Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Ian here is how I got interested | |
Author: Steph (U.S.) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 07:18:37 11/26/04 Fri In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "Welcome, Steph" on 13:23:20 11/24/04 Wed Hello Ian and other fellow FCS members. To respond to Ian’s question, the idea of a union of English speaking nations is one I have though on for some time. It is the result of several factors. I am a huge fan of Sir Winston L. S. Churchill. His History of the English Speaking People has prominent place on my book shelf and I am trying to write a follow on history of the English speaking peoples during the 20th century. This of course predisposed me towards the idea of Union. Furthermore, we all share common institutions of government which I think highly of, and believe that it is important to preserve. Working together we can better spread and preserve, trial by jury, the common law, and other shared institutions. Growing up when I did, in the 80s I couldn’t help but notice that our closest friends and most reliable allies were the other English speaking nations. It only seemed reasonable to think about closer political ties. Fourthly it has become increasingly evident to me that a strong force for world stability is needed. The U.N. has failed, to my mind predictably. The U.S. can’t do the whole job by itself. It seams to me that a United Commonwealth could. I will write more later. Good night, Steph [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: And... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:14:54 11/26/04 Fri Do you think that the USA should be part of a union similar to that proposed by the FCS for CANZUK? A sort of USCANZUK (Sounds like Tibetan to me...)? If so, how do you think that we could or should resolve the dichotomy between the Monarchical/parliamentary system on the one hand, and the presidential/congressional system on the other? I've spoken to various Americans about reunification, and some said that they'd accept the monarchy but want to keep the dollar; others said that they wouldn't mind using pounds, but that the idea of monarchy made them ill; one oddball from NH seemed to suggest that he'd like an absolute monarchy ruled from London; another thought that Britain should be split into five states and become states 51 through to 55 of the USA, since you couldn't just have one new state of 60 million people. These are all quite interesting points, and I'd be interested in your point of view as a Unitedstatesian... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: thoughts on government | |
|
Author: Steph (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:16:17 11/26/04 Fri Yes I do think the United States should be part of a federation of English speaking nations. As to how to achieve such a Union I see three different methods of federation. A) As you mentioned the other English speaking nations could be admitted as states of the Union, but I don’t know how well that would go down in the commonwealth nations. We would also have to amend the constitution to allow the crown commonwealth nations to remain constitutional monarchies because currently the U.S. constitution requires states to have republican constitutions. B) A national federation or confederation with the Austrialia, Canada, the U.K. and U.S. as member states. C) A federation of the states and constituent kingdoms of the various countries with the current federal or union governments as alliances within the larger commonwealth union. I personally favor C but it is discussable. As to the question of monarchy, I personally have mixed feelings about this. I see strong advantages to monarchy, but I would be less than honest if I didn’t say I am proud to belong to the oldest extant constitutional republic. I believe we could solve this problem by allowing the U.S. states and the U.S. federal government to remain republican while having a commonwealth federation that was monarchic with H.M. having a title like First Citizen and Head of State of the Commonwealth Federation and continue to be Queen of Australia, Canada, and the U.K. I have been working on a proposed constitution along those lines and will post it later. The outline is something like this Constitution Idea Head of State H.M. Elizabeth II Parliament Composed of Senate and House of Representatives House of Representatives districts apportioned among the states 1 per million each district electing 2 members and chosing 1 by lot. Senate 2 Senator per state appointed by the states plus: 15% of that number appointed for life by the crown 15% of that number elected by Austrian Senate Method Up to 5% Hereditary Senators appointed 1 per reign Executive The excutive power shall be vested in a First Minister either elected by majority vote or by something like the U.S. electoral collage. Judicial Supreme Court with purely appellate jurisdiction from the appellate courts of the members. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: USA in the federation | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:34:52 11/26/04 Fri I am completely opposed to the idea of the USA being involved in the federation. Nothing against the people there, but its just not what I want. It would be a much less equal federation and it would be very differnet in character and world outlook to the federation I envision. If this society ever changes its position to allow the USA to be a member then I would be the first to leave and would put my efforts in to Swissifying British foreign policy. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I don't insist on it | |
|
Author: Steph (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:48:53 11/26/04 Fri Well I don't want to bust up the group or derail the idea of a Australia, Canada, United Kingdom federation. We would be friends anyway, but I am curious about you reasons. Please write more. Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Mandela, America and cultural homogeneity. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:32:58 11/26/04 Fri I don't know if you recall Nelson Mandela's visit to the USA during Clinton's difficult months of the Lewinsky affair. He said something about how, "as members of the British world", Americans should allow their president the ancient right of innocence until guilt be proven. I remember that a few aides' jaws dropped when he said it, but I think that he hit the nail right on the head. As an outsider, he was not subject to the propensity to see huge barriers where there are in fact only small differences, and the USA is indeed "one of us". If the Canadians are brothers, than the Americans at the worst are second cousins. Of course, his use of the word "British" was old-fashioned; but there is a community of nations which has no name - except for 'English-speaking', which is inadequate because it implies that the only thing we have in common is our language, as if it were some kind of cosmic coincidence that we all speak it - and the USA is part of it. Moreover, it is very telling that the Canadian members of the FCS, in particular, get very worked up at the closeness of relations between the US and the UK to the exclusion of Canada. It is indicative that, rightly or wrongly, London is much closer to Washington than to Ottowa or Melbourne. The relations bewteen the US and the UK are subject to the same forces which hold together CANZUK - we watch the same films and TV shows, read the same books, go to the same plays, listen to the same music; we have similar legal and political systems; we have a common cultural patrimony. Admittedly, the constitutional link via the Crown is not there, but our links with Canada, Australia and NZ would not disappear if these places became republics; so why should they not exist between the UK and the US? I think that this is especially true today, as Americans are forced by the fact that the UK is America's only real ally to realise that the myths shoved down their throats about the 1770s - which demonised the Brits - are largely untrue. For these reasons, I support Steph and not Owain. Also, Owain, you mention the 'unequal' relationship. I think that this is not fair, for a very simple reason: think how an Australian or Canadian or especially a New Zealander must feel at the prospect of federation with the UK. Britain has twice the population of Canada, three times that of Australia, and a massive twenty times that of NZ. For Brits to baulk at the 'unequal relationship' when that is exactly what we would be imposing on the former dominions strikes me as somewhat precious. We can not ask people to do what we refuse to do ourselves, you know. The integration of the USA into our federation involves additional problems, I grant you. But I suggest that it could be accomplished after a federation bewteen CANZUK were set up, in the same way that we talk about the Caribbean, or South Africa, etc. Any thoughts? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Including the US will significantly devalue the Federation | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:02:13 11/26/04 Fri Yes, in an ideal world, they'd be happy to be part of the Federation and everyone would be happy to accept them. However, if it was an ideal world, then there would be no need for this forum. A federation of the 'CANZUK' nations and other realms is reasonably simple to establish; there will be no major legislative changes in terms of the everyday running of the places - each country will function as it does now, but closer together. The US is completely different. It is a republic; you simply cannot mix republics and monarchies together. Few people in Britain will accept this idea of a republic federation because the same people that are likely to support closer links to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and other realms, are the same people that like the monarchy. The same can presumably be said for the majority of those in other realms. The US is unlikely to dump their idea of a single man who holds all the power, but is elected, either. Apart from a Civil War 140 years ago, the system has worked rather well for them. What's more, the culture of the CANZUK nations and of the US is more different than you imagine - it really is. As you rightly say, speaking roughly the same language does not make us identical. 'CANZUK-ians' are, for the most part, in favour of better public services and (slightly) higher taxes over a bare minimum of public services and a bare minimum of taxation. CANZUK-ians like to know that business practices are closely regulated; that the government is keeping a close eye on the environment and poor people; that the idea of freedom of speech should not be taken too far; that international relations should be, for the most part, preserved even when not necessary, et cetera. The majority of US-Americans do not agree (if they did, then President Bush wouldn't be there). The US is also very sure of itself and seems to believe that the political world has solidifed and will be roughly the same in 50 or 100 years - the US will of course be still on top, Europe perhaps number two or three, China close behind (but then perhaps every 'empire' has, and none so far have been right. I would not be surprised if in 50 years China is the world's super power). This means that they are unlikely to accept any compromise that weakens them, even temporarily - such as a shared army or increased taxation. With their massive population and huge GDP, they would dominate the federation. What's more, most CANZUK-ians are proud of their heritage and so are US-Americans - and the two differing perspectives are simply incompatible. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: my gut feeling | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:00:19 11/26/04 Fri Australia has institutional and cultural ties with NZ, Canada and the UK which are of quite a different order from those with the USA. I find it hard to see how it would be possible to harmonise two political systems with such different views of the relationship between the legislative and executive functions of government. At heart, though, I think I would find it very difficult to get used to being part of a "United States of the Anglosphere". It just doesn't really appeal to me. And since a lot of Canadians seem to have strong feelings about having been invaded by the USA, I suspect it would be even harder for them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You are certainly right about that, Ian | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:57 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Question to Steph in the USA | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:07:37 11/26/04 Fri I am currently President of FCS Canada and I am not sure about the inclusion of the USA in the federation. However, I will not rule it out and having American support willbe a big boost to us. I believe that there is a role that you and fellow Americans can play with us. How about we set up FCS North America as a a sort of umbrella liaison group to include FCS Canada, USA and West Indies? What are your thoughts on that? I am certainly willing to look at it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not India Either | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:29:02 11/27/04 Sat I would also never support the idea of India being in the union. I am simpy not interested in moving beyond the CANZUK. If you do you may as well say we will make world wide federation your ultimate goal, which is something I for one dont want. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: India | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:03:54 11/27/04 Sat I would not support India's inclusion unless the Indians wanted it, of course. Because if they ever did want it, it would be a sign that they share our sense of common cultural and historical ties. But before you write off India as a country where this is not only impossible, but completely absurd, go and have a look at it. I have been in taxis in Bombay in which the owner has plastered the Union Jack on his dashboard; I have heard Bombaysiders ranting about how their idiot government has changed the name of The Strand to 'Ramchandani Marg' and Victoria Station into 'Chatrapathi Sivaji'; I have seen Madrasis nodding their respects to the imperial war memorial; I have lived in a supposedly alien country whose principal national newspaper is called "The Times"; I have sat on the veranda of Royal Yacht Clubs listening to Indian businessmen talk about chaps whom they know who are "bloody great blokes"; and I have been to Dravidian Hindu temples in Karnataka designed and built by Englishmen. And it works both ways, because I have eaten the best Indian food anywhere in Leicester, been to the largest Swaminarayan Temple in the world in North London, next year am going to study in the best Indian history library in the world at Oxford, and am engaged to a Gujerati from the British midlands. India, of course, is not British, but it is not entirely un-British either; and Britain is not entirely un-Indian. I have also lived in Italy, and would suggest that we have a better chance of making it work with the Indians than with such as the Italians, much as I love them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: maybe | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:20:15 11/27/04 Sat I dont doubt India's cuklurla ties with Britain. But I still dont to federate with it. Nothing against the Indian people but I dont wnat to move beyond the CANZUK excpet perhaps with the other crown dominions, but no more. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair enough | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:34:53 11/27/04 Sat I, and indeed most Indians, would heartily agree with you. All I was trying to refute was your association of the inclusions of India with the idea of 'world government'. What makes us closer to India than, say, Cambodia or Peru? Why, all the same things which make us closer to Australia than Germany. The question is one of degree, and our cultural and historical links with India, while present and important, are nowhere near so strong as those between the CANZUK countries, or even the USA. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: cultural similarities? India plays cricket : the USA does not | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:55:43 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I love cricket, but it is not the only yardstick by which to measure cultural affinity! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:21:21 11/27/04 Sat After all, the Scots and Canadians don't really play cricket either. Does that make them more foreign than Pakistan? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: damn, this guy always uses logic and common sense to spoil my fun | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:13:12 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That is a charge which has never been levelled at me before! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:34:42 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: compromise | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:11:53 11/26/04 Fri I can see the objections that some people have to the U.S. being in the federation and don’t want to cause trouble. What about this as a compromise position. The U.S. is not part of the Federation, at least not at first, but to be encouraged to join the Commonwealth of Nations. We are a former colony after all and there is no reason we should not be accepted to that extent. Then after all the members of the crown commonwealth are part of the Federation and it is time to consider India, Erie, and South Africa then we can be considered with that tertiary group and then only if we accept the monarchy. What ever you decide, I hope I can keep posting here. I believe that the English Speaking People are one nation governed by many states and I hope that even if the U.S. is not a member, some of those states unite. As for the idea of a North American FCS group I am in favor of that idea, but only if it is acceptable to the majority of the members. Cheers from NYC, Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: CANZUKUS | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:33:28 11/26/04 Fri Well, I have no objection in principle. I'm probably the greatest Americophile there is... outside Texas, anyway. It would be more difficult to arrange a constitutional rapprochement with the USA because of the very different political systems and the longer tradition of separateness. Otherwise, fine! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: CANZUKUS | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:47:28 11/26/04 Fri I certainly wouldn't object to the United States being part of a federation with CANZUK. I'm generally pro-American and feel that there are no great cultural differences in the way there are with the European Union, I may be a little biased as I have Texan family. And perhaps most importantly it would really annoy the Frence :) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No objections at all, Steph | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:57:50 11/26/04 Fri It would be downright silly to object to you posting here. As to the USA wanting to join the Commonwealth, I think it is a fascinating idea, but find it hard to imagine Americans accepting membership of an organisation under the Queen. Do you really think it could catch on? As for English-speaking peoples being one nation, I'm not sure that I believe in nations in that sort of way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:02:26 11/26/04 Fri If the Indians can accept being part of an organisation under the Queen, I can't see why Americans couldn't. It's not as if membership of the Commonwealth means monarchism in any real sense. Also, joining the Commonwealth would allow the USA to leave the bloody UN whilst at the same time salving the concience of the internationalists! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Joining the Commonwealth is a lot different to restructuring your soverignty | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:19:46 11/26/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Freedom of opinion and expression | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:13:59 11/27/04 Sat Hey, a pro-commonwealth yank - fantastic. (Don't take offence at the use of yank - there're Brits, Aussies, Kiwis and Canucks here - it's shorthand to differentiate between Native and Immigrant-extracted US citizens, nothing more). Don't let anyone tell you you cannot post here. As one of the anti-US brigade I should be first to start the usual snide retorts but I won't - I object to US foreign policy, electoral system etc. but not to the people - you're human beings after all and are like all of us. This, of course, extends to having your own opinions which I welcome. Just because some of us disagree with you or the idea of a Commonwealth including the US doesn't mean you are to stop posting - quite the opposite. You have a definite stance and one I'd be quite happy to debate and disagree with you on. I'm not a founder or moderator, just a poster like yourself, so I speak in no official capacity but: welcome, glad to have you here. Now, the pleasantries out of the way, let's begin with the real debate: Given that the US is so committed to republicanism, how could you possibly accept taking the head of state you fought a much-publicised war against? Surely, as a Yank, you are diametrically opposed to the notion of hereditary head of states, are you not? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I appologise if my earlier post was a little rude, i merely meant to imply that there are some deep-seated differences | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:27:22 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Roberdin I agree and was not offended (NT) | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:02:40 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I mean that I agree that joining the commonwealth is very different than joining a federation | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:05:59 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Trixta History | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:55:45 11/28/04 Sun Trixta, I agree that monarchism might be a hard sell to people in the U.S. in as far as the republic has done fairly well, but I dispute absolutely your assertion that anti-monarchism was the cause of the revolution. The cause was due to differences about our rights as Englishmen. We held that just as taxes levied in the U.K. were and are a gift by the commons to the crown, taxes in the colonies were a gift of the colonial assemblies to the crown. Thus the stamp act and other taxes levied by parliament on the colonies were not well received. When the stamp act was repealed loyalty to the crown was high, in fact a large gold leafed lead equestrian statue of the king was erected in New York to celebrate. Ironically a few short years later the statue was torn down and the lead used for musket balls. Other complaints included the quartering of soldiers in the colonies without the permission of the colonial assemblies and the use of military trials for tax evaders when it proved difficult to get jury convictions. The declaration of Independence lists the grievances at length. The fighting only started when the government tried to seize our arms which the bill of rights of 1689 had guarantied us. This, not hatred of the monarchy was the cause of the war. The royal health was still being drunk after the fighting had started. It is worth noting in that connection that the fighting started in April 1775 but independence was not declared until July 1776. Even this did not end American affinity for British systems of government. The fact is that despite being a liberal revolution, the American Revolution was in many ways conservative in that we were rebelling against one of the most liberal states in Europe. We felt that our traditional rights were being violated by innovations in Britain. In fact, what is interesting about people on this site saying that our system of government is so different from the U.K. and the crown commonwealth, is that our system of government is basically not greatly changed since before the War for Independence. You have to remember that at this time in Great Britain the crown still had major say in the government. In the colonies we had no responsible government. We had a governor, usually appointed by the crown, a bicameral legislature composed of a council appointed by the governor and an elected lower house. That is basically the system our states are governed by today. When independence was declared, we wrote constitutions for our states and started electing the governor and the upper house was either elected by a different franchise or was chosen by the lower house and governor. While there have been some changes, this in essence still the system our states use. Only one or two states have unicameral legislatures. We still call our chief executives governors. When the Confederation was found to be unworkable, the British system was explicitly looked to as a model. If you read the account of the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, you will find extremely nice things said about the British system of government including a wish by some of the delegates to establish a monarchy, but with the recognition that by that point feelings had changed greatly. Even so proposals were made to have either the President or the Senate elected for life. The system we do have is basically modeled on the British system of government as it existed in theory in 1787 or for that matter today. The President is basically an elected monarch, you will note he is in theory not even directly elected. As the Queen is in theory part of Parliament and the royal assent is in theory necessary to make a law, the President, while not a part of Congress, has to grant his assent to laws, a difference is that Congress can by a supper majority pass a law without his assent. As the Queen is commander in chief, so is the President. The Queen is Chief Executive, so is the President. As the Queen in theory chooses her ministers, so the president chooses his cabinet with the consent of the Senate. In that context remember how much more powerful the lords were in 1787. Congress like Parliament is bicameral. The Senate while not composed of hereditary aristocrats was originally not directly elected but composed of members chosen by the state legislatures. While the Senate is not the highest court in the United States, it in conjunction with the president appoints judges to the Supreme Court and lesser courts. The Senate does retain some juridical powers in that it tries impeachments. The House of Representatives is directly elected like the House of Commons. All finance bills must originate in the House of the Representatives. In short our system is not that different in theory from the British System. The practical differences are the result of the fact that we started electing the monarch so there was less support for the legislature when it tried to use the power of the purse to control the executive. Therefore we did not develop the Prime Ministerial system. The French revolutionaries made a big deal about how our state constitutions were so conservative and aping the evil monarchical system instead of concentrating all power, legislative, executive, and judicial, in a unicameral body which they conceived as the “proper” republican thing to do. This led John Adams, later our second president and then ambassador to the court of St. James, to write his three volume “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States.” In the Defense Adams looks at basically all of the republics through out history to defend our state constitutions. He uses the word republic in its proper sense to mean governments that are not absolute monarchies, absolute aristocracies, or absolute democracies and discusses the British system in flattering terms under the category Monarchical Republics. The Defense not only had a good deal of influence on republican thought in Europe, but was published as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was meeting in Philadelphia. Further his earlier “Thoughts on Government’ published during the revolutionary war was influential when the state constitutions were being written. In that pamphlet he drew on the American experience with the colonial governments and the British system. He even recommended that the more aristocratic states like Virginia might choose to have a hereditary upper house. He also wrote the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the oldest written constitution still in force. Anyway anti monarchism was not the motivating force behind the war for independence and our government is not as different or un-British as some might think. P.S. I am not offended by being called a yank. I understand the problem is that we are over paid, over sexed, and over here ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Steph, I dare say you are far more aware of this history than most Americans | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:26:15 11/28/04 Sun You are obviously far more knowledgeable about it than I am. I'm not so sure that current US citizens would view this historical relationship with the British monarchy and the British system of government in quite such a positive way. I am, as always, more than happy to be proved wrong. Regardless of the common origins of our forms of government, I do feel there is a substantial difference in functioning between a parliamentary system, with a symbolic head and a government based on a majority of local representatives, and a presidential system, with a powerful head and frequent conflict between executive and legislative branches. My experience of living in Brazil is largely responsible for this feeling. I, for one, would be astonished and very pleased if the USA should show interest in joining the Commonwealth, not so much because of anything related to the monarchy, but because joining an organisation that would put it on the same level as Lesotho would be an important sign of multilateralism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:27:44 11/28/04 Sun I agree that many Americans have a less positive view of our early conection to the crown. But I do think that many of us have a positive view of Great Britain. We were allies through all of the 20th Century. There are substantial differences in functioning between our systems. I only wanted to point out that they are different developments of the same system. If Cromwell had made the Protectorship directly ellected and their had been no restoration, the American system would be standard through out the English Speaking world. As for us joining the Commonwealth it is something that would have to be worked at just as Federation will have to be worked at. As for having only one vote, we had only one at the U.N. and the U.S.S.R. had three. We didn't like it but we lived with it. Regarding multilateralism, I guess I hold to view that the purpose of the state is to defend the persons, rights and interests of its citizens. To sacrifice those to international concensus would be to deligitimize itself. Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:39:20 11/28/04 Sun I don't always agree with Dubya, but making US defence policy dependent on the consent of foreign nations is rather an abrogation of the Commander-in-Chief's responsibilities. Look at how much fuss we're making over here about the Euro-army! It would be hypocritical for Brits to criticise Americans for refusing to do something which we refuse to do ourselves. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Emperor or President | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:26:37 11/28/04 Sun I agree with Ian and think that perhaps you study political history or something similar. Would I be right? My point is that, in today's US, selling the concept of an impotent monarch over an all-powerful president would be an uphill struggle at best. I accept there are are a huge number of similarities between our systems - that's why we refer to Westminster as the mother of all parliaments. The British system is one that has been exported all over the world and forms the very backbone of modern democracy. As it happens I disagree with you on the idea that the monarch held such sway at the time of the war. Since Cromwell did his one good thing, taking the power from an absolute monarch into representative government, the monarch has been increasingly disempowered while, on the contrary, the US presidency has become more powerful over time. At the same time that the monarch was effectively being made little more than a glorified meet-n-greet diplomat the US president was forming the basis of its role as policeman of the world. Our empire fades, yours ascends - c'est la vie. > The President is basically an elected monarch, you will note he is in theory not even directly elected. Agreed. >As the Queen is in theory part of Parliament and the royal assent is in theory necessary to make a law, the President, while not a part of Congress, has to grant his assent to laws, a difference is that Congress can by a supper majority pass a law without his assent. In theory, okay. In practice, however, very different. The Queen dare not oppose parliament, assenting to legislation is little more than a rubber stamp. The Queen cannot initiate legislation, influence parliament to introduce legislation or, perhaps most significantly, hold any political affiliation. Thus, the monarch is always separate from political machinations, she can be neither conservative nor labour. The president is, obviously enough, part of a political party and, in fact, elected as much for his party affiliation as for his own policies. >As the Queen is commander in chief, so is the President. The Queen, however, cannot send her troops into battle - she can only agree with the PM should he wish to do so. As I understand it the president can send US forces into combat without the consent of the houses, albeit for a limited period. >The Queen is Chief Executive, so is the President. In name only. As above, she has no political influence, she leads no party, she cannot instruct the politicians on any matter, legislative or otherwise. > As the Queen in theory chooses her ministers, so the president chooses his cabinet with the consent of the Senate. Yet again theory and practice are two completely different things. As you no doubt well know, the PM picks his cabinet and the Queen rubber stamps it for the sake of tradition. So, really, the British system works almost in reverse to the US system: the British head of state has no real power or say in the running of government, merely a few administrative niceties to perform as and when instructed to by the PM. The US system has a powerful, monarchical head of state whose political affiliation dominates the daily governmental regime and dictates policy. In summary, yes, I agree that the US system is an imitation of the British system, which is itself an imitation of the earlier Greco-Roman systems. Practically all democratic systems in the world today share the same roots and almost all British ex-colonies have the Parliamentary system at their core. However, I disagree that they are the same, or anything close, because (as you observe) the US system has replaced an hereditary head of state whose power is continually waning with an elected head of state whose power would seem to be continually on the increase. By the way, how would you describe the commonly held view of the war of independence? If asked, how would the average Yank tell the story? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Revolutionary wars | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:26:02 11/28/04 Sun I recently wrote an article on the origins of the American Revolution, which was quite well received by various professors. If you're interested, I'll e-mail you a copy. Without wishing to flatter, the views which you express on this forum reveal you to be a well-informed and thoughful human being (much as I occasionally disagree!), and I'd be interested in what you think. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes I would be interested to read it | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:13:15 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Righty ho. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:20:59 11/28/04 Sun I would be interested to get a reaction from an American point of view, just as, I presume, you would be curious to read about the Revolution from a British standpoint. Consider yourself emailed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good Article | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:55:45 11/30/04 Tue Ed I realy enjoyed your article. You were right on about the causes of the revolution. It was intresting to read about the War of Independance from a the point of view of imperial policy. That is as a failure, rather than a success. By the way you might be intrested in Ben Fraklin's Albany Plan of Union of 1754. Which would have created a Federal Colonial government for British North America. It called for a President General appointed by the crown, and a council chosen by the colonial legislaturesl. cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Powers of the Crown | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:18:31 11/28/04 Sun You are quite right to think that I studied history at university or as we yanks would say ¡§I majored in history at college.¡¨ ƒº My knowledge of government is due to that and personal study. I agree that monarchism would be a hard sell. Personally I have monarchist tendencies. For me, the hard sell would be the over integration of the legislative and executive and a lesser extent the judicial functions in the Prime Ministerial system. I would be very happy with a monarch and a directly elected head of government. You wrote, ¡§As it happens I disagree with you on the idea that the monarch held such sway at the time of the war. Since Cromwell did his one good thing, taking the power from an absolute monarch into representative government, the monarch has been increasingly disempowered while, on the contrary, the US presidency has become more powerful over time. At the same time that the monarch was effectively being made little more than a glorified meet-n-greet diplomat the US president was forming the basis of its role as policeman of the world. Our empire fades, yours ascends - c'est la vie.¡¨ Well I may have over stated the authority of the crown at the time of the revolution, but I think you are understating it. George the Third was the most dynamic monarch since the Hanoverians came to the throne. Lord North was very much his minister. It is not until the civil list is established and the monies of the crown and the monarch were clearly sperate, that the Prime Ministerial system is clearly established. The madness of George the Third was such a serious problem because he was still an important part of the government. In a very real sence, the dissolute nature of George IV is the foundation of the current system. William, Mary, and Anne had not been mere figure heads though they were constitutional monarchs. George I was unable to speak the English language and George II was not that much better. George III the first really English Hanoverian was a much more active monarch than his grandfather or great grandfather. In that context it is also worth noting that during the 18th Century, the opposition tended to congregate around the court of the Prince of Wales, because his influence would be important for patronage purposes. Re Cromwell, he was in no sence a Prime Minister. As Lord Protector he was King in all but name and he excersised the royal prerogatives including proroguing parliament, dismissing it, and ruling with out it. Remember the words with which he dismissed the long Parliament, ¡§You have sat to long here for any good you might be doing, be gone I say and let us have done with you. In the name of god go!¡¨ To quote myself ¡§If Cromwell had made the Protectorship directly ellected and their had been no restoration, the American system would be standard through out the English Speaking world.¡¨ So while it is true that the Americans had an exaulted view of the powers of the Monarch which reflected the past more than future, and assigned sed powers to our president, the issue was not so clear in 1787. As late of the budget crises of the early 20th Century, the government had to ask for the power to appoint enough lords to break the power of the lords to the will of the commons and that was granted only after parliament was desolved and the government sustained by the electorate. Even today laws are not made by parliament, but ¡§enacted by the Queen¡¦s Most Excellent Majesty.¡¨ Personally I think things have gone to far. The commons now have almost the power that the French revolutionaries were advocating for a single unicameral legislature. Some checks are needed. More later, Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "Some checks are needed": not wrong there! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:32:57 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ed, Article | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:26:49 11/28/04 Sun Ed , could you email you article to me at adamben9187@yahoo.co.uk, thanks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sure! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:28:04 11/28/04 Sun But I don't promise that it'll be any good! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: hey Ed, | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:37:51 11/28/04 Sun Ed, could you possibly send me a copy also. If I give my history teacher a different view point of the revolution, maybe she'll start taking me seriously! falla830@gmail.com [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |