- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatpicturegalleries/9129194/Relics-of-the-British-Empire.htmlSome interesting facts with the pictures. (I notice they conveniently left out Australia and South Africa. Guess they didn't fit the narrative.)
I'm guessing because Australia and South Africa are sovereign nations, whereas the ones in that list are still “British Overseas Territories”.Those are some nice photos. I especially like the one of Monsterrat.
They're sovereign but aren't they still under the Crown? The Brits sure have some nice tropical resorts!
I think there may be some nominal royal connection (just as there is in Canada), but since the queen has no power anyway, there is no control by Britain. I suppose we could easily enough find out more about the technical relationship between the Crown and those countries….
They are Commonwealth countries. The Queen is the head of state. There are some real advantages to being in the Commonwealth, lowering trade barriers is one of the biggest.
They are Commonwealth countries. The Queen is the head of state. There are some real advantages to being in the Commonwealth, lowering trade barriers is one of the biggest.
I think the big difference is the nature of the controlling power. BOTs seem to be governed by the British Parliament, whereas commonwealth countries are not. I am not sure what the advantage of wanting to be a commonwealth country would be, aside from tradition. The standard dictionary definition:
a group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests: the British Commonwealth.
As I understand it, Commonwealth countries favor each others trade over that of non-commonwealth countries and the tariff and immigration barriers are lowered. Significant if you consider how many Commonwealth countries there are.
