Talk:2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Samoa (assessed as Low-importance).

Commonwealth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Advice to the monarch

Per the BBC, ministers' advice dictates what the monarch can say at the summit: "Speeches from monarchs are made on the advice of ministers. This means the King would be unable to make an apology over the UK’s links to slavery unless he had the approval of the government."

I would have thought that His Majesty attends these meetings in his capacity as Head of the Commonwealth as a whole, rather than as king of any particular member state. The former gives him no formal powers even theoretically, so he cannot receive "advice" from anyone, while in the latter case surely the prime ministers of his Caribbean realms could "advise" him to say something instead. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does rather underscore the ridiculousness of the monarchy. What happens if the King gets contrary "advice" from his British PM and the PM of another Commonwealth realm (or indeed, the PMs of dozens of them)? Evidently, it's the advice of the UK government that is paramount. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is indeed ridiculous. I added "the BBC continues" back in, as I think it is important to make it extremely clear that it is the BBC (as a respected voice) that is suggesting that the King is "unable" to apologise, rather than that this "inability" being a naturally arising logical sequitur, should one were to believe the first claim, that ministers' non-legally binding "advice" does "dictate" the movements of the monarch's tongue. Thudinspecies (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The BBC reported that ministers' advice dictates what the monarch can say at the summit and, the BBC continues, the King would thus be unable to apologise over the UK's role in slavery without prior governmental approval." - mentioning the BBC twice is redundant and poor writing. It's already clear without the repetition. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So reverted back to the quote which didn't need to be removed in the first place. "Thus" was doing heavy lifting, not by the BBC, but from POV, and needed clarification. The logical non sequiturs that generate "poor writing" and "redundancy" in explaining the situation are the fault of the illogical situation, rather than the description of the situation. There are better ways to suggest edits than resorting to polemics. Thudinspecies (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not polemical to point out that writing BBC twice in one sentence is redundant and therefore bad writing. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian PM attending BRICS in Russia instead

The decision of the Indian Government to attend the BRICS summit in Russia (of all places) is clearly significant.

Plenty of issues to engage with.

At least done of these themes (and others) must have been explored in the media.

Correct decision in a changing world or not? BRICS more relevant than Commonwealth?

Is India turning it's back on an irrelevant imperialist past, or is it snubbing the global South?

Is BRICS in Russia the 21st Century version of the notorious 1943 Tokyo Conference?

How controversial is it domestically?

Clearly when a leading Commonwealth Country does not send it's Prime Minister that's a significant moment. More significant for India or the Commonwealth? 91.84.189.190 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documents

The leaders' communique and other statements abd declarations can be found here. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attendees

Has a list of leaders who attended available? We have these lists in articles on previous CHOGMs. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Advice"

"Advice" is a constitutional principle - please see the article advice (constitutional law). The article should clarify this rather than imply that "advice" has the same meaning as what you hear from an agony aunt. The BBC article that is cited states "Monarchs speak on the advice of ministers - and on a question of such political sensitivity, his speeches will have to stay within the boundaries of government policy." Advice refers to advice (constitutional law) - a constitutional principle in the Westminster system. So it is perfectly correct to say "According to the constitutional principle of "advice..." etc. I am not citing myself as some sort of expert the source is at the end of the passage but the authority is the constitutional principle. This isn't the BBC's opinion, it's simply a basic feature of the unwritten part of the UK's constitution which is being explained in the BBC's article. Saying "According to the BBC" implies that this is either the BBC's opinion or that the BBC's reportage is somehow unique. The authority is not the BBC (or an editor) but the constitutional principle itself, which is not a subject of controversy or debate. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]