Will the Commonwealth Collapse... Without the Queen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 вер 2022
- Sign up for a CuriosityStream subscription and also get a FREE Nebula subscription (the streaming platform built by creators): CuriosityStream.com/TLDRuk
With the Queen no longer in the equation, people are already discussing the future of the commonwealth. In this video we breakdown what the commonwealth is and if we can expect to see more countries ditching the King as their Head of State.
💬 Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
📸 Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We aim to give you the information you need, quickly and simply so that you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by just a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following, and backing us on Patreon. Thanks!
Unknown to most Australians, Scott Morrison was also The Queen during his term as Prime Minister
Hahahahaha sooooo good
He is a king or a queen or whatever you want him to be, but to us, he is a hero !
ahahah good one !!!
I heard that during her visit, Jacinda Ardern was the most trusted prime minister in Australia
Lmao
Important to note that for Australia, the PM has indicated that the current term's constitutional referendum is focussed on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and doesn't want to hold a referendum on the republic until after that.
The 1999 referendum was complicated with an additional question about a preamble to the constitution and it's believed that taking more than one question to a referendum at a time results in both being defeated.
I for don't want my country to become a republic
-from australia
I do
-Also from Australia.
Yep, he never promised a Republic referendum until after the Voice, which would be during a 2nd term.
So, he didn't change his tone -- republicans typically still hold the royal family in respect, so it makes sense for him to concentrate on that rather than a republic debate (which may have a counterproductive effect during this time).
I’d rather the commonwealth government spend money on something useful like reducing poverty rates or uplifting aboriginal communities than spending money on a stupid referendum that will ultimately do fuck all expect change the title of Governor General to president.
When governments mention they want to change trivial topics like this, it just makes me wonder what they are wanting to hide behind the scenes and keep the spotlight off of.
That referendum has been widely criticised for being deliberately written in a manner (and not just the confusing dual questions) that was always going to favour the pro-Monarchy side. John Howard at his finest.
The fact that this video didn't mention Antigua and Barbuda, which has announced a referendum (albeit without a date YET), and Saint Lucia, where there also have been significant rumblings in the past few days, is shocking. They are way more concrete than New Zealand and even Australia.
NZ might sweep the issue under the rung for another decade after Jacinda lost the election. National and its customers never saw the point of republic for some times.
Big OOF
It’s a TLDR video just focusing on the largest countries which let’s face it the British public cares the most about. If you want a in depth breakdown of all the current constitutional situations in the 15 countries Charles III is king then this isn’t the channel for you.
no one gives a shit about small islands....
Belize has also announced a comprehensive Constitution reform that will look at abolishing the monarchy as our head of state.
The likelihood of Canada becoming a republic any time soon is extremely low. Regardless of any republican or monarchist sentiment in Canada, starting the constitutional amendment process in Canada is opening a can of worms. Removing the King as head of state would require the assent of all 10 provincial legislatures, and getting all the provinces to agree to anything is a headache and a half that sucks up a metric fuckton of political capital. It's extremely unlikely that any federal government would be willing to spend the political capital on removing the monarchy.
In the current political climate I would be very surprised if an amendment happened and even more surprised if it was a single issue or straightforward document.
Several provincial governments would want to tie any popular amendment to a variety of issues they have with the constitution act so that the amendments sink or swim together The net result is that any amendment is going to sink.
There were even people who say that it's more likely that the UK will abolish the monarchy easier than Canada. In Canada's case, it will require a massive change in their Constitution (which involves the approval of the federal and all provincial governments), but it will be complicated.
At this point I would settle for the baby step of not having the monarch on our money. Apparently there's no rule that says we have to.
I would not be surprised if Canada kept the monarch as head of state but removed the actual head from the coins. They've been putting famous dead Canadians on the folding money for decades now, expanding that to coins instead of putting Charlie on them would be relatively easy.
Also Canadian and yes I agree that as things stand that is true. Really it depends on the new kings actions going forward though if it's to stay that way.
Will the Commonwealth collapse. Probably not. Members of the Commonwealth becoming republics and removing the monarch as their head of state? That’s more likely. But the two are separate issues.
There is also that Governor General Office cost pennies to run while Presidency of your own country cost billions.
I guess you posted this before you watched the video, because this is exactly what the video sums up haha.
@@thanakonpraepanich4284 Or you could just not have a separate head of state
@@reluctantcrusader8455 Then that's a completely different, and much bigger, change in the structure of government. One that I don't think the majority of people in these countries would want to undergo, and as mentioned in another comment, including that in any referendum would cause the referendum to fail.
More and more countries are joining, they had a meeting with Charlie
It’s worth noting, that with the 1999 Australian Republic referendum, there was a sizeable no vote that wanted to become a republic, but disagreed with the proposed form of republic. The proposal would functionally allow the PM to sack the president with no notice period, but require the president to give 14 days notice of sacking the PM, meaning that if a president tried to sack a PM, the PM could sack the president immediately and replace them with somone who would not sack the PM. The President would not be appointed via a vote of the public.
the "proposed form" of the republic was the most popular and likely to succeed and it got obliterated despite widespread media propaganda. 3 states voted no by around 60% ffs. Australians don't want your shitty republic whatever it's form.
Seems about right. It's unlikely any PM would propose a completely fair and uncorruptable system to replace constitutional monarchy.
Yeah, as is typical with politicians, the question put to the people is worded in such a way to ensure that the referendum is pre-decided. The wording such that those that do want the change, are guaranteed to not want the way it will be changed.
Howard, if he was genuine about getting a true result should have just asked "republic, yes or no" Then if the answer was yes, work out the details of how.
He also wanted the government of the day to be able to appoint the President, basically like the current Governor General.
I don't understand why we should have an elected head of state. Politics being what it is already would make it an absolute shitshow. I don't get why we wouldn't just cut things off above the GG, and leave everything else as-is.
Also the PM at the time was a staunch monarchist and tried anything he could to persuade Aussies to vote against a republic, even though polls said the majority was in favour of it, in the end it worked
05:00: just some minor notes -
Anthony Albanese had always promised that a Republic referendum would be held only if he got a 2nd term, with the first term being for the Statement from the Heart.
So, he didn't change his tone -- in fact, it's very consistent from republican PMs to show deference to the monarchy, and especially in a time like this.
Also, the 1999 Referendum was a bit dodgy.
It occurred at a time when the Diana incident made the family unpopular -- however, because the PM was a monarchist, the question was asking for a specific model, which would split the yes vote.
The problem with the constitutional referendum in Australia in 1999 was not the presence of the commonwealth or the monarchy but the method of selecting the President in the subsequent republic. The proposal at the time was to have politicians pick the President and not the people. This was completely unacceptable to many people then, and would be now if they chose the same method.
Howard
Makes sense. A government is supposed to elected BY the people, FOR the people.
Too bad it doesn't always work out that way.
The President would hold a ceremonial role. They would be more of a figurehead than a person we
weilding actual political power, like other parliamentary republics.
Having an elected president with no power would be pointless and expensive, while having an elected president with power would be dangerous and undermine our current parliamentry system. Do we really want to be more like the United States?
Perhaps the best way to get rid of the monarchy would be to simply abolish the Australian monarchy (legally distinct from the British monarchy) including the Governor General, and not replace them with a president. Bills would automatically become law when passed by both houses, without requiring assent of the monarch's representative (or a president). That would be the safest change.
@@FuryanJedi13 does it ever?
My Canadian friends pointed out to me that an important part of Canadian culture is about how they're not American. And the monarchy is a very visible part of that. For my friends at least, they said the risks of changing up a working system outweighs any advantages that an elected head of state would bring.
Especially as if they were to have a president there would be a risk that the post would be given too much power. They said a figurehead head of state would be preferred. Perhaps an adaption of the governor general's post similar
Perhaps your friends will learn to live without immediately bending over at the first sign of "authority"
So they should just… elect a King/Queen/Monarch. Like we should. Technically, there’s no reason a monarchy _must_ be hereditary.
Electing a president doesn't have to be by the people ! In Barbados, the new president is elected by the parlement and has the same power as the Queen's reprensentative. You don't have to copy the USA, they are a lot way to elect an head of state.
If they want a figure head head of state then they can become parliamentary republic. There are many countries which follow such systems. All republics arent presidential republics like the USA
@@Bb13190 or there's the Irish system where the president is elected by the people but holds a mostly ceremonial role
Can we just take a moment to celebrate Papua New Guinea's flag design? Definitely a top-five national flag for me.
It has a borbie, so yeah
as an Avid EU4 player , The Colour choice gives me PTSD
Who else is in the top 5 for you? Nepal?
Ireland left the commonwealth due to a technicality not because they chose to. There was no "you are a member by default" option if you gained independance.
Even if it was a technicality I doubt the Irish would want to be involved with any organisation that's led by the British Monarchy
Despite being a member, Ireland was never really involved in the Commonwealth, and cut all ties with it in 1937 and became a de facto Republic (electing a president and removing all mention of the monarchy). When Ireland formally declared the Republic in 1949 we were officially kicked out as Republics were not allowed.
And can you tell us why they are not seeking to re-join if Commonwealth membership brings so many benefits?
@@pritapp788 If the UK gives Ireland back Belfast, I'm sure the Irish might consider the burden of joining the Commonwealth as an acceptable trade.
@@Lusa_Iceheart 1) The Brits tried but Ireland declined because... 2) Doing that would just start the troubles again if not a civil war, only this time it'd be Dublin instead of London receiving car bombs.
Antigua and barbuda also announced recently that they will be moving to a republic as well!
Same as Belize
@@googlespetraccoon3588 , Belizeans are traditionally monarchist-minded people - even among the Belizean Maya people.
Belize's current Governor-General is Dame Froyla Tzalam - & she is a Belizean Mopan Maya.
I don't see why. It's basically an international bar staff exchange scheme with a practice run for the Olympics thrown in.
Haha, I love that comparison, and it’s so true lol
For a lot of the poorer countries, it must help with food security as well. The thought that if worse comes to worst, the head of government could make a few phone calls and a Royal Navy ship full of Canadian wheat will show up in port is an important backstop.
@@nlpnt That's why they stay, despite having to honor the British Crown as their head of state. For many former British colonies, that's a complicated and often unpopular proposition; they have trauma from that flag flying over their lands, and it's a tiny slap in the face to see the King as their head of state.
The reason they stay is because the practical benefits well outweigh any small discomfort.
From what I understand, the reason why Australia voted to keep the monarchy was due to the fact that they couldn't decide what kind of republic they would like. Do they want a US version, where the president is head of government and head of state? Or just a representative?
As for Canada, I was looking on Quora about this, and apparently, it would mean a major change to the constitution which would mean opening such a big can of worms, that it might be not worth doing it.
At least, those are from what I understand.
That kind of thing takes a long time I think our grandchildren will be the one who decided, not us.
The Prime Minister who did the vote in Australia was a Monarchist, and wanted a no vote. It was intentional that the referendum used a specific type of Republic (The American model) so that the yes vote would be split. I suspect when another vote occurs, it will be a Yes to the Republic.
Australia is similar to Canada in that in order to become a republic a new constitution ect would have to be drafted from our current barebones one, and what that would end up looking like will split the nation undoubtedly
That's right, the Australian 1999 referendum question was deliberately worded to force a certain section of Aussie republicans to vote no because of the form of republic the question depicted
United States and France are a curiosity along democracies. They look like the models of Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, or even Singapore. It does not make sense to propose such a model to Australia or Canada, who are accustomed to a non-executive head of state.
Wait, was the queen the "most deposed" monarch in history? Considering, that every colony became a kingdom in their own right after independence, she was dethroned 17 times in 17 different countries on 17 different occasions. On average she lost a throne every 4,1 years.
No. She was still head of state in these countries.
Not, necessarily, she didn't lose her central crown, till she you know, died.
@@haven216 that is the whole point. She was the monarch in those newly independent countries until she, well, wasn't. She got deposed as head of state, thus loosing the crown of those kingdoms. At 17 separate occasions.
Those kingdoms were also not in any kind less "central" than the british crown (de jure at least). Commonwealth or not, those countries were and still are fully independent from the UK and their respective monarchs just "happened" to be the same person.
@@haven216 "Deposed" as in no longer being able to act as head of state for those countries, not as in having her head chopped off or thrown off the crown
@@haven216 If they become Republics, then nope. Queen wasn't the head of state.
Us in Jamaica just want Britain & the monarchy to face up to the historical wrong doing & invest in us more, build some needed infrastructure, remove visa restrictions so it can be easier for us to visit, have better trade deals, & give our students the chance to attend British universities easier
i agree tbh i dont really care for the monarchy but dont hate it
- im from england and im half english half jamaican
Jamaica has been an independent country for 60 years. We may still have the same head of state but British taxpayers owe you nothing. Why should we pay for your infrastructure? Do you seriously expect us to bring you up to first world level when you have done little to help yourselves since independence? Jamaica has appalling levels of crime, some of which has been imported to the UK where many of your countrymen have engaged in serious organised crime such as drug trafficking, extortion and murder. Jamaicans also have a high tendency to overstay their visas and disappear into the black economy. When caught, many make bogus asylum applications to prevent deportation. I know this because I used to work for the Department of Work and Pensions processing their benefit claims. Any country would be completely nuts to open the door wider to that.
As for investment, I believe the UK has poured billions into Jamaica`s tourist industry and provided enormous technical assistance to your economy. What have we received in return? Insults, demands and historical revisionism that`s what.
You mention historical wrong doing but that was perpetrated by a small bunch of imperialists whose power evaporated after WW2 which as it happens left the UK completely bankrupt. It was mine and my parents generations who had to pay back the enormous war debts and we come from the lower classes of British society that benefitted in no way from imperialism yet we are the kind of people that would have to pay for the reparations that many in Jamaica are demanding. Yes, slavery was evil and I`m ashamed that my country had anything to do with it especially seeing as I`m married to a woman from Montserrat but don`t assume that means I should be held responsible for crimes committed by a tiny elite hundreds of years ago.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. Countries should be supporting themselves, you can’t prey on things that happened centuries ago.
@@justonecornetto80 I’m Jamaican and I completely agree with what you’re saying. Jamaicans need to remove their mental enslavement from their minds and start being self sufficient and self sustaining. Removing the monarchy would be a benefit, as it means removing the last vestiges of colonialism.
Britain started facing up to historical wrong doing in about the 1830s when it tackled slavery from Africa as best it could by intercepting, with the Royal Navy , slaving ships , going east and west and freeing the slaves on them. This in particular may have saved thousands and thousands of lives.
Canada removing the monarchy pretty much removes one major factor that seperates them from the United States
Also, parliamentary democracy.
So????
If Canada removes the monarchy they should join America. The US economy plus Canadian resources would be a great combination.
@@ElectrostatiCrow
Why the hell would they do that?
What would Canada possibly have to gain?
@@fds7476 Canada keeps losing skilled people and businesses to America. They'd gain access to the world's largest economy and plenty of human capital by joining America. While the US would gain some of the world' resource richest land's. Culturally and economically it would be very easy to intergrate the two. Canada has much more in common with America than the UK. The only problem would be politics as America is a lot more right wing than Canada.
A note about Australia: The current PM appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic, plans are defiantly under way to have a referendum on Australias independence, but certainly not within the next 3 years.
Nooo
Defiantly?
@@crazyrobots6565 Defiantly!
Australia is already independent
@@LordDim1 yeah my bad on the wording. should have said something along the lines of "-have a referendum on Australias independence from the monarchy-".
When Ireland dropped the king as head of state, that was a requirement for being in the Commonwealth, so we left that too. India, shortly later, was the driver for a change to the rules to allow a country to remain within the Commonwealth with no monarchy (or with a different monarchy, as some Pacific island nations now do). There was some talk thereafter of Ireland's rejoining the Commonwealth, but it never happened and seems unlikely now.
Well done Ireland! India never had the guts since independence 75 years ago to walk out of the common wealth
@@Quantum-1157 "guts"
India is the biggest economy within commonwealth now. So called defunct organization is going to be led by india sooner or later if Brits do want commonwealth to survive.
Ireland would never be able to achieve that ever. Can't even take back their country whole from Brits.
@@gabbar51ngh you brag about India having ‘the biggest economy within commonwealth’ , does that mean Indians will finally leave the UK, and Ireland? And does that mean that the British and the Irish will queuing up outside the Indian ‘high commission’ begging for student visas, work permits, immigration visas, to ‘get a better life’? 😂🤣😂🤣😂 also, you talk about Ireland failing to ‘take back’ Northern Ireland from the British, but your curry brain doesn’t realize that india, a nation of 1.4 billion is still part of an organization set up by the colonizer , even 75 years later! 😂🤣😂🤣 whereas Ireland with 8 million people is NOT! 😂🤣😂🤣😂 so keep living in your fantasy world lad. I think fantasy and delusional thinking would be vital when coping with the reality of feeling stuck in india and the only way for a ‘better life’ being to leave India and run to Ireland, UK, Dubai, South Africa, Kenya, ……you name it and guaranteed Indians will be trying to enter it and then bragging about induan economy, Indian tea sales, Indian cricket, Indian coconut oil exports, ……..😂🤣😂🤣😂. Now let’s hope you don’t do the typical Indian thing and delete your comment and run away or be in denial when confronted with the facts!
@@Quantum-1157 yes, India was still prime ministered by British boot lickers (Congress) the new government is making changes - @75 year of independence they have taken oath to remove any resemblance to colonization in India they started with changing the Navy ensign removing the red cross.. I think its still gonna take 10-20 years to leave common wealth - Also there is geopolitics..
We(India) only in commonwealth just to play some commonwealth games🗿 💀
Odd that you didn't mention Antigua given the PMs statement on a referendum
Antiguans are monarchically-minded people in general.
Their Prime Minister is a republican like the one in St. Vincent.
Aussie here.
The referendum on becoming a Republic had layers to it and would make a story unto itself.
The proposed Constitution was controversial and was seen as a way for government to grab more power.
That is, people voted against the proposed Constitution more than voted over the Head of State.
Basically, had it been a better Constitution proposed, then it likely would have passed.
Check out the results, the only place with a majority in favor of it last time was Canberra........... that's alarm bells for me.
I mean, that's why the Australian government proposed ditching the monarchy in the first place. That would open up one more position to be filled by their party.
The King and the Governor-General are apolitical and this does limit the powers of the parties to parliament.
Honestly, any attempt at republicanisation should just be viewed as an attempt to move away from parliamentary democracy and toward presidential democracy.
I agree with Jamaica, but I'm more doubtful with Australia or New Zealand. There's big historical differences between the former and the latter, and I think that has greatly influenced public attitudes to the monarchy.
Didn't Jamaica some sort of poll on whether they were in favour of becoming a republic and not only that wasn't the case, but many people wanted to rejoin the UK all together?
@@Astropeleki
Is that going to be the new political trend of the 21st Century; independence is not what it cracked up to be?
@@thanakonpraepanich4284 dunno. What I do know is that people care more about having a competent government than being in a republic or a constitutional monarchy.
So to me this whole talk about the Commonwealth imploding or not is mostly hogwash: regular citizens have better things to care about than whose face is on their money.
@@thanakonpraepanich4284 lolo yeah being a colony sucks too. Jamaica got destroyed by American and British investors who wanted bauxite. It's created a vicious cycle of poverty ass peasants lost their income and land to foreign companies who despoiled our arable land. This drove the rural population into the cities where their became urban poor. That isn't evening touching on how England interfered in elections causing political instability and violence. It's better to break ties with tour colonizers in the long run. Staying only invites more neo colonialism since apparently former imperialist powers can't act any other way.
@@Astropeleki yeah like in the 70s when violence spiked hard. Not so much anymore bud.
It’s worth noting, that with the 1999 Australian Republic referendum, there was a sizeable no vote that wanted to become a republic, but disagreed with the proposed form of republic. The proposal would functionally allow the PM to sack the president with no notice period, but require the president to give 14 days notice of sacking the PM, meaning that if a president tried to sack a PM, the PM could sack the president immediately and replace them with someone who would not sack the PM. The President would not be appointed via a vote of the public.
Which is flat out why I'm very much against replacing things here in NZ.
I don't trust any politician to redo our constitutional arrangements to account for removing the Monarchy. No matter which party.
Leave well enough alone, it aint broke, don't fix it.
As an Australian, while a republic may sound good in theory, I cant think of a single person worthy enough to fulfil the role. I daresay it won't stop people THINKING they are good enough though.....
It needs to be figurative and the PM has enough power
@@haruhisuzumiya6650
But he's already the head of government. If you make him the head of state too, you'll have an American system on your hands in no time.
Why would you want that?
@@fds7476 it's more democratic? Like the royal governor appointed literally couped a leftist government in Australia in the recent decade. How is that good?
There's nothing democratic about that, it's just reckless and populistic to put one guy in charge of everything.
Also, where the hell did you get that from?
@@fds7476 Trollish distraction, just scribble out GG in the constitution and write in president- Done.
Description of the situation in Australia was poor.
Australia is a federation with a constitution that requires a majority of voters in a majority of states to vote yes for a specified model with detailed constitutional amendments for change to occur. The 1999 campaign had republicans (generally "direct election" supporting) campaigning for the no vote. We can't have a Brexit style "it's anything you want it to be" campaign. There was near no mention of the Queen in the no campaign as there is apparently 10% of Australians want to maintain the monarchy for its own sake. People are just scared of change.
THe current government has appointed a minister for the republic. The not-in-this-term commitment is to prioritise a referendum on a constitutionally recognised indigenous voice to parliament.
There is also an imperative to do it right and establish a consensus on a model ahead of putting it to vote. Recent polls for remaining as a constitutional monarchy are in the mid to high 20% although there is a high "unsure" percentage and only high 40s% support. Again, the challenge is as soon as the discussion goes to "what model" where some will only countenance direct election of a president while others will not accept any radical change where a president has really ir perceived political power.
And therein lies the problem. Republicans agree on wanting rid of the monarchy, but not on how to replace it. The options tend to be UK 2.0 - a president with no power (e.g. another Governor General) or USA 2.0 which demotes the Prime Minister and Parliament.
As someone from New Zealand, and someone who’s been watching your recent videos about the monarchy and the queen, I was hoping you’d make this video. Thank you
What is your opinion on CANZUK? And what would you say is the general sentiment towards the idea in NZ?
Your PM's sign language interpreter looks like Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
First Shinzo Abe, Then Mikhail Gorbachev and now Queen Elizabeth II 2022 has been one rollercoaster of a ride so far
It will be really hard for Canada to get rid of the monarch as a head of state. Mostly due to constitutional requirements that it needs a unanimous concessions in both Provincial and Federal Governments. Also, the Indigenous people takes the land treaties very seriously since it is signed with the Crown. Therefore, all of the lands of Canada will back to the First Nations, if we ditch the monarchy.
@@Me-yq1fl That is the way how the Canadian constitution and the land treaties has been written.
@@pauly_orangeman respectfully. What would they be able to do about it? Not a damn thing. So concerned? Join the US
@@kadennelms8419 well unless they native nations started a war/violent partisan movment or canada did something stupid to stop them like genocide
getting the us people to get our government involved i dont see it going anywhere with just some protests
canada does have an army they could just stomp it
@@Me-yq1fl TL DR the alternatives when you dig into them are just a little too barbaric.
This makes ditching the monarchy a win win for canadians
More states will ditch the monarch as head of state, but the Commonwealth itself seems secure. Indeed states which were never British colonies have joined - Togo and Benin (ex French - to the fury of the French government) and Mozambique (ex Portuguese)
Canada will be next to ditch the Monarchy 🇨🇦
@@sm3675 ,that will NEVER happen!
The same story applies here in New Zealand as well.
The monarchy is actually very popular with First Nations Canadians - & the current Governor-General of Canada, Mary Simon, is a First Nations Canadian herself.
Great video!
The Common Wealth of Nations will stay pretty much the same, but the Common Wealth Realms (those with King Charles as their Head of State/King) will get smaller but most likely to start getting closer.
I feel that if CANZUK happens this will encourage British themes in the 4 nations, and expand from just trade and travel. They will also will look to expand its membership through deals and trials.
Finally Space the idea of more Space Stations with different nations (cost reasons) is strong, and setting up a colony can't be done by a single nation (actual treaty here) so either companies are hired or a group of Nations. The idea of them all having the same Head of State helps set up a more stable base.
CANZUK just isn't going to happen tho. It's just all around pointless.
Even without the King, CANZUK is most likely to be an American sattelite organization to fight against the Chinese
@@carried_copper586 Pointless?
@@genghiskhan5701 Kind of point for the Monarchy, that things like the Crown Laws played a role in Canada not fully following the USA sphere of influence. That these factors would allow it to move as its own thing.
@@DarkApostleNoek Yes. In terms of trade, prioritising trading partners on other ends of the world (Aus and NZ excluded) wouldn't be a very fruitful endeavour.
Simply put, whilst yes, there are elephants in the room as to Britain's colonial past and all that... I highly suspect King Charles III, in regards to the commonwealth, is likely say something to the tune of; "you may do as you wish, though I highly advise continuing to work together within this basis for the sake of the environment. The world is going to need more common ground in the coming years, not less." Then again, I don't actually know the king personally. Its just the kind of logic our leaders should be working with, hopefully...
and a king, above all kinds of leaderships, should the one who is affected by popular opinion the least and should be able to do decisions based only in political logic. so it would make sense if he actually thought like so
I mean, that’s kinda the attitude the Queen took too, at least in the past 20 years or so.
“We’d like you to stay, but it isn’t 1900 anymore, you do you.”
Actually he did say during the Rwanda commonwealth heads of govt meeting.
He said that it's upto the individual countries to continue with the monarchy or not.
Canada on the other hand is like squeezing water out of the rock....the monarchy's influence is very deep with the canadians....
Let me give some perspective...
The news was talking big about how "the nation is in mourning!! we are all deeply touched by her passing" and to illustrate that anyone from anywhere is mourning they showed someone from Calgary...
Calgary is in a completely different province. No one cares about the monarchy really
I'm Australian and I like that we are in the Commonwealth because I like that we win so many gold meddles at the Commonwealth Games.
Australia is not only commonwealth, it takes queen as head of state. Do you know that.
@@santhoshv3028 Yes, but now the king. What's your point?
@@Andrew-df1dr do you proud to be under them ?
@@santhoshv3028 Sure. Why not?
Would you do a video explaining what the commonwealth is in more detail?
a little context on the 1999 republic referendum in Australia is that the specific question posed was the unpopular part of the referendum, not the ditching the monarchy part, the system would have had a president elected by a 2 thirds majority of the house of representatives, which given that you can barely get 2 thirds of that place to agree on anything *especially* who should rule the country was bound to fail. Many (including myself) believe this was a deliberate attempt by the prime minister at the time to get it to fail, with him being very pro-monarchy, the only reason the referendum happened in the first place was someone very high up in his government (who later became prime minister himself in 2015) was the main proponent of it.
It's funny how politicians are all for Republicanism - unless it undermines their own power (by no means just in Australia).
I agree that with an actually elected Head of State, the 1999 Referendum would have carried.
You hit the nail right on the head there, John Howard deliberately sabotaged that referendum by insisting that the President (to use a more wider term) be elected by parliament rather than by the people. That was unacceptable to the majority of voters, as looking like a job for the boys(girls) scheme, even the term of tenure for the eventual person was never stipulated. I remember the bitterness of that referendum and what it caused among the republican movement that we never forgot or forgave Howard. And yes I am a staunch Republican supporter. And as much as I disliked Malcolm Turnbull, without his insistence for that referendum we would never have had it, nor would have seen how much Australians wanted to finally break the shackles of our colonial past and stand as a truly independent entity.
Indeed
Turnbull?
Turnbull wasn't "Very high up in his government". Howard held the referendum because he committed to at the election - not because someone who he didn't like would end up leading his party 15 years later
@5:52, it is easier for a Province in Canada to separate from the country than for the Monarchy to be removed. I am a Canadian and historian, the monarchy is tied to almost everything in Canada - names of our cities and streets, public lands, treaty rights with the natives, in the charter...everywhere. Plus all provinces and territories have to agree on the removal of monarchy.
Okay, it will be a headache. But what is the sentiment of the public? Are they for it or against it?
@@lenseclipse As an Australian living in Canada, I don't think anyone here cares. Less than in my home country.
In fact most Canadians aren't even aware that the monarchy essentially elects their senate, which is obviously a HUGE power to hold, but nobody here seems to even be aware of that.
@@m136dalie You might be overselling it a bit there, bud. On PAPER the Governor General is the nominated representative of the monarchy in Canada, but in practice, all the monarch actually does is put a stamp on the the PM's nominee for Governor General. The Governor General, in turn, does TECHNICALLY have the power to nominate people to the senate... but very specifically only candidates nominated by the PM (it would be a little alarming if the GG could just walk into a Timmies and start handing out Senatorial appointments because the coffee somehow wasn't crap that day, after all).
...Well, to be transparent, there was a slight reform around 2016. Now there's a committee about it made up of representatives from parliament, though the ruling party still has the majority vote in it- said committee (which the PM's party still has majority control over, mind you) essentially acts like the rubber stamp before sending it off to the GG (who, as previously noted, was put there by the PM) who puts their own rubber stamp on it and Bob's your uncle, that's how a Senator is made. Though also, under the new system, you CAN actually nominate yourself or another to the Senate; though in all likelihood, unless you already have ties to Ottawa, the only thing you'll achieve out of it is a quick boot out the door.
The Governor General DOES however, have an actual power to prorogue parliament. But only at the request of the Prime Minister or (theoretically) the Opposition, and in that one very specific case, they have free reign to agree or decline as they wish. Though if the last few times it's happened are any indication, they'll side with the PM on that anyway (who, as stated before, is still the dude/dudette who got them the job in the first place) because the alternative for a stubborn PM is to go over the GG's head and petition the Sovereign (in this case, our boy Chucky 3) DIRECTLY for a prorogation... which would be an international shitshow of such colossal magnitude that it would make every breathing soul in the House of Commons look like an overstuffed bag of dicks for letting it get that far.
So, uhh... long rant short; the Governor General only really has as much power as the Prime Minister tells them they do. They only accept the nominees to the Senate the PM gives them and, every once in a while, they save the PM from looking like a dickhead.
...Oh, and they also hand out medals and organize charities; things like that. Hell, one of the GGs under Harper used to invite the public to screenings of Canadian films outside of Rideau Hall. So they aren't all that bad.
@@m136dalie Every country has governments that elect senates and choose representatives to full vital roles, Canada is no outlier.
@@nogreatreset8506 Few countries have their upper house elected by a foreign monarch
The Canadian Constitution’s Unanimity Clause says “No”.
You would need every single province to sign on to abolition of the Monarchy, they all hold a Veto, not going to happen anytime soon.
Not quite how that works, it just needs to be most provinces that represent at least half of canadians, like how the constitution was signed without Quebec. And there is no veto
Also the Charlottetown Accords went to a general vote and failed so it would be weird why there wouldn't be a referendum on the monarchy
@@thenorthshow3655 Incorrect. Majority population was the requirement for London to recognize the Canadian Constitution. Once the constitution came into force, it came with its own amendment formula, either 7/10 of provinces, or unanimity depending on the section in question. Either way, it ain't happening. Finally, the First Nations oppose the change too, because their land treaties are based on agreements with "the Crown". Opening the Constitution to remove the Queen opens Pandora's Box of provincial power grabs, reigniting Quebec separation and more stupid culture wars. Leave it alone, and God Save the King.
@@quantummotion and the Charlottetown Accords?
@@thenorthshow3655 it is not *required* for there to be a referendum to pass constitutional amendments, but, some provinces (Namely British Columbia with their “Constitutional Amendment Approval Act”) have passed laws requiring a referendum before they grant approval to Constitutional Amendments, with the Charlottetown accord the government basically figured that since some provinces required it anyway they might as well hold the referendum in all the provinces, as well, the Meech Lake accord had received a huge amount of flak for being a “backroom deal”, so Mulroney wanted the approval to be more open.
Regardless of who's the Queen/King, in my view, the whole "realms" thing doesn't make sense anymore, and didn't make sense for the last 60-70 years or so - ever since these completely (society-wide) stopped seeing themselves as an outpost (or colony) of the UK. I mean, Canada's origin is in the UK, but no Canadian in 2022 sees himself/herself as a Brit. They see themselves as Canadians (or even North-Americans).
If our country really needs a symbolic head of state, we should make our home grown one.
A council of native american tribes would be cool, if we want a symbol of our country.
The Americans already have their military helicopters named in honor of native american tribes, which go through a period of ceremony, rituals, and blessings, before entering service.
It would be cool if Canada had a home-grown symbol to do ceremonial things like this aswell.
The moment Australia and New Zealand become a republic, the union jack from their flags is gonna drop quick 🤣
*union flag
New Zealand already tried to remove the Union Jack from their flag, and the voters decided to keep it.
Get that bloody butchers apron off our flag.
@@SirAntoniousBlock the union flag is beautiful
@@lenseclipse It depends upon how you view the invasion slaughter and disinheriting of many peoples in different countries around the world in the name of one royal family I suppose.
I remember very clearly that the ALP's plan was always a Republic referendum in their second term, if they get one.
They're still but hurt after Goth.
They will get one. There's almost no chance Dutton becomes PM
@@9JSfilms We said that about Abbott as well, remember. Look how that turned out...
I am not the only who noticed the person behind New Zealand's Prime Minister was making weird hand gestures all the time. It was very hard to focus on anything she said because my eyes were glued to this guy.
That was sign language for deaf people. Very common for offical announcements in some countries. One gets used to it and it helps deaf people to be part of society. We should have more of it
All I know is as a Canadian, even if we do not want to stay under the Monarchy, we won't be ditching anytime soon because it is written into our Constitution. The chances of us just choosing to re-write our Constitution is incredibly unlikely, especially as the Monarch plays little actual role in our government.
I would argue that Canada will probably stay under the Monarchy until the end of the Monarchy itself, or the breakup of the United Kingdom. Until one or both of those things occurs, Canada will likely stick along with our mother nation... feels weirder saying that while having a King lol.
We might make that change though now that the Queen has passed, but creating a new Constitution and becoming a Republic seems quite unlikely. We are also physically the closest, which has always given us a slightly different relationship.
Also, and I only mean this slightly as tongue-in-cheek, if Canada became a republic, how would she distinguish herself from the U.S. in any obvious way? Government? Not that different than the US. Laws? Yeah, a few laws, anyway. Culturally? Dream on. If you suggest that Canadians don't want to see themselves as different than the US, well, that'd be a tough sell.
@@JML6988 oh good point. The Monarchy is all the divides us and the Americans from each other. God bless His Royal Majesty... Still sounds weird lol.
The monarchy actually plays a huge role in Canadian government. The Governor General elects your senate.
I don't blame you for not being aware of this, no Canadian I've talked to about it seems to be either. I guess how government works isn't in your high school curriculum.
It's important not to confuse "doesn't exercise their power" with "doesn't have power". There's a very important distinction to be made between them.
@@m136dalie I appreciate the tidbit of information. I'm aware of the role the Monarch plays relative to our government through the form of the Governor General. I remember learning about the handful of functions that they play. That is why I never said that they literally play zero role. They are, after all, very much a part of the constitution and function of our government.
We are probably the last nation to ditch the Monarch, excluding the United Kingdom itself. If and only if we were going to switch to a Republic system, then we could easily turn to another function to grant such powers. The point is that the Monarch nor their representative are the ones making the majority of government decisions, or even acting as our international face.
I'm not in a rush to ditch the Monarch. Do I care for continuing it? Beyond nostalgic reasons, I don't think it's necessary, but I am aware that if we had to go through the process of decoupling ourselves, it would likely just be a whole big mess, and since the UK doesn't really play heavy handed power politics with Canada, I'm not super concerned.
Thank you again though as I appreciate adding anything of value to the conversation.
@@Mr.Septon Your opinion seems to be the dominant one in Canada from what I can tell from living here for almost a year. It's not my place to tell people how they should run their country.
As an Australian though I did find it shocking that the Governor General has so much power in Canada. In Australia the senate is elected by the people directly and actually has quite a lot of power. Whereas here it's just an appendage to the government since the monarchy (almost) always follows the government line.
It's a clever strategy since they trick people into thinking they have no power, when this is very far from the truth.
While I don't blame the Canadians for being indifferent to the monarchy, it does frustrate me since it reminds me the mentality Australians also share with them. That being the attitude that since the monarchy rarely influences our politics there's no need to remove the significant power they hold over us.
Barbados wanted Chinese investment. It wasn't really a decision about democratic principles.
It seldom is when it comes to abolition of the monarchy, ironically.
Most politicians smack their lips at the idea of appointing a party-sponsored politician as head of state - particularly when that position comes with any sort of hard power.
@@fds7476 “To go to a referendum, in my opinion, would be a mistake […] a referendum presents an opposition and an opportunity to oppose” - Peter Wickham, Barbadian political scientist and government advisor
“Republicans who really want to abolish monarchies are advised not to ask the voters”
- Matt Qvortrup, Advisor to the governments of St. Vincent and Barbados
I think there will be a fairly rapid process of Caribbean countries becoming republics. It already started last year, and the death of the Queen will probably accelerate it. So that could be half of the Commonwealth Realms gone pretty soon.
Don’t be so sure. All remaining Commonwealth realms in the Caribbean, except Belize, require referenda to remove the monarchy. The Caribbean, famously, is the graveyard of referenda. Not a single referendum has successfully passed in the post-independence commonwealth Caribbean. In Barbados, which didn’t constitutionally require a referendum, government advisors were open that they specifically avoided a referendum because they thought they’d lose. In three countries; Grenada, St Vincent & The Grenadines and Antigua & Barbuda, not only is a referendum required, but the referendum requires the support of 2/3 of voters to pass. Hardline republicanism is only really a phenomenon among the political class, most everyday West Indians are ambivalent or positive to the monarchy. We sure as hell deeply distrust our politicians.
@@LordDim1 Thanks, I didn't know that. So maybe it won't happen.
Forgot to mention South Africa left commonwealth in 1961, rejoined in 1994
In NZ, the Treaty of Waitangi could turn a divorce from the Crown into a minefield.
Oh yeah.
Minefield covered in napalm.
Agree. That's the thing that will make iwi fight to keep the monarchy. I don't think we will leave in my lifetime.
True that. But prior to the treaty of Waitangi (Victoria 1840) theirs the He Whakaputanga (William IV 1835)
Fun fact: one of the reasons Britain was eager for a treaty was because they committed genocide in Tasmania and thought 'this ain't gonna look good in the history books'
It would be easy to just replace the "crown" with "president" and have the presidents position be no different the the Govenor general, only elected.
It would still be solely symbolic and the Treaty would stand
The Commonwealth isn’t collapsing and that’s final
Something surprising for me as an outsider to the Commonwealth context (Swedish) is that "settler nations" like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, would be so keen to cut ties with the monarchy. I mean the majority of their populations are of British/European decent, unlike the other commonwealth members. "Non-settler nations" like Jamaica and Barbados are understandable to wanting get rid of colonial vestiges from, lets say, distant "alien" conquerors. But nations who descend from the colonizers themselves? Is it a desire to distance themselves from Britain the Overlord or just a general ideological leaning towards republicanism?
Interesting point!
As someone from New Zealand I would say it's a bit of both alongside the ongoing development of the nations culture and identity as time pushes us further and further away from our Colonial origin and the Imperial era as a whole. There's also, among the people I know at least, a general feeling that the Monarchy, and to a lesser extent the Commonwealth as a whole, are incredibly distant and disconnected and that they neither represent or have relevance to the people as a result.
I can't say I'm very surprised seeing such sentiment coming from younger people (30 and under) as I do feel like we look to the future and its possibilities more than we look to the past and tradition. Probably my one major takeaway from all of this following the Queen's passing is that the Monarchy isn't seen as 'ours', it's seen as 'theirs', as something foreign, even alien.
New Zealand culture is seen as a blend of European and Māori with room for inclusion of new arrivals from elsewhere, it's fluid and ever changing and in recent years the country seems to have decided that it's roots are with Tangata Whenua, not the monarchy
For the most part it's about sovereignty. When your head of state is on the other side of the planet that doesn't sit well with people who want Australia to have a strong independent foreign policy. Not to mention the concept of monarchy is outdated and serves no place in a modern country like Australia.
Also most Australians don't consider themselves of English descent, they just see themselves as Australian.
On the whole, they're not keen to cut ties with the monarchy.
To some degree there's an aspect of a vocal minority given press time, because it sells papers and gets clicks.
Most others just want to get on with their lives and don't want the hassle of changing.
e.g. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the BBC the complexities of moving away from a constitutional monarchy are not what "Canadians are overly taken up with right now".
The New Zealand PM made similar comments, including "So my observation is that there will continue to be an evolution in our relationship. I don't believe that it will be quick or soon, but over the course of my lifetime."
BTW, Jamaica and Barbados, etc. are more "settler nations" as you call them, than most others. Pretty much everyone there is descended from people that came from Europe or Africa.
The Commonwealth is like having a WhatsApp group for people you used to keep locked up in your basement!
Not sure where you got the map that says Afghanistan is in the Commonwealth
As a Canadian, I don’t see the monarchy going anywhere soon. It would just be too much of a hassle to get rid of what is effectively a rubber stamp, plus older generations still feel very attached to the monarchy. Also Canadians will take anything to better differentiate themselves from Americans lol.
Considering how Canada is partly made up of the descendants of the loyalist who sided with the British during America's revolutionary war
Sometimes I feel Canada is basically what would happen if you combine US and UK in terms of sport, culture, tradition etc.
@@amartyaroy3754 it is. It has the same foundation as The USA as a British settler colony in North America. The difference being that Canada didn’t shed itself of “Britishness” like the US did post revolution. Heck, the Canadian province of New Brunswick would have joined the 13 if it weren’t for the massive garrison already in place there, and being the closest point to the British isles.
Also Quebec. Quebec is a very different beast.
But couldn't Canada just do what Barbados did last year? Remove the British monarch as head of state, then make the Governor General into the President (elected by Parliament) and have the President be the new head of state (with only ceremonial powers) and the Prime Minister remaining as head of government. That seems fairly simple to me.
@@MrLylehammer No, because the monarchy is entrenched in the constitution and specifically requires the unanimous agreement of ALL provinces plus both houses of Parliament. So sure, anything could happen, but I wouldn't bet on this change in particular occurring.
What would have been useful to comment on is the pros and cons for having the monarchy as the head of state.
The belief that a human being is superior or inferior to another just because of their DNA and therefore deserving or non-deserving to perform a state role is troublesome. The Monarchy keeps alive the idea for Division on the basis of DNA.....and we all know what that leads to, don't we?
A democratic process and monarchy are truly contradictory to each other. A democratic process does not have inherited state roles.
Somebody should explain all that to everybody.
Mentioned this before, but it basically chalks up to the queen being a living constitution, being able to adjust the law when needed when the current government fails, it gives the law the ability to flex when it would be strained under a rigid constitution, like the US. As you can see with the US's endless squabbling about their constitution, there are advantages against having one like theirs.
UK operates without a written constitution for this reason, operating off precedence. Australia is the same, except they have a constitution written by the monarch, and the monarch can change it at any time, being the final say.
Now, assuming the monarch has good intentions for their people this works really well, but, there is an obvious worry that a guy living on the opposite side of the world, might not perfectly align with Australia's interests.
Re: The 1999 Republic referendum in Australia
In constitutional terms the 0 state majorities it received (4 + national required to succeed) meant an extremely sound defeat.
Yeah... The supermajority requirements of the constitutional amending formula in Australia (and even more so in Canada, where I live) makes it a lot harder to move to a republic than in (non-federal) New Zealand and other small island nations that still use the UK monarch as Head of State.
You'll note that this YT video fell suddenly quiet about the situation in Canada. That's because our constitutional amendment procedure in this particular case is an extreme (and complicated) one both in law and in practice:
(1) The legislatures of the ten provinces - as well as the federal House of Commons and Senate - must ALL approve a resolution to abolish the monarchy and adopt, albeit by a simple majority, a replacement (including - in practice - the nomination/election process and subsequent amending procedure) - which is very likely to be where such a move would run off the rails, as it did once before in Australia.
(2) Some (though not all) provinces also require referenda before their legislatures can vote on any constitutional amendment resolution. In practice, this is likely to mean referenda in most if not all provinces.
(3) Unlike in Australia, the (much less powerful) federal government - even if it enjoys a supportive majority in the two houses of Parliament here - can't just foist a binding constitutional referendum onto the country. That means that any (tentative) amendment proposal must be unanimously agreed to by the Premiers and governments of ALL provinces. So any conservative monarchist Premier (even from one of the smallest provinces) can block it.
(4) Since moving to a republic is almost entirely symbolic and Canada is a country with lots of real disagreements - including between regions and provinces - about how the country's constitution should be changed, any "republican" amendment would just be one of many contentious amendments that some Province or other would insist on being addressed before they agreed to submit such an amendment to their legislatures.
All this is why it's most unlikely Canada will join any "republican stampede". I frankly doubt we could get our act together even if the UK itself ditched the monarchy!
@@PeloquinDavidI was,obviously, only referring specifically to quoting the 54% No in the referendum as being ‘close’. To get to that point it requires an absolute majority in both houses of federal parliament (76 of 151 members of the House of Representatives and 39 of 76 senators or a simple majority of a joint sitting if the majorities pass different versions of the same bill twice). And technically the people are, in effect, acting as a third chamber of parliament as the law can’t be assented by the GG prior to the referendum. Part of the problem is that like the institutional structure of the senate those drafting Australia’s constitution have borrowed from the U.S a procedure that was designed to be exercised by the states (usually their congresses specifically) as institutional bodies and superimposed an electoral process which require state populations to vote simultaneously.
The parliamentary majorities required in Australia are generally presumed to require either some form of implicit official support by both potential governing blocks and the conservative coalition tends to, at least at a brand wide policy level be, well, conservative on rwlublicanism.
it doesn't matter who "leads" the commonwealth. It's such a minor part of how countries operate. It's more like a cultural tag with nearly no costs or benefits. Just a few individuals working towards democracy and trade. As for "head of state" I think only the UK should have the monarchy as head of state, and even then only symbolically. All the countries outside of the UK having the monarchy as head of state are already functionally republics. The UK also needs to take some steps to reduce the cost of the monarchy.
Personally I think UK tax payers shouldn't pay for the monarchy. They can easily afford their own upkeep and security.
But it means a hell of a lot to the so-called 'royals' and their aristocratic mates, including all the Posh Boys that have destroyed England over so many years. It should go.
@@brandon3872 But then they have no reason to give any more back. Which is a lot more than they take. The Monarchy works as an investment. My god it's such a simple concept for people to understand
The optics matters. It most definitely matters. The fact you think it doesn’t is quite comical when optics and public perception is what sustains the British monarchy. The royals rotating who leads the commonwealth would *instantly* quash the theories of it being a neo-colonial geopolitical operation.
Common misconception and myth that royal family brings in a lot of money it doesn’t only Windsor castle brings in a substantial amount of money although Lego land Windsor takes in a much higher percentage of money. I think many commonwealth countries especially in Carribean will follow Barbados lead and ditch monarchy as they should !
I, as a foreigner, would ask: who cares? :$ (dont want to upset anyone, but honestly,...)
Canada is unlikely to become a republic any time soon. Neither of the two main political parties have suggested Canada should ditch the monarchy, and changing the Canadian constitution is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. A lot of young people dislike the monarchy, but the main complaint I hear is that it's a waste of money. Regardless of whether that's fair criticism or not (I don't think it is), "waste of money" probably isn't a big enough motivator to create change. With that said, if King Charles does anything controversial, opinion could change quickly.
You can see a change in Charles already. He knows that he can't express opinion like he did when he was the heir so I doubt he will do anything overly controversial
I’m from BC and understand the things that each province would have to do and subsequently have every province agree, not to be frank but it isn’t going to happen. Of course a certain province might vote to abolish the monarchy (obv, Quebec) but I don’t see the other provinces doing the same. Too many people live in Canada that have ethnic and political reasons to want the monarchy, as well as the fact that people like myself have British parents. Also Westminster style parliamentary constitutional monarchy, has helped Canada avoid tyranny and dictatorship for over 150 years.. I even heard my Iranian co worker discussing with my Israeli co worker about how they don’t necessarily feel affiliation for the monarchy but they understand change will cost us BILLIONS(ie changing symbols and crown corporations etc) as well as the fact that they trust the political system not necessarily the politicians, but they know the crown WILL NOT under ANY circumstances allow the government to gain unquestioned and unbreakable control. God Save the King, and Long live the Canadian confederation Flaws and All!!! 👑🇬🇧🇨🇦
@@FF-ru8re Well Québec has his reason too.
The Monarchy is a waste of Canadian money, and an insult to Canadian ideas and values. Time to get rid of colonialism.
Next to leave the commonwealth🇨🇦🇨🇦
"It's a neo-colonial institution!"
"Hey... Can we come back?"
F_ing brilliant!
The referendum in Australia was asked during the term of a Monarchy supporting PM in John Howard. As with most referendums in Australia, the question was worded in a such a way to encourage answering the question in line with what the government wanted.
Prior to the referendum, there was much discussion (prematurely) about the many variances in republican models that Australia could follow if the referendum went down the path of deciding for a republic.
However the referendum was sabotaged by making it a question of choosing a very specific referendum model versus maintaining the status quo. This meant that a lot of voters who would would have supported a republic, but not the model suggested had no option but to back down, and vote to keep the status quo.
It was a very successful tactic by government at the time, because it almost ensured a lack of support for moving away from the monarchy.
The referendum has been taken off the table mainly out of respect for the Queen as any discussions about moving away from the monarchy at this point in time, could be political suicide.
However I believe that the government will feel the mood of the people and take it to the next election.
Furthermore I believe that a republic supporting government would tackle the issue (correctly) through asking of two questions at two referendums.
Firstly, "should Australia be a Republic?"
Secondly "should Australia be a Republic of model A or model B?"
Even within the UK, the accession of the new King is going to damage the Monarchy's standing. The Queen was a subtle reason for some Scots voting against independence in 2014. I'm not saying that her passing makes independence a certainty but it's also hard to imagine the new King engendering such loyalty
You say that yet the only football team to go against the UEFA on the ban of singing the new national anthem is a Scottish team.
And yet polling completely disagrees with you. Polling conducted by YouGov after the queen’s death now shows 69% of Brits think Charles will be a good king, and only 15% think he’ll be a bad one. Likewise, it found support for the monarchy has, since the queen died, gone up to 75% from 74% in May.
@@LordDim1 Was the poll based on the population of the whole of the UK, or just Scotland?
@@AlphaEarth This was the whole of the UK, there have been no Scottish independence polls so far. However, those polls do suggest there has been no change in support for the monarchy because Charles has become king, and he is becoming far more popular. Therefore, it stands to reason, the queen’s death will change nothing regarding Scottish independence. If anything, the fact she died in Scotland and Scotland played such a central part in all this, might make more people sympathetic to the union. Even the deputy leader of the SNP admitted that the current events “shows Scotland’s central position in the constitutional framework of the UK”
Especially when the Scots find out that Andrew remains the Earl of Inverness, which makes him effectively the 2nd most powerful male in the Royal family. This means in theory, should Charles not be able to carry out his duties due to illness or absence, it is expected that Andrew (not William, Edward or Anne) would substitute.
Right now, Charles seems more concerned about a leaky pen, than anything or anybody else.
We will fight to keep our king 🇯🇲
No we won’t 🇯🇲
@@chocolatesugar4434 yes we will 🇯🇲
I like flags
🏴
No brother we won't.
No, we won't. Republic now! 🇯🇲🇯🇲🇯🇲
I genuinely hope it does
Hey look, if my fellow Australians want the monarchy gone that’s fine, all the power too them, however I just don’t see the point. The king maintains great relations with our allies for us and has basically no political power to speak of, to be honest I see no good reason to get rid of him
It's just a symbolic thing. People want to distance themselves from colonialism
You don't see the point of an Australian head of state chosen by Australians instead of some big eared POM descended from a German royal family? 🤨
@@SirAntoniousBlock you do realise the king has no actual power, right? It's a purely ceremonial role, so who cares?
@@lenseclipse He hires'n'fires the governor-general who very much has powers though.
@@lenseclipse He has the political power to veto any parliamentary bill that will effect him financially (which was recently used by the previous monarch) and of course he has a lot of wealth and status which means power.
As to your last remark, you don't obviously.
You failed to mention that since the Jamaican constitution refers to the monarchy as "Her Majesty", KEEPING the monarchy might require a referendum.
Maybe we can get a queen charles? 👀
Perhaps Queen Elizabeth 2 foresaw this happening, and that was the reason she didn't retire & give up reign to Charles sooner.
Not at all. British monarchs don`t retire. Their coronation vows are for life and the Queen took hers very seriously. If the monarch becomes incapacitated for any reason then there is a mechanism for installing a regency as happened during the reign of George III.
You missed one. Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth in 2003 and is yet to return.
They should stay out
2:53 I was not expecting that punchline.
I definitely will never claim to speak for everyone but I don't think most people in the UK care (in the nicest possible way). The countries of the Commonwealth are independent, sharing a monarch with the UK doesn't make a difference to everyday life. I'm not really convinced many people would break down in tears if an independent country decided to ditch the monarch in favour of their own elected head of state. Everyone should have a right to choose who represents them.
As for the monarchy and government apologising for the crimes of the empire, I think there's a lot to be gained in doing so in terms of peace. Not just for the UK but all former European imperial powers. Just my opinion of course! :)
Hmmmmmm.
Yet again have the amercians apologised to the native americans?
all did already
Oh let me reassure you, for most people in Commonwealth nations they have no idea either what membership brings to them. It's just an organisation that does no harm or good and that they can't therefore be bothered with leaving. Retaining membership by default, if you'd like. With some nice games for athletes every 4 years.
" apologising for the crimes of the empire, I think there's a lot to be gained in doing so in terms of peace"
Yep, and it creates a bad precedent, as following official apologies, there would be demands of compensation in various forms that would never end, spreading from one former colony to the next. A burden no one alive in the UK today should bear.
@@pritapp788 " Commonwealth nations they have no idea either what membership brings to them"
Not in Western Commonwealth countries, but in Africa it brings lots of benefits and prevents wars, and encourages diplomacy. There is also lots of projects that promote prosperity in these countries. It is why lots of Southern and central African countries value their membership, and even ex French colonies vying for membership.
Something I do wander regarding Ireland, and its why it left the Commonwealth. Feel stupid for wandering it thou as I am Irish myself, but it was never something I recall learning about in History class, at least where I went to school. I also wander if its a good thing or not that Ireland left the Commonwealth.
At the time, the commonwealth had a requirement that member countries have the British monarch as head of state. That's why Ireland left
@@carried_copper586 Although that requirement was dropped a couple of years later when India became a republic. I guess there wasn't much appetite in Ireland to actively join the Commonwealth again after having left it.
Ireland was very actively involved in the Commonwealth, especially prior to 1932.
I think Ireland made a mistake in leaving the Commonwealth back in 1949.
Most Irish people don't know that there is a huge Irish diaspora living in Commonwealth countries - especially in Australia, Canada, & the U.K..
It was because then to be a commonwealth member countries had to owe allegiance to the British crown .
Later the rule was removed and Ireland could have joined but it didn't.......
As a Canadian, my view is that the Monarch is a cheap Head of State, the alternative being a President with all the palaver and expense involved (eg USA)
Most European republics have ceremonial presidents which don't cost any more than our governor general does (e.g. Ireland, Germany, Austria, Finland, Portugal).
1:16 he is still the head of state here, in Canada.
I would love to see Australia, New zealand and Canada being republic.
UK too. Lets ditch that irrelevant shower for good.
I think all Caribbean countries should remove the monarchy, Canada, and New Zealand might keep the monarch, maybe even Australia, all this will die down after some time and people will forget it
Why on earth should Papua New Guinea become a republic? They are probably the MOST loyal of all the realms; when they became independent from Australia in 1975, everyone expected them to become a republic. Instead, they ASKED the queen to become their head of state. Just a few months ago, the PM of PNG stated that papuans remain deeply loyal to the monarchy and there is no movement to change it.
@@LordDim1 I only now found out after this, I thought since they are colony who suffered under british they want to stay away
We can only hope.
6:38 this guy is surely right handed
It's bizarre that the Queen was head of state around the world. Nobody in Australia, New Zealand or Canada able to represent their own country? Let alone the other 2 dozen countries
they are able to represent their own country they still have freedom .
The queen is just a figurehead. She didn't do any actual ruling of Australia or Canada or Barbados. She was just a ceremonial leader while the government elected by the people was in charge.
Australia had a referendum on it. They clearly didn't have a big problem with it
A very American take. Stick to your own politics and burning dumpster of a country.
@@danielwebb8402 45% during the last election said no to the queen and people hate Charles more so I think the number will be higher this time
The fact that countries are joining the Commonwealth suggests otherwise the title.
What countries?
@@blugaledoh2669 This year, African countries Togo and Gabon who were French colonies joined the commonwealth.
@@swinger9374 What? I thought the commonwealth was for only former British colonies.
@@blugaledoh2669 Mostly are former British colonies but there are some exceptions, such as the two I mentioned above. Others are Mozambique and Rwanda, who used to be Portugese and German colonies. The commonwealth is gradually shifting away from the context of the former British Empire and welcoming new members.
Yes it's most likely that the commonwealth of Nations might stay but the number of commonwealth realms are decreasing.
Australia does have a minister for the Republic to get gje conversation rolling. Albo the Australian Prime minister also made it very clear there would be a referendum on the Republic in his second term.
I think you forgot about Antigua and Barbuda, whose Prime Minister has announced the plan to organize a referendum to become a republic.
How would it when it's a glorified market place consisting of nations that were once colonies
what wrong with that the Muslims also used warfare to colonize other country's till this day also the Catholics and other religions
spain also has colonized mexico they speak Spanish and nearly wiped out the people for gold
@@macdonaldmaurice think you're missing the quintessential point, Maurice
I understand that Charles III has moved to lay off many of his and the queen's long time employees even before she is buried. This lack of diplomacy if repeated in other areas will probably push anti royal sentiment more than anything else.
Or that it is just a natural surplus of staff now that roles and duties are changing within the organisation of the royal family, and these lay offs were probably planned for and employees were informed of them. I highly doubt it's Charles thinking "aha now I have power, let's sack this lot because I want a new golden toilet"
The Duke of Edinburgh always referred to the Royal Family as "The Firm" and, like any firm, when circumstances change, staff movement is inevitable. The RF is not a benevolent charity and there would be plenty of well deserved criticism if money was spent on surplus staff. You just can't please anti-royalists. I suspect many redundant staff will be found alternative positions but compulsory redundancies should be minimal. We have to go with the system we've got. If you don't like it, be thankful we don't have Putin to put up with!
It's not what he did. It's how he did it. And this will be his downfall.
@@jebus89 No. They weren't planned for and the employees were not informed until the last moment. Charles has a special team that iron his shoe laces and put precisely 1 inch of tooth paste on his tooth brush for him every morning... not even a joke.
@@royfearn4345 Oh wow the sycophancy in that comment is sickly... Why is it that any criticism/statements of historic facts of "the firm" is met with, well if you don't like it just be grateful it's not worse? You know we're not 5 years old. Don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining, you know damn well that systemic problems are fixed by solving them, not pointing at other bad shit.
Charles double teamed a 9 year old with Saville? well at least the kid wasn't disabl... oh wait.
I hear prince Andrew and the duke had a lovely time trekking in the mountains. It's an awful shame _so many_ of the children went missing over the years. Talk about charity, hey.
Oh and Lizzy was good pals with Pinochet! Remember when our forces trained dogs to rape women in Chile. Good people. I don't know why its _soooo hard_ to please the darn anti-royalists 🤣
I imagine several countries will become republics... But equally the Commonwealth will continue as it is an exclusive club.
Note about Canada, we are definitely keeping the monarchy. It is easier for Britain to remove the monarchy than it is for Canada. It requires a re-writing of the constitution and change the constitution is referred to as the "third rail" of Canadian politics
Uk has to aswell , my whole point is if it aint broken then dont fix it
Something to keep in note, most of the issues stems from having the head of state be the monarchy, most countries within the commonwealth do enjoy the bennefits of a commonwealth. I know I for one never want to see my country become a problematic system of governance like a certain country making waves the last several years *cough*.
Losing the queen as head of state doesn't mean leaving the commonwealth, it's nota requirement anymore, I say just let these countries do what they want to in terms of HoS but it would be nice to keep everybody together
Russia?
@@0w784g thinking more of starts with a U and ends with an A
@@pixhammer Wholeheartedly agree, regardless of Soveriegnty, a commonwealth is good for everyone.
@@SamWulfign Uganda?
I could easily see all the Caribbean countries deciding to remove the Monarch as their Head of State. Maybe they’ll stay in the Commonwealth, maybe not. But the Caribbean nations are definitely looking to leave their colonial past in the rear view mirrors.
Maybe, but there is a reason half of the realms where in the Caribbean in the first place.
In my country (the Bahamas) the issue isn’t that clear. A lot of people are essentially apathetic to the issue of Republic/monarchy, although some are vocal.
So it could be a chance we stay depending on the vote.
@@natenae8635 I really don’t get West Indians who keep screaming about colonialism and slavery, and blaming it on the monarchy and claiming it’s colonialist. It’s embarrassing frankly. It’s as if we’re incapable of taking responsibility for the mess our own politicians have put our islands in since independence. Slavery certainly has left a legacy, but at this point it’s just becoming a smokescreen for politicians to keep running our countries into the ground, while they run off with all the money. 50 years plus of independence, and still everything they can do is blame Britain.
The crown, to me as a Grenadian, honestly represents independence in some ways. The queen was always welcoming and accommodating to independence movements; it was always a member of the royal family present at independence celebrations, not British government officials. The queen’s stand against apartheid certainly puts her in a good light, and I think Charles is very much the same. The crown is a nice link which binds us together, and makes our countries rather unique. Plus it, to a degree, depoliticises our head of state. And god knows we don’t need more politician leeches.
@@LordDim1 lol Britain paid the slavers after emancipation. The British government has been paying reparations to their descendants until 2015. Maybe that's why they are a bit upset? You get marooned on a random island where your people are worked to death for sugar. When it's all over you get nothing and the criminals who enslaved you get payments. Much of the poverty and lack of industry literally comes from the period of British imperialism. I guess they should just brush it off though cause it's "embarrassing" apparently according to you.
@@LordDim1 also the queen was never welcoming to independence lolo she literally went on tour to make sure everyone joined the commonwealth or kept her as head If state.
@@franzjoseph1837 Saying that Britain was paying compensation to slave owners until 2015 is simply not true. What was paid off in 2015 was the last loan where any part of the loan could be tracked back to the original slavery abolitionist loan taken in 1833. I certainly think the UK should invest here, they are the mother country and should seek to keep good and strong ties with us. However, I simply think it’s unfair to demand Brits of today accept responsibility for crimes centuries in the past, committed against people no longer alive. It’s embarrassing because it shows an inability from our political class to own up to their own shitty handling of independence, instead trying to blame someone else and distract from their corruption and mismanagement.
And the Queen never opposed decolonisation. She travelled the commonwealth to build strong ties and relations, never to force anyone to stay. She always sent warm congratulations and good wishes upon independence, and was always clear that maintaining her as head of state was fully the choice of the people of the realms. The Queen oversaw the greatest decolonisation in history, and played a central role in making it go largely smoothly and peacefully.
To think that people actually care about the British crown... that they really are loyal to the crown or even the queen is foolish. Nobody gives a damn about the queen or the crown.
It's funny how all these former colony went independent on their own while Hong Kong who loves the Queen and didn't mind being a British colony was given up by Britain
I wouldn't be so eager to ditch the king of England as head of state. He doesn't cost a lot to non Britons, he already knows how to do the job properly and he has little to no power.
As an Aussie the appointed head of state here is a mostly ceremonial position but its more about fully becoming an independent country, sure its nice and cosy and familiar being tied to the UK royal family but at some point it's time to move on.
The Queen was all round loved and respected but i think youll find a large portion of the country could really give two shit about the brits and the royals. Nobody cared before because the Queen was well liked. Now that she is gone though? Youll probably see Australia transition to a republic in 5 years time but stay a part of the Commonwealth.
Quick note as a dual Brit and Kiwi: I think Ardern is right here-it will happen but probably not for 20-30yrs. Cultural shifts are taking place in NZ where older generations still align with the monarchy and Britain, but younger generations see themselves as a more separate cultural identity. Increasingly, Maori culture is being brought into typically Anglo institutions like politics, government, education and history. Additionally, whilst there are a large portion of Brit expats in NZ, NZ now has a much more diverse range of expats than 20years ago-including Asia, Pacifica and India. All of this means that NZ is becoming less and less aligned with the UK culturally and institutionally. Once the previous generations (who tend to have a more colonial mindset) pass away, its likely that the commonwealth will become a hot topic for NZers. There of course are benefits to trade, so I think its unlikely they will cut all ties, but certainly removing the queen as head of state will be on the cards.
I'm also a kiwi and I don't mind the king being the powerless head of state tbh. Makes us a bit fancy
We have the Westminster Adoption Act 1947
The Treaty of Waitangi 1840 Victoria
And He Whakaputanga aka the declaration of independence of the United Tribes of NZ. 1835 William IV
I don't believe we will leave the Commonwealth in my lifetime unless the British Monarchy is abolished.
To me the Treaty is with the Crown and not the State (NZ) although I don't agree with the English translation
@@shaunteruki8990 yeah that translation is a real dbag move by ancestry
@@shaunteruki8990 100% agree about the translation of the Treaty- and learning about how this happened in a lot of colonies was really mind boggling to me- how intentional that total disregard and disrespect was. I am proud to call myself an honorary Kiwi, and glad that NZ is trying to do the right thing now, so many years later. We may not always get it right first go, but at least we are starting with the same understanding now!
Ardern sounds like someone who is terribly scared of doing anything that will upset older voters. I'd understand if she was some old guy heading the other party, but it does not fit the image she wants to project as a young, transformative leader. She doesn't seem to have any principles or convictions.
You forgot Antigua and Barbuda, who look pretty ser on becoming a republic in the near future
We are stuck with monarchy here in Canada. Any change to our constitution requires unanimous agreement from all 10 provinces plus the Federal Government.
There is a better chance of the UK ending the monarchy than of Canada leaving.
There is no common wealth.
Wealth is in the hands of a few, not shared.
Mate, commonwealth is one word and it doesn't mean "common wealth" at all...
Making Canada a republic may lead to Quebec's autonomy. Why? Because a president would be elected, giving it a political meaning, unlike a monarch.
Maybe there shouldn't be one person being "head of state" at all? I mean the whole idea seems outdated. Also it is pretty silly that many people think monarchy isn't political. The whole idea behind the institution is political, in one way or another, dependent on which type of monarchy we talk about. Monarchy just like any other way of choosing head of state cannot be apolitical.
Also, Quebec deserves autonomy.
@@KateeAngel Actually, there are countries with a prime minister and no head of state (monarch or president). The result is that the prime minister serves as head of state. It is a needed function. The main job of a (non-executive) head of state in democracy is just to guarantee the democratic passage of power after elections. The condition is neutrality. When a monarch or president deviates from neutrality, they can be sure of being ousted (the individual deposed or the institution suppressed).
So, the individual may be political, but the institution in itself is not.
Also: autonomy and independence are two different things.
@@MarcusCactus
Making the head of government the same person as the head of state is a recipe for disaster.
No person should have this amount of hard and soft power concentrated in their office.
@@MarcusCactus Curious which ones only have a PM..
The Australian Prime Minister's slogan for getting rid of the monarchy could be "Fire the Governor General before he fires me!" That should be funny for anyone who knows the reference.
Nobody is rushing out because being part of the Commonwealth gives them easy access to an individual who can lobby the British government at their behest. Additionally, whilst it may not be exactly the same as a defensive military alliance, attacking a Commonwealth state will put the aggressor at odds with the monarchy, and by extension with the British state. On the other hand, doing away with the king can be seen as a diplomatic slight. Retaining the King as head of state in the name only does not cost other states a penny, so it seems like a rather straightforward cost-benefit calculation. It is a cost for Britain but taking diplomatic and social boons into account, it may be a cost worth paying (depending on the character and actions of this 'ruler' in the name only).
Somewhat unrelated to the commonwealth, but here’s my rant on countries becoming republics:
The monarchy is an enduring institution that forms the core part of the national identity of several nations, and I fail to see how the death of the sovereign, something that said system is specifically built around, changes anything.
The republican narrative for decades is to break it all down to some popularity contest, and to act as though it’s somehow weird or backwards to have a king. They’re persistent and often vulturous in how they drive the narrative, but the strangest part is that people seem to eat it up.
All these phrases like ‘I don’t want my tax going to them!’ (You live in Australia, the only times your taxes go to them is when they visit, which is also true of foreign rulers), ‘They don’t pay tax!’ (Who would the king pay? Himself?), ‘God Save the King sounds weird!’ (How?), ‘Canada’s already a republic!’ (No it isn’t). I’ve heard all of these from people I know as if they’re rebuttals.
I’ve seen how corrupt parliaments and local councils can be, and having an apolitical head of state gives me a sense of stability. I can only imagine the levels of corruption if the head of state were a politician.
My view is that the king has the right to rule, and through the development of new laws and customs we’ve inherited a unique democratic system overseen by him and governing the realm in his reign. Perhaps it’s unfair to have human beings made into public assets, but that’s a different story. I don’t we need to radically change a system that works perfectly fine.
Many will act like corruption in parliament is somehow the monarchy’s fault, but something tells me having a president wouldn’t have stopped the local councillor from repaving his street 3 times over for his daughter’s wedding.
The commonwealth will evolve and modernise. The monarchy is innately incapable of fully doing that
if the past 70 years are anything to go by, the Monarchy can, and has, evolved.
I still don't see the point of Commonwealth and keeping a monarch as head of state it's not 9th century.
Heres hoping
who cares?
Apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't be here.