Proposal: Commonwealth of nations

Seeing as theres been a sudden jump in the number of new leagues, associations etc. etc. being created lately i was considering trying to create a Commonwealth association, jumping on the bandwagon and all that :wink:

. I thought id just quickly create this thread for the relevant parties concerned to see if theres any interest in it, if so then i'll work out the relevant documents in the coming days if not i'll just let it fade away :smile:

It would broadly speaking follow a similar structure to the AL/BP with a rotating presidency and the like but as i said depending on interest i'll work out the details with everyone shortly after, i'll whack in a poll just for a bit of fun aswell

at least according to the MuN membership list this should be everyone. So yes comment on your opinions if you like the idea etc. :smile:

rockrunride

QFA

areyouthere?

QFA

arnoob

QFA

josephiner

QFA

Agent Smirnoff

QFA

for both Canada and Dominica

TheProfessional

QFA

davidmarsh01

QFA

Floridfist

QFA

CookieGhoul

QFA

Atherilia

QFA

Swanbow

QFA

hines

QFA

Theflyingbarney

QFA

jakemittle

QFA

spike_spiegel

QFA

PoGo HoPz

QFA

wizardtop

QFA

Mrgd291190

QFA

Aaaaaaaargh!

QFA

alex5455

QFA

senz72

QFA

Kirsteneg

QFA

patrickedore

QFA

Rakas21

QFA

Nefarious

QFA

jsb123

QFA

and although technically suspended or have left in the real world

tedward78

QFA

paddy_power

QFA

Foghorn Leghorn

QFA

and according to wikipedia; applicant states being;

ThisisZAK

QFA

junior.doctor

QFA

Charlottie93

QFA

Apologies if i've missed anyone out or you feel that you should be a member just comment on the thread if you want to be involved :smile:

Reply 1

areyouthere?

6

Apologies if i've missed anyone out or you feel that you should be a member just comment on the thread if you want to be involved :smile:

Good Idea, I can't believe there isn't one already.

Bahamas gives it, its full supper and votes in favour.

Reply 2

enimpri

2

New Zealand welcome this proposal and hope to see interest from other states.

Reply 3

Swanbow

19

Namibia would fully support more representation of the commonwealth and echoes New Zealand's sentiments.

Reply 4

senz72

19

South Africa fully supports this proposition. We like with Bahamas are rather shocked that this has not ben establsihed yet but would like to take this time to thank cl_steele for initiating initial interest.

Reply 5

rockrunride

19

Yep, will get back to you about formal proposal drafting.

Sounds good!

OOC:

The MHoC should be included as a member of the Commonwealth. I'm voting no and urge others to do so. The Commonwealth doesn't need a bloc, just a summit every six months. I am working on proposals for that, but we don't need a bloc.

Reply 8

CookieGhoul

14

Malaysia humbly approves this.

Reply 9

rockrunride

19

Original post by toronto353

OOC:

The MHoC should be included as a member of the Commonwealth. I'm voting no and urge others to do so. The Commonwealth doesn't need a bloc, just a summit every six months. I am working on proposals for that, but we don't need a bloc.

The UK would agree nominally with the MHoC's inclusion. However we also support the creation of a CoN bloc, for two principal reasons:

1) Multiple intra-UN partnerships have shown themselves to be a success
2) The CoN bloc would differ from the others in our pan-world partnership, as opposed to the regionally centred EU/AL/BP et cetera. The UK feels this is essential to help eliminate tensions garnering between regions.

The UK invites the representative for the MHoC to assist in creating a guidance document.

Reply 10

toronto353

19

Original post by rockrunride

The UK would agree nominally with the MHoC's inclusion. However we also support the creation of a CoN bloc, for two principal reasons:

1) Multiple intra-UN partnerships have shown themselves to be a success
2) The CoN bloc would differ from the others in our pan-world partnership, as opposed to the regionally centred EU/AL/BP et cetera. The UK feels this is essential to help eliminate tensions garnering between regions.

The UK invites the representative for the MHoC to assist in creating a guidance document.

OOC: We don't need to have a bloc to do this though. IRL, the Commonwealth only meets every so often - it's not a day-to-day thing like the EU and other blocs are. We, therefore, only require a summit in my view and some clauses in the Charter about this. We don't need a whole bloc.

Reply 11

cl_steele

OP

2

Original post by toronto353

OOC:

The MHoC should be included as a member of the Commonwealth. I'm voting no and urge others to do so. The Commonwealth doesn't need a bloc, just a summit every six months. I am working on proposals for that, but we don't need a bloc.

OOC: Apologies, i forgot about the MHoC, if this does go forward and you wish to change your stance on it youre more than welcome to be a member, i must disagree with your reasoning though. I feel that this bloc could prove far more successful in the MuN than the others not only due to its [hopeful] size but also the fact that its nations span 3 continents and instead of the relatively isolationist blocs that we currently have such as the BP, AL, EU and so forth which are very specific in geographics this bloc would be far more of a pan-national league ... i mean technically speaking, bearing in mind this is just a bit of fun at the end of the day, nations like the USA, Egypt, France are well within their rights to join as they were [at least in part] once part of the former empire, these nations all share similar traits and i think it would be good for the MuN, activity has dimished somewhat since the last Hyp, maybe this can get it going again?
but as rockrunride said if you do change your stance the MHoC would be more than welcome to join and help draft the relevant documents for it :smile:

/OOC

On a side note Australia approves of this and votes yes :biggrin:

Reply 12

Kiss

2

OOC: I wouldn't be for a creation of a CoN just yet. I wanted the Shangai project to go as planned but obviously we needed to reajust things, which has been done for the Cross Asian Partnership idea.

Reply 13

toronto353

19

Original post by cl_steele

OOC: Apologies, i forgot about the MHoC, if this does go forward and you wish to change your stance on it youre more than welcome to be a member, i must disagree with your reasoning though. I feel that this bloc could prove far more successful in the MuN than the others not only due to its [hopeful] size but also the fact that its nations span 3 continents and instead of the relatively isolationist blocs that we currently have such as the BP, AL, EU and so forth which are very specific in geographics this bloc would be far more of a pan-national league ... i mean technically speaking, bearing in mind this is just a bit of fun at the end of the day, nations like the USA, Egypt, France are well within their rights to join as they were [at least in part] once part of the former empire, these nations all share similar traits and i think it would be good for the MuN, activity has dimished somewhat since the last Hyp, maybe this can get it going again?
but as rockrunride said if you do change your stance the MHoC would be more than welcome to join and help draft the relevant documents for it :smile:

/OOC

On a side note Australia approves of this and votes yes :biggrin:

OOC: Why is it needed though? You see you're not answering this question. What you're saying is that there are currently relatively isolationist blocs, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this bloc is needed. The irony is that the Commonwealth would also be relatively isolationist in the MUN. You say 'we'll open it up to other countries who can join' so you keep expanding the Commonwealth until it basically becomes the MUN within the MUN and hence rather irrelevant. The Commonwealth doesn't meet daily and so doesn't need to be a bloc. Summits every six months would fulfill the needs of the Commonwealth. My question to you is: why do we need the Commonwealth bloc? I don't see a need.

Reply 14

Morgsie

7

OOC: I would like to remind you all that the Commonwealth meets every 2 years and a country holds the Chair for 2 years IRL.

It is upto the Chair to invite the EU to meetings, Julia Gillard invited the EU HR IRL.

Reply 15

cl_steele

OP

2

Original post by toronto353

OOC: Why is it needed though? You see you're not answering this question. What you're saying is that there are currently relatively isolationist blocs, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this bloc is needed. The irony is that the Commonwealth would also be relatively isolationist in the MUN. You say 'we'll open it up to other countries who can join' so you keep expanding the Commonwealth until it basically becomes the MUN within the MUN and hence rather irrelevant. The Commonwealth doesn't meet daily and so doesn't need to be a bloc. Summits every six months would fulfill the needs of the Commonwealth. My question to you is: why do we need the Commonwealth bloc? I don't see a need.

aha Mun within the MuN, hadnt thought of it that way :rolleyes:

but none the less, i think it could just add another dimension to the MuN as a far larger and more Pan-international league within the MuN, of course not everyone can or will be included as many naitons havent been part of the former empire and thus couldnt be part of the commonwealth so in that respect i guess you could still call it to a degree 'isolationist'.
why do we need one? personally i think for the same reasons that the EU, AL, BP and possible shanghai one are around, it'll hopefully generate more activity in the MuN the CoN does serve a role in the world which may well have been sidelined by organisations such as the EU which have more attention paid to them these days but its still a relevant organisation and being as large as it is i just feel it is worthy of representation.
That may be true but may i ask why the frequency of meetings should determine whether its bloc worthy?
i mean at the moment this is just a vague idea, nothing may come of it maybe something will we'll see with the poll but it cant hurt either way can it?

and also bareing in mind that this isnt IRL some aspects can be slightly tootled with can they not?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 16

jsb123

2

[OOC:] I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, there's the under-representation of the interests of smaller nations, which could be given voice in the various blocs. There's also the bonus of this group crossing over many groups to give a more diverse range of opinions, and a decrease in the isolationism of some regions. On the other, though, a group of this size, with the suggested potential for many more members than the initial 50 or so, may become just a really big multi-national group, and we've got one of those - the UN. On a third hand (regretting how I opened this statement of my thoughts now...), even if this were to not happen, would the UN become in danger of fracturing into these, perhaps, admittedly, active, groups, and seeing a decline in 'toplevel' UN activity. On a fourth hand, is this necessary, as many of these nations hold roughly similar views anyway (traditionally those of the UK and Australia)? Using a fifth hand, I could also see how it might increase take-up of minor nations, as there would be something for them to get involved with. As it stands, however, we have little evidence yet of the effect of a larger group on new members, as there haven't been any set up long enough.

Not entirely sure then. Hmm...

Reply 17

toronto353

19

Original post by cl_steele

aha Mun within the MuN, hadnt thought of it that way :rolleyes:

but none the less, i think it could just add another dimension to the MuN as a far larger and more Pan-international league within the MuN, of course not everyone can or will be included as many naitons havent been part of the former empire and thus couldnt be part of the commonwealth so in that respect i guess you could still call it to a degree 'isolationist'.
why do we need one? personally i think for the same reasons that the EU, AL, BP and possible shanghai one are around, it'll hopefully generate more activity in the MuN the CoN does serve a role in the world which may well have been sidelined by organisations such as the EU which have more attention paid to them these days but its still a relevant organisation and being as large as it is i just feel it is worthy of representation.
That may be true but may i ask why the frequency of meetings should determine whether its bloc worthy?
i mean at the moment this is just a vague idea, nothing may come of it maybe something will we'll see with the poll but it cant hurt either way can it?

and also bareing in mind that this isnt IRL some aspects can be slightly tootled with can they not?

OOC: I think you're right on the vague idea front so, though I've voted no, I'll wait to see what you do with this idea.

Reply 18

cl_steele

OP

2

Original post by jsb123

[OOC:] I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, there's the under-representation of the interests of smaller nations, which could be given voice in the various blocs. There's also the bonus of this group crossing over many groups to give a more diverse range of opinions, and a decrease in the isolationism of some regions. On the other, though, a group of this size, with the suggested potential for many more members than the initial 50 or so, may become just a really big multi-national group, and we've got one of those - the UN. On a third hand (regretting how I opened this statement of my thoughts now...), even if this were to not happen, would the UN become in danger of fracturing into these, perhaps, admittedly, active, groups, and seeing a decline in 'toplevel' UN activity. On a fourth hand, is this necessary, as many of these nations hold roughly similar views anyway (traditionally those of the UK and Australia)? Using a fifth hand, I could also see how it might increase take-up of minor nations, as there would be something for them to get involved with. As it stands, however, we have little evidence yet of the effect of a larger group on new members, as there haven't been any set up long enough.

Not entirely sure then. Hmm...

thats a lot of hands there i must say :tongue:

i'll try and adress these;
on your first hand you mention how these various groups can end up being under represented in the MuN, in many ways this bloc could potentially serve to adress this mainly due to its pan-internationalist membership with it crossing several continents and many small island states inbetween, as you said it will give a much more diverse range of opinion and be able to adress more global issues relating the the verious nations as well
second hand: i do see your issue with that, i think to save it, as toronto said, becoming a MuN within a MuN limit it to the official nation states whos reps are listed above and as a fair number of some of the smaller states arent actually represented in the MuN it shouldnt end up becoming to overly large anyway
3rd hand: that is a valid concern and depending on how the drafting goes, if this gets enough support, i think itll stay broadly speaking to its current routes IRL so as not to effect the member states international commitments to thing like the EU bloc etc. but we'll see how everyone feels :smile:

4th hand: well yes that wa sone of my reasonings behind it really many of the nations hold similar values since they are all former British colonies, it can be used as a way of bringing together the relevant parties concerned sort of like the EU has but as aforementioned for a different reason and in a different way
and your 5th point: yes again that was another point i had in mine, the smaller nations in the MuN seem to be either un represented or rarely used for whatever reason and when the Reps are active they dont rarely get the chance to get involved in larger group efforts ... take nations like Tuvalu in here who are effectively excluded from every regional block so far.
any more questions feel free to ask, bare in mind though its still a working progress :tongue:

Reply 19