you make this claim? See Emperor of India#King of India and Pakistan --208.80.119.69 (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong's eligibility for membership

I had added HK as a possible future member...but it was taken out (rightly) on the basis that I had provided no source. Fair enough. Surely some one here knows a source to back up the possiblity that HK was at one point or other considered as a possible Commonwealth member once its constitutional status was amended appropriately....? I can only imagine a lot of ideas were contemplated until 1984 at least? 84.203.77.232 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As one of the criteria for membership is that the member must be a sovereign state, Hong Kong's possible membership would appear to be a non-starter. In theory, possibly China could be eligible for membership based upon its ownership/incorporation of Hong Kong, but this scenerio seems even more unlikely. Davshul (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong was carved out of Bao'an country into present day Shenzhen and Hong Kong territories... If the premise of Commonwealth of Nations membership is characterized by prior status as an independent nation, then Hong Kong's possible membership would appaer to be a non-starter. Phead128 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nepal and Bhutan

Is there a reason that Nepal and Bhutan are not listed as eligible for membership? I was under the impression that both of these countries were under British suzerainty during the British Raj, as demonstrated by the fact that the Nepalese were given only a 19 gun salute, and this map. --Quintucket (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reference that expressly says that Nepal and Bhutan are eligible for Commonwealth membership (not that they were under British suzerainty), they should go in. Bastin 11:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But references already say that any sovereign state with historical ties to the UK is eligible. In fact, any country is eligible under certain circumstances. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a defined membership criteria and therefore anyone who meets that criteria would be eligible. This thing about needing sources sort of defies logic... we know who can be a member of the Commonwealth, and Bhutan would certainly be among those states that could. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Bhutan should be, but less likely Nepal (not to say they can't in regards to it's long good standings with the British, including the Gurkhas in the military, as well as the recent inclusion cases of Mozambique & Rwanda). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Somaliland

Please stop indicating false information. British Somaliland did not join Somalia in 1960. It obviously joined Italian Somaliland to form Somalia. And the Somaliland administration, established in 1991, has always been internationally recognized as a region of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is "became part of Somalia", if you can think of an equally concise way to say it, note it here. It also notes the secession from Somalia is unrecognised. CMD (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the actual current wording, with the untrue statements in bold:

Somaliland: unilaterally seceded from Somalia claiming succession to British Somaliland, which became part of Somalia shortly after independence in 1960. Its independence remains unrecognised. Delegates were sent to the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and applied to join the Commonwealth under observer status, although the application has not been granted.

First, Somaliland did not "unilaterally secede from Somalia". It is and has always been internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia. Second, British Somaliland did not "become a part of Somalia shortly after independence in 1960". This is obviously because a) Somalia did not exist prior to its July 1, 1960 independence day, and b) the former British Somaliland protectorate actually united with Italian Somaliland on that day to form the new nation of Somalia ("Britain withdrew from British Somaliland in 1960 to allow its protectorate to join with Italian Somaliland and form the new nation of Somalia" [1]). The third problem is the statement that Somaliland's "independence remains unrecognised" since that already implies that it is an independent country, when it is in fact only a self-declared independent state.

That said, here's an actually accurate wording:

Somaliland: internationally recognized as an autonomous region of the Federal Republic of Somalia. Those who call the area the Republic of Somaliland consider it to be the successor state of the former British Somaliland protectorate. Having established its own local government in Somalia in 1991, the region's self-declared independence remains unrecognized by any country or international organization. Delegates from the territory were sent to the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and applied to join the Commonwealth under observer status, although the application has not been granted.

These misleading statements must be corrected. Middayexpress (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Recognition has nothing to do with whether or not Somaliland unilaterally seceded. It did, that's what a declaration of independence is. The lack of recognition is what makes it unilateral. If Somalia was established in 1960, and the former British Somaliland was part of it, so it had clearly become part of Somalia. Self-declared independent state is exactly the same thing as independence remains unrecognised, but in the reverse order (self-declared being equivalent to unrecognised, independence being equivalent to independent state). There's nothing misleading there. CMD (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Somalia did not exist at all until British Somaliland united with Italian Somaliland in 1960 to form it. A "self-declared independent state" is also the same thing as "self-declared independence remains unrecognised", not as "independence remains unrecognised". I'm not going to argue with you any further over these basic facts. Either you fix them, or I will seek administrative assistance toward that end. Middayexpress (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and this unification happened in 1960. Self-declared has exactly the same implications as unilateral, which is noted at the very beginning of the current description. I'm afraid I don't see the semantic difference you see. CMD (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Succession as Head of the Commonwealth

User Bastin insists on the article saying that all memebers of the Commonwealth accept and all prospective members must accept that the monarch of the "Commonwealth realms" must be Head of the Commonwealth. This claim is not, in any way, based on any sources or facts. All member states must, it is true, accept QE2 as the current Head. There is absolutely no agreement on what will happen after her death or retirement. One could speculate that the member-countries will pick the next British monarch as Head of the Commonwealth - Alternatively, the honour could fall on a wide range of eminent Commonwealth citizens such as Nelson Mandela. I have amended the article accordingly. GettingOut (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Her Majesty holds the title in a personal capacity, unless something changes, the next Head of the Commonwealth will be the next monarch. That is, Charles (or George VII, as Charles will almost certainly become) will be the Head of the Commonwealth by default unless he were vetoed. That is supported by the reference provided ('not based on any sources' is a bit of a stretch).

On that specific reference, you are obviously wrong, because that passage discusses the London Declaration in 1949. Elizabeth II was NOT the Head of the Commonwealth then (George VI was), and the monarch's possession of the title was seen as a title held ex officio by the monarch (see the article on the London Declaration for more details).

However, I do understand that the current formula, repeated elsewhere, seems to make it seem inevitable or permanent rather than reflecting the current state of affairs. How about we just don't state that the monarch is the Head of the Commonwealth, and just say, "Accept the Head of the Commonwealth as a symbol of the member states' free association", and then explain it more clearly than it currently does in the introduction to the 'Head of the Commonwealth' article (so it's obvious to those that follow the wikilink). Bastin 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You said ":Whilst Her Majesty holds the title in a personal capacity...". I agree. You should have just stopped there. That is indeed the position. If you want to advance any other perspective, get a source (i.e. the text of an agreement where the Commonwealth HOG agreed this was so) GettingOut (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Who will be the next Head of The Commonwealth? The choice of successive Heads will be made collectively by Commonwealth leaders." Faqs, The Commonweath. Kiore (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Japan

Japan looks pretty silly as a prospective member.....Really? Come on. Check out the source too ...or should I say "non-source". Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Senegal

Why isn't Senegal listed as eligible for Commonwealth membership? Wasn't most of it under British control from from 1758 to 1779? (see Capture of Senegal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.89.17 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC) No constitutional links though. For example Britain occupied the Dutch East Indies and Suriname during the Napoleonic wars, and parts of Germany and Austria after WWII, but there's no constitutional links with the modern states, merely occupation of the territory. —Quintucket (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Quintucket - my advice, go ahead and list it....it's all nonsense any way. Most countries could join Commonwealth now....No reason why Argentina couldn't though it'd be a bit funny. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpsu.org.uk/fileadmin/Gov_and_Demo/Widening_vs_Deepening.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Greece

If any country that was in whole or part a member of the British Empire is eligible to join then that should include Greece.

Greece's Ionian Islands have been a British protectorate between 1815 and 1864. They were ceded to Greece as a gift of the United Kingdom to the newly enthroned King George

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_the_Ionian_Islands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.200.148 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Iceland and the Faroes

Both were invaded and occupied by the UK during World War II. What would be their status were they to decide to apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacunae (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Somaliland

Somaliland DOES qualify for membership of the Commonwealth, as it was once part of the British Empire as British Somaliland, and the former covers the same territory as the latter.

English is an official language in Somaliland like English is an official language in South Sudan. - (124.197.51.229 (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC))