Talk:Commonwealth republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Talk page original comments 2 Cites 3 Commonwealth Realms 4 Samoa 5 Malta 6 Commonwealth Realms 7 United States of America 8 Somaliland 9 Guyana 10 Dominica 11 Suspended and former members 12 Commonwealth not British 13 Is Commonwealth republic a term that is in use?

[edit] Talk page original comments

Great work, Lholden! —Nightstallion (?) 10:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. The article is mainly to set out the differences between the Commonwealth republics and Commonwealth realms. --Lholden 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mh? What's shucks about that? (Apart from the fact that apparently, "Commonwealth Realm" should be capitalised whereas "Commonwealth republic" shouldn't.) —Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shucks for the compliment. Just curious, did Austria ever have a referendum to establish the current republic? --Lholden 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the 'republic' in 'Commonwealth republic' isn't capitalised is because it's not an official status - and anyway, the term 'republic within the Commonwealth' is far more commonplace - I'd suggest moving the article to 'republic within the Commonwealth'.

I separated the countries that never have been 'former Commonwealth republics' from those that have - currently only Zimbabwe. Dominica is an unusual case in that it was the only ex-British colony in the Caribbean to have become a republic on independence - although it wisely chose not to use the word in its title Commonwealth of Dominica. Even more unusually, the Governor before independence was a local, not a Brit, as it was an Associated State. I think the last acting Governor did become the first acting President - will confirm this, and add a footnote. As for Austria, I don't think it ever had a referendum did - it was just declared a republic after 1918.Quiensabe 03:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to be renamed, the whole point of this article was to provide information on the republics within the Commonwealth, as opposed to the realms within the Commonwealth. --Lholden 03:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So why not call it 'republic within the Commonwealth', given that the term is far more commonly used? Anyway, I've put a redirect on republic within the Commonwealth to this article, so it's not a problem.Quiensabe 19:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My perception is that the term "Commonwealth republic" is far more common. Anyway, it doesn't make much difference either way --Lholden 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, whether it's "Cr" or "rwtC" doesn't make much difference; and Austria never held a referendum on that, no. (We had lots of funny referenda about whether various parts of Austria wanted to stay part of Austria or not; mostly, we choose to ignore those who said they wanted to leave, namely Tyrol and Vorarlberg. ::grins::) —Nightstallion (?) 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites

IP 210.54.114.80 added the "references" template to this article. I have removed this because: (1) Most of the information here is gleamed from other Wikipedia articles (this is within Wikipedia:Verifiability); (2) Exactly what hasn't been cited isn't stated. --Lholden 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the removal by LHolden, oh btw; well done Lewis, nice article! Brian | (Talk) 09:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth Realms

Gavin claims that mentioning the Commonwealth realms where republican sentiment exists is "just speculation, & therefore unencyclopaedic". This is nonsense:

• If such information is unencyclopaedic, then it should hardly be in Commonwealth Realms page;
• The future status of Australia as a Commonwealth Realm has been brought into question by a referendum and may very well change sometime in the future - the Australian referendum most certainly isn't speculation, neither is republican sentiment in New Zealand or Canada;
• Not including the information is clearly self-serving for the monarchists' case, which Gavin is pushing by excluding the section

--Lholden 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal; that should be discussed on the in Commonwealth Realms page. (No I’m not saying that as a “monarchist”).

If kept however; two things need to be improved imo. The line “in nature from the sentiment in countries that abolished the monarchy at or shortly after independence” needs expanding; leads an uninformed reader wondering what (link to “Republicanism in” articles etc).

In the Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and Tuvalu parts add in about how this has meet resistance etc. Brian | (Talk) 00:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept that the section in question at the moment is repeated information, although it should be mentioned simply because it is a possible (and likely) outcome; moreover we already list possible other members (such as Palestine) which are by far much more speculative than republicanism in the Commonwealth Realms. As for the wording, that is the product of the latter article. --Lholden 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse two separate things. First: mention of republican sentiment is already, and appropriately, covered at Commonwealth Realm, and your insert here, Lewis, was a verbatim copy of the material from that article. Second: we can't speculate on the future of the Realms mentioned. They continue to be Realms of the Commonwealth, will remain so for an indefinite amount of time, may become kingdoms under a separate crown, and even if they do become republics they may not remain in the Commonwealth. Whatever you think likely is pure conjecture.

Mention of movements within the Realms to change their status should be mentioned on the page dedicated to the Realms (as it already is, including the UK). Information regarding republics, including those countries which are already republics but which fit the criteria to join the Commonwealth as such, should remain here.

Mention of the Australian referendum could be made here only if there was a provision in the referendum question which stated that Australia would seek permission to remain in the Commonwealth after becoming a republic. NZ, Canada, Jamaica, etc., have neither had referendums on the subject (let alone any serious debate), nor has there ever been mention of future Commonwealth membership. --gbambino 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added to the text here that the future of any of the Realms mentioned is speculative, and added the UK as a Realm where republican "sentiment" exists. However, I continue to assert that speculation is unencyclopaedic - predictions of the future are not fact. --gbambino 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above; I have to agree with gbambino Brian | (Talk) 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gavin, firstly on Commonwealth membership: anyone who followed the Australian referendum in 1999 knows that both sides - including the monarchist Prime Minister - were very clear in their intent of keeping Australia in the Commonwealth. Indeed, that was a major point for the monarchists, who claimed (with precious little evidence, despite what the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth said) that Australia would be excluded from membership should it become a republic. I can also quote from the New Zealand Hansard instances when Commonwealth membership has been raised - from all sides of the house. The answer to the typical alarmist claims that we'd have to leave the Commonwealth is always they same: No we wouldn't. Secondly on copying verbatim: If you read what I wrote above, you'll see that I said "I accept that the section in question at the moment is repeated information". Thirdly on probabilities and your "speculation is unencyclopaedic" claim: I say again that the section is not mere speculation, it is indeed a likely outcome should any of those states become republics, as many former Commonwealth realms have done. Whether I support it or not is irrelevant. The simple truth is - and this has been confirmed by almost every poll taken in Australia and New Zealand on the issue - down under there is a lot of support for republicanism, around 40 - 50% in both Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, as the Newspoll polls have shown, the preferred option for Aussies and Kiwis is to remain in the Commonwealth - Newspoll has specifically asked this question before, and a very large amount of support from the republican camp (around 80 - 90%) was recorded with overall support being around 90% (If you want, I can scan the actual poll). Monarchists know this, that is why they pushed the "we'll have to leave the Commonwealth" lie - the Commonwealth is more popular than the monarchy. You know full well that your "Kingdoms under under a separate crown" is a much greater speculation than republicanism, however since it is a possibility, (Maori King Movement and all) it should stand. --Lholden 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A "likely outcome" is not factual, it is speculative. Polls are not reliable evidence for anything - as conflicting results of Canadian polls on the Monarchy clearly demonstrate. My arguments remain the same. --gbambino 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you didn't read what I wrote. You said "...nor has there ever been mention of future Commonwealth membership". I mentioned the polls show that there has, it is not simply speculation to state that most republican sentiment is in favour of keeping Commonwealth membership --Lholden 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The only polls on future Commonwealth membership that exist come from Australia and New Zealand (apparently), and as I stated, polls are not evidence of anything - except unstable, and oft ill-informed public opinion. That, to my mind, is not serious debate on the matter. That it came up in the Australian republic debate, beyond simply polling, is perhaps of note. Still, nothing presented so far is concrete evidence that these countries will become republics, or, even if they do, will remain in the Commonwealth. It is still just speculation. --gbambino 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samoa

Samoa is not a monarchy. The traditional chief and monarch is just serving as president until his death, from the onwards, the president will be elected for five-year terms through indirect means. —Nightstallion (?) 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Any source saying so? The current one is still from a royal family & is seen as such. That-Vela-Fella 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it's an aristocratic republic now. There is no "royal family" in the European sense. --Lholden 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I see no source saying that still. Tupua Tamasese Tupuola Tufuga Efi may not be seen in the European sense, but has locally "the Tupua title of the SaTupua 'royal' family". That-Vela-Fella 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that maybe true, but theres no singular group of royals. The Fijian presidency is remarkably similar - their President is chosen by the Great Council of Chiefs, which invariably means the President is from one of Fiji's chiefly families. --Lholden 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It *usually* is a chief in either case, but it does not *have* to be. —Nightstallion 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

True, it doesn't need to be but in the case of Samoa a 'royal' was picked. The example of the Great Council of Chiefs wasn't to great since it's a defunct group now, but the closer & bit better example is the elective monarchy in Malaysia. That-Vela-Fella 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The GCC is only defunct because the military government in Fiji says it is, in any case, that's not really relevant. The Malaysian example is less comparable than Fiji, as the Malaysian head of state is elected by Malaysia's royal families and must elected from the specific Royal families - much unlike the Samoan or Fijian situations, where there is no constitutional requirement they come from one of the chiefly families (membership of the GCC / Samoan Fono is a different matter though). --Lholden 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's *very* obviously exactly the same situation as in Fiji, and since Fiji is a republic, Samoa is, too. —Nightstallion 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere has inquired via e-mail; for response see Talk:List of state leaders by date. To summarise it briefly -- Lholden and I are right, it is a republic, period. —Nightstallion 09:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Western Samoa IS NOT a republic in the strict sense, as the Head of State is being elected for a 5 year term, with each of the 4 Royal Families of Western Samoa taking turns being entitled to nominate a candidate. The official title of address of the Western Samoan Head of State is 'His Highness'. - (203.211.79.187 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Malta

Malta did not have a referendum on becoming a republic in 1974 - it was done solely by constitutional amendment. Quiensabe 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've been told the opposite. --Lholden 04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth Realms

There's a long drawn out discussion occuring on that page. Should it be Commonwealth Realms or Commonwealth realms. It may help matters, if we have 'republic' editors joining in. GoodDay 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States of America

Why is the United States omitted from the section on potential members of the Commonwealth? It includes territory once under British rule. 132.246.2.25 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The list is of potential Commonwealth republics, that is, republics from current members of the Commonwealth of Nations --Lholden 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the USA again. The C of N did not of course exist when the US declared independence. So reference to it is incongruous.--Gazzster (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somaliland

It is Somaliland that is qualified to be recognised as a British Commonwealth republic,as it seceded from Somalia in 1991. Somalia doesn't qualify, as it is a former Italian colony. - (203.211.79.187 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

It is not a recognised nation, but is still considered by the world as part of Somalia. That-Vela-Fella 19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guyana

It was the last Governor-General of Guyana who became the first President of Guyana as an interim measure. - (203.211.79.187 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Dominica

It was the last Governor of Dominica who became the first President of Dominica upon independence. - (203.211.79.187 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Suspended and former members

Fiji is not a former British Commonwealth member state. Suspension from the British Commonwealth does not revoke its membership.

The Republic of Ireland is a country that does qualify for British Commonwealth membership, as it was under direct British rule as was Somaliland. - (203.211.79.187 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

True, it does say that Fiji is suspended & nowhere does it say that it lost it's current membership (based on what is already stated, unless it'll lapse again). As for Ireland, it's already under the same heading below as those that could qualify. That-Vela-Fella 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Commonwealth republics, not membership of the Commonwealth. As for the Republic of Ireland, it was the Irish Free State, so wasn't under direct British rule, not that that matters to Commonwealth membership anyway. It does qualify for Commonwealth membership. --Lholden 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth not British

It is the Commonwealth of Nations, not "the British". Aidan Work is fifty years behind the times, even when evading bans by hiding behind IP addresses. Hu 12:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Commonwealth republic a term that is in use?

I have never heard of this term before bumping into this page...Is the term in use? Does the Commonwealth secreteriat use such a term? --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term Commonwealth realm before, either. Please don't zap away that article. Those republics deserve a Commonwealth article, too. The Commonwealth of Nations is not all monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of a Pontryagin duality before either, but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist or that it's a neologism. Commonwealth realm, as has been established elsewhere, is a term that, though not frequently used in common language, does exist beyond Wikipedia and has a pre-established definition. Commonwealth republic, though, does not. If this were to be titled Republics of the Commonwealth of Nations, or something like that, it would be an all-together different matter; but, even then, what is in here that isn't at Commonwealth of Nations, or couldn't easily be put there? --G2bambino (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete or re-direct that article. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no sources for this article. I won't oppose a 'merge' or an AfD. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a wider debate about the various terms used to describe Commonwealth members at the Commonwealth of Nations talk page. I would add though that politicians in Australia and New Zealand have used the term from time to time. --Lholden (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps list of republics within the commonwealth? I agree with TharkunColl and g2; both this and the commonwealth republic articles are, quite frankly, a joke...and need to be dealt with!--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a consensus for merging both the Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom articles into Commonwealth of Nations is emerging. I support that idea and agree (with User:Cameron and others) that frankly both articles are a joke and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. My initial support for there being a Commonwealth kingdom article was premised on the fact that there was a Commonwealth republic article. I hope there will be volunteers for the work. I will help! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)