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: And... | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 14:14:54 11/26/04 Fri In reply to: Steph (U.S.) 's message, "Ian here is how I got interested" on 07:18:37 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... [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |