Fear not, brethren, we are winning the counter revolution.
Our constitutional monarchy is not, as republicans believe, on an interminable slide towards inevitable extinction; things have actually, apathetically perhaps, been on the up since the horrendous decade of darkness. The ten years that gave us Annus Horribilis, the spastic aftermath of the death of Diana and the constitutional shockwaves from Australia's attempt to secede from the Union, was not a decade in which we can look back with undiluted pleasure. Heck, even Windsor Castle almost burnt down.
So where are we today? Well, New Zealand has restored knighthoods, Australia has surrendered the idea of holding another referendum for another generation and Canada is officially re-emphasising its monarchy for the first time since the 1950s. And while Her Majesty has been scandalously reduced to a subsovereign of a massive unelected bureaucracy and a presidential-style super-republic, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, the debate in Britain has finally turned Shakespearian: to be or not to be, that is now mercifully the question.
At some inevitable point in the future the UN will reform itself and a Permanent Council made up of America, China, India, Japan, the EU, Russia, Brazil and some African Union member will make all the important decisions. The way things are going, the EU is going to progressively take the place of its more powerful members, as Germany, France, Italy and the UK gradually cede their foreign policy to Brussels. As this happens, the G20 - now the most powerful decision-making bloc in the world - will shrink in size, making it look increasingly ridiculous for Australia and Canada and others to hold onto their exclusive membership. There has got to be another way.
There is another way, of course, assuming Britain sees the light and does not get sucked all the way into the Brussels vortex. Why is it so difficult to imagine that fantastically similar nations as Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who share an awful lot together, cannot bundle their energies on the world stage, while remaining fully sovereign and independent in their own right?
Pluralise the UK, call it the United Kingdoms, and allow each prime minister to rotate as secretary chair on the UK's permanent seat at the UN Security Council. As Secretary of the United Kingdoms, one would be speaking on behalf of an economic and military power greater than Japan, whilst giving up very little in return, and without the need for yet another wasteful layer of government. I'm not talking about a political union, the member countries as they exist today would simply agree on global matters in which they would agree anyways, and take turns serving as its head. In leveraging their own influence, they might also agree to recognize each other's citizens as full Commonwealth subjects, and reciprocate unhindered access to each others markets, both labour and business.
We have an infinite capacity to mess things up, but we also have forever to get things right. There is a season for everything, including returning to our roots. That, my friends, is not an exercise in government, but an exercise in freedom and fraternity.
Bosh if you think I'm nuts. God Save the Queen of the United Kingdoms!
What I would give to be a Knight of the Realm resident in New Zealand. Sounds almost like heaven!
ReplyDelete"Some say I'm dreamer / but I',m not the only one..."
ReplyDeleteI think you know me well enough that I would be delighted if we moved in this direction. It is also fair enough to say that this blog is doing more than promoting the monarchy, it's promoting a way of viewing the world for which the monarchy is a living symbol.
During the recent visit of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, much was made of the fact that many Canadians wanted to get rid of the Crown. Usually the questions were phrased in the terms of relevance. Of course most people don't think the monarchy is relevant, they haven't been taught anything about it. I don't recall anyone even mentioning the monarchy in any civics class or history class I took in school.
If people are not taught or explained the importance of something, they don't think it is relevant. If monarchy was taught in the schools, and the British traditions it represents, then yes Canadians would instinctively turn to the other Commonwealth nations in the Personal Union.
Canadian intellectual and political life is dominated by two types: the continentalist seeking to become cold weather American clones and the provincialists who imagine Canada sits on some small island in the South Pacific. There are also the world federalists, but they are still a minority outside the more eccentric corners of academia.
Pierre Trudeau famously asked: "Who speaks for Canada?" In modern Canada, Australia, NZ, the Caribbean states, who speaks for the Commonwealth? Who would speak for the United Kingdoms?
A "small island inthe South Pacific" - like New Zealand, PNG, Solomons...
ReplyDeleteBut of course you are right in your sentiment - too many people seem to think the only thing the Monarchry is good for is selling womans magazines at the supermarket. But they confuse the institution with the actual personalities.
Which is just the same here in NZ and no doubt in Australia. Seems that educating our kids on the basics of how their country actually works is sadly beyond most education departments.
I would never regard NZ as a small island.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Beaverbrook. I've advocated a similar idea for ages. However, are we not simply speaking of the Old Commonwealth? Certainly the EU is a disaster. In my reckoning so is the current Commonwealth. Let us be rid of Pakistan once and for all. Let us have a Commonwealth of Nations loyal to HM.
ReplyDeleteThere are dumber ideas around. The problem though is the total lack of consistency in policy - a Kiwi holding the post would go hardline on things like nuclear proliferation, whereas a Brit or Canadian might go for debt relief for Africa. And the countries have different party cycles - would a Labour PM from the UK be able to speak for a National Kiwi, or a Liberal Canadian?
ReplyDeleteStill, as I said, there are dumber ideas. There's already a lot of very intimate international cooperation between the UK, Can, Aust and NZ in all sorts of ways, esp. the UK-Aust security relationship, which has its own ministerial meetings.
In UN ballots, Aust/NZ often get lumped in the Western European and Others group so we often lose. This would give us a share of a Security Council vote. Interesting.
If Pakistan wishes to be in the Commonwealth, history is on their side. Rudyard Kipling's first big story was as assistant editor of the CMG in Lahore for the Amir of Afghanistan's state visit in 1885. The "Ballad of East and West" was inspired by his meeting an Afghan on the train that year. He admired Islam always. Read "The Eye of Allah." It is we who have become barbaric.
ReplyDeleteBefore considering the old ideal of Imperial federation, Kipling's fine lines which were removed from the Chapel of Remembrance in the Peace Tower in Ottawa in 1983 must be restored:
They are too near to be great
but our children shall understand
when and how our fate
was changed and by whose hand--
There was a move to amend the linguistic imbalance in the Chapel, and--this text did not find favour.
thnxxx for sharing....
ReplyDeletepublic speaking
By the way - is Hannan wearing a Garrick tie? I remember Ken Clarke being accused of "dog whistle" tactics by wearing the egg-and-bacon MCC tie a lot during the 2001 Tory leadership contest...
ReplyDeleteAppreciate the comments.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, each country would still be completely sovereign in its own right, and would be masters in their own house. Effectively each country would hold a veto, and any foreign policy decision would require unanimous consensus. Not a difficult task given how much we have in common, even though we would each have differing hemispheric perspectives.
Splendid idea!
ReplyDeleteI think that a straight forward federation along federal lines would be preferable, but this is not that bad an idea. In a federal (although perhaps a name with a nicer ring to it could be selected) would not be in need of another wasteful level of government ,aside from England any other areas not already given devolved parliaments.
ReplyDeleteI do not see why it should be called the United Kingdoms, a United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Australia and New Zealand does not sound that bad to the ear.
ReplyDelete"He admired Islam always."
ReplyDeleteMethinks he would not do so today! If you judge us so removed from all that is espoused in the foul creed of Islam, well, colour me proud.
"each country would still be completely sovereign in its own right"
Indeed. This would work best as a confederation of like minds. As much as we are able to have such a thing now.
A fantastic idea which would certainly re-forge the old bonds the 'Old Commonwealth' once had, the type of bond that kept us unified through two world wars! Withdraw Britain from the corrupt, gravy train that is the EU and kick start new relations with old friends.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. Give new meaning to ''United we stand''. Against terrorism this time round rather than Japs and Germans. Plus it would be nice to see Britain and Australia with closer ties, at the moment the Ashes is the only time we have much to do with eachother.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the first I've seen of this idea.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, there is a Wikipedia entry about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_unification_movement
Stephen Leacock and the other Imperial Federationists had the right idea, there is apparently a United Commonwealth Society which still advocates imperial federation they have a website at least. http://ucs.110mb.com/materials.html
ReplyDelete