What is going on?, Right time for settlement

I found some free time and I want to share my opinion about first three month of new government and about current situation. I think we stuck.
As we all may notice, we have school and private life so time for micronalism is minimal. As I said in my answer for OAM delegate, I will be more active since last days of april, because now I can't find time for St.Charlie. As we all.
But is it answer for Sandus and Tammarack? They left commonwealth because it's a way to..nothing? We can't give anything more than status of St.Charlian territory and it's not much. That;s why I can't see the future of the commonwealth. And maybe it's right time for discussion about the sens of keeping a commonwealth. I wasn't big fan of it ever, but now I have reasons to said that it's not useful.

Second thing is a big mistake of Alex Reinhardt. Sorry but hoax war harmed us. When I read Frandrensis' statement for us, I was frustrated. Now we're seen as not serious micronation. What?!

I don't wanna say anything about government, because I'm part of it and I know why we don't work. In my side, I promise to be more active. I hope that some people will also find time for repair the situation.

When I joined St.Charlie, it was the biggest micronation. Now we fall down. Any ideas for repairing process?

Yes, I didn't mention our president but you know my opinion about that

About the hoax: unfortunately the whole nation was sanctioned instead of just me, but a study was made after that joke, so it wasn't just a useless prank. It was also April 1, and while Flandrensis decided to take measures against it, many others found it useful, or just appreciated it. Therefore: you cannot satisfy everyone, I'm afraid. We're still a serious micronation, but things just need to cool down about this. Also, if you ask around, people will still say we're serious.

Now, onto other things: the Commonwealth. Tammarack left but we never heard much from them either, therefore it's not a really big issue (although they apparently left without informing the Foreign Affairs Dept. either). Sandus left because they decided to go through some major political changes. Right now they're trying to settle down the fact that they don't have much citizens, and need to find a stable political system.
I see the Commonwealth as a way to strengthen relations between microstates that want to get closer to us without losing sovereignty, that simple. We don't force people to join, and its aim is not to become the new OAM. If we don't have much members, it won't affect our life.

Parliament: things were blocked due to school work, we should have expected this unfortunately, but already now the Commonwealth applications have been sent, and almost everyone voted, therefore we seem to have resurrected. We'll see how this goes in the next days! About the Government: depends what the Prime Minister says!

I agree completely with Alex. It was an April's Fool but also a serious study to show the idiocy of micronational war. Most people found it either funny or instructive, Flandresis doesn't have a sense of humour and they didn't. If they're stuck up and so far inside their asses that they can't take a joke who cares? Yabloko, Egtavia, A1 and 99% of other micronations will tell you we are important and influential.

With regards to the Commonwealth, the trouble is double: firstly, there is no specific Charter to govern it and secondly, as you say, there is no unifying activity. While I could easily point fingers at people to blame them for the seesawing memberships etc I think we now have a good team to work on the Charter. Secondly, ideas such as a common market, education institution and others can only take place once we get number 1 sorted.

As a slight aside to Mr. Lunam, the Parliament works with its times and the only one who controls that is Mr. Reinhardt, therefore a critique of the whole institution is simply incorrect. With regards to abstentions, firstly, an MP can vote however the choose. Secondly, if you don't bother to even reply to comments to any laws it is hard for people to vote in favour. And thirdly, it is hard to see how these laws will make St.Charlie more democratic.

The first law changes one arbitrary measure for another, the increase in democracy is subjective. Regarding the second, the Parliament could have its say before too, as it could simply pass its own motion, although this would have clearly resulted in a confused foreign policy. I'm not saying the laws are bad, I am generally in favour for both, but I do think that their emphasis is on improving efficiency rather than democracy.