Commonwealth Games Cities

[Ripley]

I can understand why a lot of the countries have moved away from Britain. I mean how would you like the idea of some country on the other side of the world dictating the law’s of your country? Britain has to realize that Canada, NZ, Australia, Nigeria, India etc. are not British anymore. We are New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, Nigerians, Indians etc. and we have our own laws, customs, cultures and lifestyles.

So what if the Empire has gone, Commonwealth Games are about countries coming together that share a common link in history.

Also the Commonwealth Games give countries like NZ, Wales, Jamaica, Malaysia etc. who (face it) are unlike to ever (or not for a very long time) going to host the Olympic games, so it gives smaller countries a chance to host a large world wide event.

The idea that we are all sat on our wee island in the North Atlantic craving for adoration from Aus/NZ and Canada is hilarious to most Brits. I think we totally get that we have no economic, social or political influence upon the ex dominions or colonies of an empire that was consigned to the history book 30 years before I was born and certainly before the majority of the populatoon has been around. I don't know why Aus/NZ and Canada are taking so long to ditch the queen...a referendum could be organised realtively quickly to sort that situation out...assuming thats what the people want.

Its not really a case of the UK standing still and everyone moving away from us. It was actually the UK that stepped away from the Commonwealth by joining the EEC in 1973....a small point that is missed by most commentators in Aus and elsewhere. We have all moved apart culturally and with increasing speed in recent years....I think the Olympics in 2012 will highlight this.

I think the Commonwealth Games are a waste of time and money. It doesn't seem right to be harking back to the days of empire by celebrating this event every 4 years. Its as much an anacronysm to the UK as it is to the other members. It makes us look like we're trying to cling on to past glories when the majority of people are more interested in holidaying in France or buying a second home in Spain. If small NZ and  Aus cities want to be able to host an event then there is always the Asian games ...I'm sure they would let you join. For Canada of course there is the Pan american Games. I believe Winnipeg has hosted in recent years. At least these events would be relevant. I don't think the CG's or the Commonwealth does anyone justice anymore. Its cultural baggage for us all that we need to ditch ASAP.

[Suit U Sir !!!]

I mean how would you like the idea of some country on the other side of the world dictating the law’s of your country?

In that case, imagine how the people of Iraq and Afghanistan feel......

[Guardian]

The bidding process for the 2014 Games is looking good.

Its helluva a lot better than the boring 2010 bid and also the 2006 bid where everyone dropped out and automatically gave it to Melbourne.

That's for sure. Melbourne getting 2006 by default while there were only 2 cities for 2010. This 2014 race may get interesting in a long while.

[Sir Rols]

It may be hard to put the finger on what it is exactly, but there's still something about the Commonwealth that is attractive to so many nations. For the richer old dominions like Australia, NZ, Canada etc, it is, as nzolympic said, still the ties of history that bind us. Sure economically we have fewer links in common and with the UK than existed before, yet it is still an organisation and forum that can bring us together in the absence of other more concrete links. As to the monarchy in those nations _ well, Australia did consider ditching the Queen, but in the end decided against it. The monarchy has provided a VERY stable system of government in all the former Dominions, and when it comes down to it, it seems we don't want to tamper with something that so obviously works well, anachronism or not.

For developing nations, once again it is a forum where they get to share the stage and have some influence with other larger, mkore powerful nations that they otherwise would have little contact with. This obviously means a lot to them _ why else would nations that would have good cause to have felt exploited and patronised by a former colonial overlord still then want to maintain their links with that past master. And why else would some nations _ like Mozambique and Cameroon _ who were never a part of that British Empire, want to join the "club". And then there's nations like Pakistan who have left (or rather been suspended) from the Commonwealth who are keen to come back at the first chance. It's a very varied and multicultural international stage that provides links that otherwise would not be there. Any multinational grouping is valuable, and after the UN, the Commonwealth provides one of the widest and most varied

groupings in the world still.

And as to the Commonwealth Games _ well, we've had these agruments and discussions in these threads before. Sure, they're not the "best of the best". But that's the point, they are a much more scaled down, friendlier version of the Olympics, and while they don't attract the same intense scrutiny and passion of the Olympics, they still attract interest when they happen every four years. And they give smaller nations a chance to shine in a spotlight that they otherwise would never have. And I'm not just talking the likes of Fiji, Tonga, St Kitts and Nevis, the Falklands, Uganda etc. There's also the likes of Scotland, Isle of Man, Wales etcc who otherwise don't havee such a formal presence on the international sporting stage outside of, say, football. And as nzolympic, again, said the likes of New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, India etc can only dream at this stage of hosting the Olympics, but can, and do have the chance to host the Commonwealth Games to gain an international spotlight that most nations crave _ why after all did London want 2012 if not to have the glory of having some time in the sun on the international stage.

The UK should be pleased, flattered and honoured that after all that has changed in the world over the past 100 years, after all the moves by the various old Empire nations to stand on their own feet and build their owwn place in the world, they still value their old, historical ties enough to want to maintain some form of contact. It's like an extended family _ people move on, marry, establish their own families etc etc _ yet still want to come together now and then on special occassions _ weddings, Christmasses etc _ to revel in their common bonds.

[Ripley]

It may be hard to put the finger on what it is exactly, but there's still something about the Commonwealth that is attractive to so many nations. For the richer old dominions like Australia, NZ, Canada etc, it is, as nzolympic said, still the ties of history that bind us. Sure economically we have fewer links in common and with the UK than existed before, yet it is still an organisation and forum that can bring us together in the absence of other more concrete links. As to the monarchy in those nations _ well, Australia did consider ditching the Queen, but in the end decided against it. The monarchy has provided a VERY stable system of government in all the former Dominions, and when it comes down to it, it seems we don't want to tamper with something that so obviously works well, anachronism or not.

For developing nations, once again it is a forum where they get to share the stage and have some influence with other larger, mkore powerful nations that they otherwise would have little contact with. This obviously means a lot to them _ why else would nations that would have good cause to have felt exploited and patronised by a former colonial overlord still then want to maintain their links with that past master. And why else would some nations _ like Mozambique and Cameroon _ who were never a part of that British Empire, want to join the "club". And then there's nations like Pakistan who have left (or rather been suspended) from the Commonwealth who are keen to come back at the first chance. It's a very varied and multicultural international stage that provides links that otherwise would not be there. Any multinational grouping is valuable, and after the UN, the Commonwealth provides one of the widest and most varied

groupings in the world still.

And as to the Commonwealth Games _ well, we've had these agruments and discussions in these threads before. Sure, they're not the "best of the best". But that's the point, they are a much more scaled down, friendlier version of the Olympics, and while they don't attract the same intense scrutiny and passion of the Olympics, they still attract interest when they happen every four years. And they give smaller nations a chance to shine in a spotlight that they otherwise would never have. And I'm not just talking the likes of Fiji, Tonga, St Kitts and Nevis, the Falklands, Uganda etc. There's also the likes of Scotland, Isle of Man, Wales etcc who otherwise don't havee such a formal presence on the international sporting stage outside of, say, football. And as nzolympic, again, said the likes of New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, India etc can only dream at this stage of hosting the Olympics, but can, and do have the chance to host the Commonwealth Games to gain an international spotlight that most nations crave _ why after all did London want 2012 if not to have the glory of having some time in the sun on the international stage.

The UK should be pleased, flattered and honoured that after all that has changed in the world over the past 100 years, after all the moves by the various old Empire nations to stand on their own feet and build their owwn place in the world, they still value their old, historical ties enough to want to maintain some form of contact. It's like an extended family _ people move on, marry, establish their own families etc etc _ yet still want to come together now and then on special occassions _ weddings, Christmasses etc _ to revel in their common bonds.

I can see the logic in all the points you have made...but I think that while the Commonwealth gives all member countries an oppertunity to revel in being victims of colonial oppression....(which is actually what happens in practice)... .it is a wholly negative force in terms of the future of the UK. It holds us back from committing to other  more worthwhile projects like the EU and gives the impression to the rest of the world that  we still have have imperial dillusions. I think this attracts a large amount of hostility towards the UK that we don't need. History is for books and documentaries...the Commonwealth has no influence upon the world at large....its not a trading block, nor is it a power in the sense of projecting its collective will (if it had one) militarily.

I personally think its time for mummy (UK) to ditch the kids (the Commonwelath). We don't have to fall out, but we need to know when to call it a day (although we can still maintain sporting links as far as cricket and rugby go).....Australia, Canada and NZ etc etc can then be free of their "cultural cringe" or whetever it is that they resent so much about being an ex-colony/dominion.

[Alexjc]

...I personally think its time for mummy (UK) to ditch the kids (the Commonwelath). We don't have to fall out, but we need to know when to call it a day (although we can still maintain sporting links as far as cricket and rugby go).....Australia, Canada and NZ etc etc can then be free of their "cultural cringe" or whetever it is that they resent so much about being an ex-colony/dominion.

??? Considering that the UK is The USA's lap poodle at the moment, no wonder the events in London have taken place.

As for cutting the old Imperial ties, unfortunatly here in NZ we have a WAY over sized expat UK community living here and every year at least 20000 of you show up at Auckland "Ellis Island" Airport wanting to start a new life BUT refusing to surrender your "English", "Scottish"(f**k I HATE Bagpipes!) and "Welsh" way of life when the enevitable UK sports teams arrive!

The fact that the USA, Canada, Japan, China, Chile  shares an ocean border with NZ seems to matter little to you people, you would rather place euro themed pubs and resturants in our midst.  Considering that the Queen is Head of State in name only will see NZ become a republic when she dies within 15 years time.

I also predict that the Commonwealth it's self will become it's own UN and the Games will survive with or without "tyrannical" England, maybe one day the USA will finally join up and take over!!!

[This Is Not The Cat]

. I don't know why Aus/NZ and Canada are taking so long to ditch the queen...a referendum could be organised realtively quickly to sort that situation out...assuming thats what the people want.

I'm not going to go into this beyond one post least I end up starting a Canadian constitutional law debate (and trust me no one wants that).  

Any attempt to remove the old broad from the loony would result in every separatist kook, from the cafe's of old Quebec to the saloons of rural Alberta, emerging from their holes to make life a living hell for the rest of us.  They would do this by taking the seemingly simply concept (no more Queen.  Let's make the Canadian head of state Canadian!) and twisting it to meet their own selfish interests--tearing the country up into tiny little pieces (to assumedly sell to the Americans after we finished destroying ourselves).

It would pee off a few old grumps at the legion too.

So...God save the Queen, eh.

[Sir Rols]

I can see the logic in all the points you have made...but I think that while the Commonwealth gives all member countries an oppertunity to revel in being victims of colonial oppression....(which is actually what happens in practice)... .it is a wholly negative force in terms of the future of the UK. It holds us back from committing to other  more worthwhile projects like the EU and gives the impression to the rest of the world that  we still have have imperial dillusions. I think this attracts a large amount of hostility towards the UK that we don't need.

I really don't see how it is holding the UK back _ the country is still a member, indeed very influential member of the EU, it's not like it has to consider any trading links etc with the old ccolonies, it is a steadfast ally of the US. It's just another body that the UK has membership in, that it should perhaps revel in because it gives it wider influence with a very varied group of countries than, say, Germany or Italy. Is the fact that France still maintains ties with its old colonies through the Francophone Games and other french speaking blocs considered a hindrance to it and a source of resentment against it by other European countries?  I don't think anyone outside the mosr rabid Anglo-haters and right-wing nationalist Brits have any delusions of the country still harbouring dreams of rebuilding Imperial Grandeur.

If there is any resentment in Europe and the rest of the world about the UK's extra-Euro links, it's not its Commonwealth links, but its "Close Relationship" with the US that seems to get some people's backs up (and that's not something that I think has anything wrong with it _ indeed, Australia too feels it has a close relationship with the US, an alliance I fully support).

It's the very fact that the Commonwealth has no real "power" that is perhaps its strength at the moment _ it is compelling no-one to be a member or to act certain ways, unless it's through the force of "moral" power as it was used however to try and force an end to Apartheid or now against Zimbabwe. Indeed, ironically, it would only be if the Commonwealth DID have some form of overt power that I would consider it to be anachronistic or backward looking.

[This Is Not The Cat]

Clarifying...

Removing the Queen as head of state would require an amendment of the Constitution.  Such an amendment would require the support of all 10 provinces.

If a proposal to amend the constitution to make a Canadian HoS were to ever be put forward it is highly likely that politicians in Quebec would make certain demands in exchange for the province's support (Quebec wouldn't give a  fig about the Queen but would view it as potential leverage).  If the feds were to capitulate and give into Quebec's demands you can bet that the west would make similar demands (likely for more autonomy).  Then the native groups would chime in with their demands and we would end up voting for some hodge-podge amendment that would try top give everything to everyone and would satisfy no one.  We have a  history of this sort of thing.  Google "Charlottetown Accord" one day if you are bored and learn all about the fascinating world of Canadian constitutional failures.

Such a referendum would likely fail.  These types of votes always fail--look at the EU constitutional mess for examples on your side of the pond.  That failure would be spun as yet another "slap in the face" by "those arrogant English bastards" by the Quebec separatists, who would pounce on the "Anglo ignorance" to hold yet another referendum on Quebec independence (or, more likely, "sovereignty-association."  I.E. Having your cake and eating it too--sorry, I'm ranting a bit now...I'll stop).

So, really, as much as I find royalty distasteful, it's just easier this way.  You Brits are likely to dump the inbreds before we are (can).

[Ripley]

I can see the logic in all the points you have made...but I think that while the Commonwealth gives all member countries an oppertunity to revel in being victims of colonial oppression....(which is actually what happens in practice)... .it is a wholly negative force in terms of the future of the UK. It holds us back from committing to other  more worthwhile projects like the EU and gives the impression to the rest of the world that  we still have have imperial dillusions. I think this attracts a large amount of hostility towards the UK that we don't need.

I really don't see how it is holding the UK back _ the country is still a member, indeed very influential member of the EU, it's not like it has to consider any trading links etc with the old ccolonies, it is a steadfast ally of the US. It's just another body that the UK has membership in, that it should perhaps revel in because it gives it wider influence with a very varied group of countries than, say, Germany or Italy. Is the fact that France still maintains ties with its old colonies through the Francophone Games and other french speaking blocs considered a hindrance to it and a source of resentment against it by other European countries?  I don't think anyone outside the mosr rabid Anglo-haters and right-wing nationalist Brits have any delusions of the country still harbouring dreams of rebuilding Imperial Grandeur.

If there is any resentment in Europe and the rest of the world about the UK's extra-Euro links, it's not its Commonwealth links, but its "Close Relationship" with the US that seems to get some people's backs up (and that's not something that I think has anything wrong with it _ indeed, Australia too feels it has a close relationship with the US, an alliance I fully support).

It's the very fact that the Commonwealth has no real "power" that is perhaps its strength at the moment _ it is compelling no-one to be a member or to act certain ways, unless it's through the force of "moral" power as it was used however to try and force an end to Apartheid or now against Zimbabwe. Indeed, ironically, it would only be if the Commonwealth DID have some form of overt power that I would consider it to be anachronistic or backward looking.

All fair points....but I think the UK's relationship to the Commonwealth is very different to that of NZ, Can or Aus. It is a very negative force in my opinion for the nations psychie and sense of place in the world. Its distraction which forces us to look back all the time, rather than forward....a very big flaw in our national charcater I would say. You are the new world and you have your own links and  institutions to build....we are a post industrial country emerging from years of decline....we have to look to the future, Europe.

As is pointed out a lot....the populations of Aus and NZ are no longer dominated by ex pat Brits in the way they once were. I think that while this shared history is relevant to some it's probably not all that interesting/relevant to most new immigrants.

[Ripley]

...I personally think its time for mummy (UK) to ditch the kids (the Commonwelath). We don't have to fall out, but we need to know when to call it a day (although we can still maintain sporting links as far as cricket and rugby go).....Australia, Canada and NZ etc etc can then be free of their "cultural cringe" or whetever it is that they resent so much about being an ex-colony/dominion.

??? Considering that the UK is The USA's lap poodle at the moment, no wonder the events in London have taken place.

As for cutting the old Imperial ties, unfortunatly here in NZ we have a WAY over sized expat UK community living here and every year at least 20000 of you show up at Auckland "Ellis Island" Airport wanting to start a new life BUT refusing to surrender your "English", "Scottish"(f**k I HATE Bagpipes!) and "Welsh" way of life when the enevitable UK sports teams arrive!

The fact that the USA, Canada, Japan, China, Chile  shares an ocean border with NZ seems to matter little to you people, you would rather place euro themed pubs and resturants in our midst.  Considering that the Queen is Head of State in name only will see NZ become a republic when she dies within 15 years time.

I also predict that the Commonwealth it's self will become it's own UN and the Games will survive with or without "tyrannical" England, maybe one day the USA will finally join up and take over!!!

You've just made my point for me....ex colonies hate the Brits...not personally, but everything we stood for as the so called mother nation. The Commonwealth has so much baggage attached to it that for us its just an exercise in self flagelation.

I doubt that the Comonwealth will break up any time soon and I dare say that if the UK did leave it there is nothing stopping the rest of the countries carrying it on.

As for Brits in NZ...well "mate" there isn't an office or pub in the UK without the delightful strains of Aus and Kiwi accents permeating the air....from what you say I can't imagine why they're all here...but they are also famed for winging about everything...while seemingly enjoying themsleves. I guess the whinging Pom/Kiwi/Aussi phenomenon is just a way for people far from home to make themselves feel better....spleen venting and all that.

[Sir Rols]

All fair points....but I think the UK's relationship to the Commonwealth is very different to that of NZ, Can or Aus. It is a very negative force in my opinion for the nations psychie and sense of place in the world. Its distraction which forces us to look back all the time, rather than forward....a very big flaw in our national charcater I would say. You are the new world and you have your own links and  institutions to build....we are a post industrial country emerging from years of decline....we have to look to the future, Europe.

I still just can't see or think of any concrete examples where the Commonwealth has been a negative, backward looking influence for the UK.

Okay, until the 1970s, is may have been a force that delayed Britain joining the EU, but since then? Has it stopped the UK from participating fully in the EU? Did it stop the UK taking the EU presidency this year? Has it hampered the UK in its trans-Atlantic alliance with the US? Has it hampered any trade deals for the UK? Is the Commonwealth ever used as an excuse for the UK not to join the Euro zone? Where once in the past 20 years has the Commonwealth ever hampered the UK looking after its own interests? Indeed, is anything, and particularly under Thatcher on such questions as South Africa and Zimbabwe, the UK has made it clear that its government will follow its own policies first and not be influenced by the Commonwealth on political matters. And that's just it, the Commonwealth is NOT an economic or political force, it is merely symbolic now, but that symbolic role has in no way hamepered any of its members from pursuing what is important for their futures.

[Ripley]

All fair points....but I think the UK's relationship to the Commonwealth is very different to that of NZ, Can or Aus. It is a very negative force in my opinion for the nations psychie and sense of place in the world. Its distraction which forces us to look back all the time, rather than forward....a very big flaw in our national charcater I would say. You are the new world and you have your own links and  institutions to build....we are a post industrial country emerging from years of decline....we have to look to the future, Europe.

I still just can't see or think of any concrete examples where the Commonwealth has been a negative, backward looking influence for the UK.

Okay, until the 1970s, is may have been a force that delayed Britain joining the EU, but since then? Has it stopped the UK from participating fully in the EU? Did it stop the UK taking the EU presidency this year? Has it hampered the UK in its trans-Atlantic alliance with the US? Has it hampered any trade deals for the UK? Is the Commonwealth ever used as an excuse for the UK not to join the Euro zone? Where once in the past 20 years has the Commonwealth ever hampered the UK looking after its own interests? Indeed, is anything, and particularly under Thatcher on such questions as South Africa and Zimbabwe, the UK has made it clear that its government will follow its own policies first and not be influenced by the Commonwealth on political matters. And that's just it, the Commonwealth is NOT an economic or political force, it is merely symbolic now, but that symbolic role has in no way hamepered any of its members from pursuing what is important for their futures.

You are quite right that the Commonwealth has had a very limited influence upon the UK in the years since 1973 in terms of its cultural, economic and social life…..but I don’t want the UK to be the country that is still perceived to be clinging on to its imperial past….even if that is not the case, it is a perception at large in the world and it makes us look ridiculous and perpetuates that sense of past glories and terminal decline which has held the UK back in the post war era. This is a perception which is very prevalent in places like China, India and many African countries…if not the traditional white nations. I think it is something that we just don’t need and if I weigh up the benefits of Commonwealth membership (which are very few as you have acknowledged) they are hugely outweighed by the negative assumptions and perceptions that flow from this continual charade.

We can all celebrate those things which we share because of our history in other ways than forming a talking shop that has no relevance to any of the countries in it and perpetuating Games that never make money and no major sporting stars take seriously. The resentment that is generated between Aus and the UK for example, not the friendly sporting rivalry that is usually great fun, but the undercurrent of resentment caused by the perception that because you are an ex colony you are culturally inept….this would be diminished if the Commonwealth were set aside and we had a more normalised and mature relationship. It would hopefully end the endless naval gazing about where the future of your country lies...I think we all know that it its not going to be based around an old lady in England. Why put off the inevitable? I think the regular shouts of….”we’re young , happy and we’ll be free one day from your pathetic frail imperial grip!” start to wear a bit thin after a while….its such a long and drawn out process that takes up far too much time an effort and only serves to poison what is otherwise a very health and positive relationship.

I’ve been to Aus and I have seen the similarities in how we live, but that doesn’t make the Commonwealth any more or less relevant to me. I have also been to the Netherlands and I feel the same sense of familiarity there to….and because of proximity and political, economic and social ties it just seems far more relevant.

[Ripley]

Clarifying...

Removing the Queen as head of state would require an amendment of the Constitution.  Such an amendment would require the support of all 10 provinces.

If a proposal to amend the constitution to make a Canadian HoS were to ever be put forward it is highly likely that politicians in Quebec would make certain demands in exchange for the province's support (Quebec wouldn't give a  fig about the Queen but would view it as potential leverage).  If the feds were to capitulate and give into Quebec's demands you can bet that the west would make similar demands (likely for more autonomy).  Then the native groups would chime in with their demands and we would end up voting for some hodge-podge amendment that would try top give everything to everyone and would satisfy no one.  We have a  history of this sort of thing.  Google "Charlottetown Accord" one day if you are bored and learn all about the fascinating world of Canadian constitutional failures.

Such a referendum would likely fail.  These types of votes always fail--look at the EU constitutional mess for examples on your side of the pond.  That failure would be spun as yet another "slap in the face" by "those arrogant English bastards" by the Quebec separatists, who would pounce on the "Anglo ignorance" to hold yet another referendum on Quebec independence (or, more likely, "sovereignty-association."  I.E. Having your cake and eating it too--sorry, I'm ranting a bit now...I'll stop).

So, really, as much as I find royalty distasteful, it's just easier this way.  You Brits are likely to dump the inbreds before we are (can).

Interesting....I wasn't aware that Canada is a fractured a nation as you suggest. I've always noticed that there is a huge amount of passion on these boards for "canada". If the majority of Canadians (not surewhat the national mood is) find monarchy distasteful its very sad that it is perpetuated in this way. It begs the question that is it worthwhile keeping Canada together using the queen as glue....its no way to continue as a nation if you ask me.

[stevie]

I wouldn’t mind it if NZ ditched the queen but I wouldn’t want use to leave the commonwealth. But the thing I like about our current political system is that its so stable and I like the class that’s comes with have the Queen of NZ rather than President of NZ.

[stevie]

I wish Quebec would hurry up and declare independence already, its going to happen sometime.

[This Is Not The Cat]

It's more that Canadian politicians have, literally, no desire to amend the constitution.  We tried twice in the early 1990s and the end result was resentment, bickering and, ultimately, 49.7% of Quebec (about 60% of French speakers) voting yes for “sovereignty -association" in the 1995 referendum.

If you pushed the point most Canadians would say that our HoS should be Canadian (hell, most likely think it is...), but dropping Liz isn't really a hot button topic.  I figure that we will keep her around until she kicks then quietly move towards some form of elected HoS.

To bring this a bit more on-topic....I think the Commonwealth Games have a use--as a development games similar to the PanAms.  Together they fit nicely into the Olympic cycle.  They still have a slightly higher profile over here than the PanAms do (although the PanAms sometimes act as Olympic qualifiers).  We usually get an hourly wrap-up show on TV during each night of the Games and about 6-8 hours of coverage on the weekends (if the games are in Canada, we get a bit more).  But no one talks about them.  Results are buried in the back of sports sections somewhere behind the NHL trade rumours.

[This Is Not The Cat]

I wish Quebec would hurry up and declare independence already, its going to happen sometime.

Oh NZ...for that to happen they would have to actually want to.  I mean really, really want to.

And this is an entirely appropriate forum to discuss this since about the only tangible thing Quebec would gain from its independence (it practically runs like its own country now) would be the symbolic stuff--like Olympic teams.

If they do separate, I really can't wait for the first hockey game.  That would be intense.  Real intense.

[Alexjc]

As for Brits in NZ...well "mate" there isn't an office or pub in the UK without the delightful strains of Aus and Kiwi accents permeating the air....

...I don't think we're "mates" - "laddy boy"!

[Ripley]

As for Brits in NZ...well "mate" there isn't an office or pub in the UK without the delightful strains of Aus and Kiwi accents permeating the air....

...I don't think we're "mates" - "laddy boy"!

Get a grip precious!.... ???

[stevie]

As for Brits in NZ...well "mate" there isn't an office or pub in the UK without the delightful strains of Aus and Kiwi accents permeating the air....

...I don't think we're "mates" - "laddy boy"!

Get a grip precious!.... ???

oh i wouldn’t bother with him Ripley, he’s from “that” part of the country, NZ’s equivalent of wales.

[Alexjc]

As for Brits in NZ...well "mate" there isn't an office or pub in the UK without the delightful strains of Aus and Kiwi accents permeating the air....

...I don't think we're "mates" - "laddy boy"!

Get a grip precious!.... ???

oh i wouldn’t bother with him Ripley, he’s from “that” part of the country, NZ’s equivalent of wales.

:rock: ...watch ya mouth fudge packer.

[Ripley]

As for Brits in NZ...well "mate" there isn't an office or pub in the UK without the delightful strains of Aus and Kiwi accents permeating the air....

...I don't think we're "mates" - "laddy boy"!

Get a grip precious!.... ???

oh i wouldn’t bother with him Ripley, he’s from “that” part of the country, NZ’s equivalent of wales.

LOL! I've never come across this kiwi before...I obviously struck a raw nerve. I always find Kiwis to be chilled and sensible people usually.  

[Ripley]

I also worry about the excitement of the British people.  Sometimes Brits are absolutely wonderful people - friendly, creative, welcoming, genuine.  But at times they are absolute wankers - bitching about everything as if longing for the days of the Empire.  If Britain pulls together they do wonderful, inspiring things.  If they don't pull together, they can be a bit malicious to the point of being self-destructive.

This is a quote from Kendegra, made in the London 2012 forum.

I'm not using it to make him look bad since he is totally free to express his opinions and this is a totally legitimate view based on his experiences. BUT....for me it highlights the cultural baggage that is attached to the Commonwealth in terms of perpetuating this "slave and master complex".

This quote goes to the heart of what I am talking about. Usually the debate about the Commonwealth and Empire is conducted from the POV of the victim...the colonies....but I am coming at the debate from a different perspective and trying to show that the Commonwelath and its assocuitons with the Empire is as much of an albatros around the UK's neck as it is a source of resentment to ex colonies and dominions.

I hope these post are taken in the spirit in which they are meant....I'm not being churlish or arrogant I am trying to look at the whole concept of the empire and the Commonwealth from an objective standpoint rooted in 2005.

[stevie]

...watch ya mouth fudge packer.

like i said "that part of the country"