This is something I have been following very closely for the last few months, it seems to have gained quite a bit of interest from the various countries has been presented to the respective governments, and is now an internationally recognized establishment.
What are your thoughts on it, do you think it could ever become a reality and if not, why?

The Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation

If the UK can have freedom of movement with Bulgaria and Romania, then I can't see any reason why not. This isn't exactly Commonwealth freedom of movement though, I don't see India in that list for example.

The commonwealth comprises of 53 countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

This would be carnage.

UK, CA, NZ and AU have been suggested due to their similarities in language, economy, culture and historic ties

Yeah but what fun carnage it would be. For me I look at it this way in 3 years I can retire or work another 5 years after that to get the extra 10% pension benefit i.e 70% instead of 60%.
So now I look at the 53 countries if I had the option to move to. UK and Canada are out as I have already lived there.
Definitely consider if affordable
The Bahamas, Barbados, Saint kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Trinidad & Tobago

If none of those worked out
Australia, Fiji, Jamaica, & New Zealand

No way in hell
Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei, Ghana, Guyana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

I would have thought by definition all commonwealth countries would have historic ties. I can't see any moral argument for having a white elite of 4 countries with effectively no borders, then excluding Asian or African nations that have been part of the commonwealth just as long.

Look at the cultural, economic and language differences in Africa and Asia for a start, the whole idea is that a citizen of the 4 countries suggested could quite easily go to any of the other countries, find a job and settle without too much of a culture shock

I don't see many economic similarities between a finance based economy like the UK and resource based economies like Australia and Canada.

I think the whole notion would simply be immoral. One rule for the nice white, educated, theatre goers and another for the poor, black, ill educated, mud hut dwellers. How can that be justified in a purportedly "equal" commonwealth society?

Have you ever actually been to the UK, Canada or Australia?

Because 'nice white, educated, theatre goers' is hardly how I'd describe any of those countries. Maybe if you never ventured outside Islington...

But, that said, I do have to agree that it would be a dumb idea.

Then that must mean the current IEC agreements between countries is also immoral... why should 'nice, white etc. etc.' people as you put it have preferential treatment to experience life in another country

Why do you think it would be a dumb idea?

Because apart from being a racist policy that would destroy the Commonwealth, it'd really only benefit a few disaffected Brits who want an easy path to emigration.

Basically, yes. Though I suspect a lot more than a few Britons would move if they had the chance.

I'm inclined to agree. The IEC programme should be open to all nationalities as long as they met humanitarian or human rights standards. I suspect this policy, however, would mean a lot less "nice white etc etc" would be granted an IEC Visa as presumably the same number of places would be shared out fairly across the globe. I agree with you wholeheartedly though that this would be a much more equitable, less racist strategy.