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: Roving capitals | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:07:05 11/30/04 Tue In reply to: Michael J. Smith (Canada) 's message, "I like Ian's Option B" on 04:41:40 11/30/04 Tue The idea of a roving capital is quite an interesting one. Rome tried it in the later imperial period, of course, but for different reasons. An interesting idea might be to do what the Americans do - separating branches of government geographically - but on a much grander scale. The Yanks put the legislative and executive at different ends of Pennsylvania Avenue: why should we not put them on different continents? The trouble is, of course, that under our parliamentary system there is no real separation of powers. The executive (the Queen) has no will but that of the legislature (parliament). Were this changed, however, to enable the establishment of a federal system, I see no reason why FUKC's (thanks Ian!) government should not be divided between, say, Ottowa and London. As for the on-going debate about a single capital, I agree that London makes the most sense for a variety of reasons: history, geography, population, the sheer amount of money which London produces which would enable the City probably to buy the Commonwealth outright, the buildings of government which are suitably grand and beautiful, the fact that there are already more Australians in London than in Australia ;-) etc etc. On the other hand, I do believe that London would be harder to sell to most people in CANZ for whom Commonwealth Federation is more practical than sentimental. Notwithstanding the admirable views of the Canadians who post here, there are millions of Canadians who would hit the roof if it were suggested that the capital went back to London. I therefore believe, most strongly, that if this is to be a practical movement with any hope of broad dissemination, then the capital issue will have to be decided not according to what makes sense but according to what would be acceptable. It is a shame, of course; but I believe that it is a necessity. Bring the Bermudians on board and shove it in Hamilton. There's nothing like seeing the great ships cruising into the Great Sound, round the headland of Pembroke and into Hamilton. There are grand law courts on Parliament Street, the Cabinet Building on Front Street is rather nice, and outside it is a Cenotaph/Imperial War Memorial which is an exact replica of ours in Whitehall. Also, as Prime Minister I'd be able to shuffle down to the beach after exhausting cabinet meetings... [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: surely a roving parliament would require an exorbitant amount of building | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:15:29 11/30/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:29:05 11/30/04 Tue Well, given that there are already large Victorian parliaments in London, Melbourne and Ottowa, I doubt it. But I'm not sure I like roving capitals anyway. Look what happened to Diocletian... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |