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: On the Anglosphere and Union | |
Author: Steph (U.S.) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 00:00:49 01/25/05 Tue One of the most controversial questions on this board is the issue of the United States in the proposed union. As all of you who have been reading the board for some time must know, I am enthusiastic about the proposed federation of the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. I believe that this would be in the interest of the United States and of the crown commonwealth countries. However, I hope for considerably more than this. At the least, I hope for the United States to be included in the Commonwealth of Nations. My favorite case would be a federation with the U.S. in it. In this post I want to address a number of concerns, some quite understandable, that have been expressed on this board and give my ideas about Federation or Confederation. I certainly understand that there is concern that the U.S. would overwhelm the rest of the CANZUK countries because of its shear size. However I think it is important to realize that the U.S. is by no means as culturally unified as this concern would require to fully valid. There are at least four different English origin cultures in the U.S. In addition there is a definite Spanish speaking one and an African origin culture. In a federation or confederation these will mix with the Canadian, Scots, Welsh, Irish, English, Australian, New Zealand, and etc. cultures. The cultures will remain distinct while gaining some things from one another. While there are likely to be common features, it is by no means certain that they will come from the U.S. cultures. The question of anti-Americanism I am not sure how to address. If we are hated-blamed because we are powerful or because we are powerful and the world isn’t perfect, then there isn’t much to be done about it. I frankly think that a lot of it is resentment that socialism doesn’t work very well, but I grant that is a biased opinion. On the question of how closer relations should be put in place, I see a number of different methods. First, a federal Union like the one being proposed here with the States of the Union as member states of the Federation. Such a federation would of course have Her Majesty as Head of State. The exact number of the member states of the Federation would depend has a number of factors. The UK could be four states (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) or it could be more. (Even Cornwall could be a member state) The question of the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey along with the Isle of Mann would have to be dealt with. Canada and Australia both have territories that, while they are part of their Federal government, have a lesser status (or so I understand) than the states and provinces. The U.S. has Porto Rico and some other territories and dependencies. This is no doubt to a full list the questions about the number of member states, but it gives an idea Another question under this scenario is what should happen to the existing Federal or Union governments. Should the Commonwealth of Australia, the Confederation of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States cease to exist, or would they be kept on for some of their current purposes. This also brings up the question of what powers should be delegated to the federal government. The second possibility is a federation of the existing national governments. A federal government with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States as the member states. This would have the advantage of least disturbing the current governmental systems, but the federation would probably not be as tight as fewer powers would likely be delegated to the federal government. The third possibility is a two stage federation. The first stage would be a CANZUK federation of the Crown commonwealth. The second stage would be a confederation of CANZUK, India, and the United States. This would also allow for an English Speaking African Federation lead by South Africa to become a fourth member of the Federation. The Confederation would likely be very lose, basically a permanent defense alliance, free trade agreement, common currency, a court for setting common law president, and some joint citizenship arrangement. The fourth option is a CANZUK federation with the U.S. as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. This is self explanatory. There are many other questions to be answered. If the First or Second options are followed what is the status of the Republic of Ireland, India, Jamaica, and South Africa? This just a start, but I wanted to post my thoughts so far. Cheers Steph [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: If It Were Up To Me | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:43:35 01/25/05 Tue If it were up to me the FCS constitution would begin something like this. In order to unite the English speaking common law nation for the protection of life, liberty, and property, be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty and with consent and by the authority of the peoples of: the State of Alabama, the State of Alaska, the Province of Alberta, the State of Arizona, the State of Arkansas, the Australian Capital Territory, the Kingdom of the Bahamas, the Kingdom of Barbados, The Kingdom of Bermuda, the Province of British Columbia, the State of California, the State of Colorado, the District of Columbia, the State of Connecticut, the State of Delaware, the Kingdom of England, the Falkland Islands, the State of Florida, the State of Georgia, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the State of Hawaii, the State of Idaho, the State of Illinois, the State of Indiana, the State of Iowa, the Republic of Ireland, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the State of Kansas, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Louisiana, the State of Maine, the Isle of Mann, the Province of Manitoba, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Michigan, the State of Minnesota, the State of Mississippi, the State of Missouri, the State of Montana, the State of Nebraska, the State of Nevada, the province of New Brunswick, the State of New Hampshire, the State of New Jersey, the State of New Mexico, the State of New South Wales, the State of New York, the Kingdom of New Zealand, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Territory of North Australia, the State of North Carolina, the State of North Dakota, the Kingdom of Northern Ireland, the Northwest Territory, the Province of Nova Scotia, the State of Ohio, the State of Oklahoma, the Province of Ontario, the State of Oregon, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Province of Prince Edward Island, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Province of Quebec, the State of Queensland, the State of Rhode Island, the Province of Saskatchewan, the Kingdom of Scotland, the State of South Australia, the State of South Carolina, the State of South Dakota, the State of Tasmania, the State of Tennessee, the State of Texas, the State of Utah, the State of Vermont, the State of Victoria, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Principality of Wales, the State of Washington, the State of West Virginia, the State of Western Australia, the State of Wisconsin, the State of Wyoming, and the Yukon Territory, that the aforementioned states hereby form the United Commonwealth Federation and that this Constitution shall be the supreme law thereof. I would put up with less, but I can hope. Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: On the Anglosphere and Union (corrected) | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:57:06 01/25/05 Tue One of the most controversial questions on this board is the issue of the United States in the proposed union. As all of you who have been reading the board for some time must know, I am enthusiastic about the proposed federation of the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. I believe that this would be in the interest of the United States and of the crown commonwealth countries. However, I hope for considerably more than this. At the least, I hope for the United States to be included in the Commonwealth of Nations. My favorite case would be a federation with the U.S. in it. In this post I want to address a number of concerns, some quite understandable, that have been expressed on this board and give my ideas about Federation or Confederation. I certainly understand that there is concern that the U.S. would overwhelm the rest of the CANZUK countries because of its shear size. However I think it is important to realize that the U.S. is by no means as culturally unified as this concern would require to be fully valid. There are at least four different English origin cultures in the U.S. In addition there is a definite Spanish speaking one and an African origin culture. In a federation or confederation these will mix with the Canadian, Scots, Welsh, Irish, English, Australian, New Zealand, and etc. cultures. The cultures will remain distinct while gaining some things from one another. While there are likely to be common features, it is by no means certain that they will come from the U.S. cultures. The question of anti-Americanism I am not sure how to address. If we are hated-blamed because we are powerful or because we are powerful and the world isn’t perfect, then there isn’t much to be done about it. I frankly think that a lot of it is resentment that socialism doesn’t work very well, but I grant that is a biased opinion. On the question of how closer relations should be put in place, I see a number of different methods. First, a federal Union like the one being proposed here with the States of the Union as member states of the Federation. Such a federation would of course have Her Majesty as Head of State. The exact number of the member states of the Federation would depend on a number of factors. The UK could be four states (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) or it could be more. (Even Cornwall could be a member state) The question of the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey along with the Isle of Mann would have to be dealt with. Canada and Australia both have territories that, while they are part of their Federal government, have a lesser status (or so I understand) than the states and provinces. The U.S. has Porto Rico and some other territories and dependencies. This is no doubt not a full list the questions about the number of member states, but it gives an idea Another question under this scenario is what should happen to the existing Federal or Union governments. Should the Commonwealth of Australia, the Confederation of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States cease to exist, or would they be kept on for some of their current purposes. This also brings up the question of what powers should be delegated to the federal government. The second possibility is a federation of the existing national governments. A federal government with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States as the member states. This would have the advantage of least disturbing the current governmental systems, but the federation would probably not be as tight as fewer powers would likely be delegated to the federal government. The third possibility is a two stage federation. The first stage would be a CANZUK federation of the Crown commonwealth. The second stage would be a confederation of CANZUK, India, and the United States. This would also allow for an English Speaking African Federation lead by South Africa to become a fourth member of the Federation. The Confederation would likely be very lose, basically a permanent defense alliance, free trade agreement, common currency, a court for setting common law precedent, and some joint citizenship arrangement. The fourth option is a CANZUK federation with the U.S. as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. This is self explanatory. There are many other questions to be answered. If the First or Second options are followed what is the status of the Republic of Ireland, India, Jamaica, and South Africa? This just a start, but I wanted to post my thoughts so far. Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: sorry steph... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:23:31 01/26/05 Wed im sorry steph, but i think you are a minority among your countrymen. i lived in the US for a few years, and i have to say my time spent there wasn't very pleasant. i think the US has become very self-centred and has little concern for the affairs of others. as well, i cant see a country that fought so hard to become a republic going back to a constitutional monarchy. as well, i had the unfortunate experience of seeing first hand the brash american pride that believes they do everything right and everyone else owes them a living. i feel, whether you believe so or not, that the US parts of the anglosphere would seek to dominate it. the US has become too used to running its own show for them to turn back now. and im not saying that americans are inherently bad people, because many are not, but i feel the US government and media has greatly crippled their understanding of the outside world. also, i feel the US gave up any chance of becoming part of our Commonwealth when they rebelled against our King in the 1770s. I feel the Federal Commonwealth is one thing that the US should be left out of. we are too different, and i feel that US membership would create resentment towards the FC that wouldn't necessarily occur if the US weren't part of it. maybe im strange, but I dont really want the FC to become a gigantic superpower. a smaller, more-friendly 'superpower' would suit me fine. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:35:03 01/26/05 Wed I disagree. New Zealanders and Australians can still integrate pretty well into British society, but Canadians and South Africans seem very alien to us now: but no more than Americans. Given that Canadians in Britain are often mistaken for Americans, any attempt to play on the 'otherness' of Americans will also affect Canadians. Most Brits think that Canadians are Yanks who speak slowly. I'm not saying that it is right, just that it is so. Moreover, the 13 colonies did not rebel against the King in the 1770s, just parliament. That's why the Declaration had to have to many references to the evil of George III., because they had to convince a sceptical public that total separation was justified, rather than merely political independence, such as was enjoyed in Rhode Island, Massachussets etc. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: just because its that way... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:50:21 01/26/05 Wed well, just because Britain sees Canada and the US as one and the same doesn't mean its so. many Canadians here are originally from Britain, with a few Aussies and Kiwis mixed in. my family hails from Cambridge, Manchester, and Durban, South Africa. i am only a second generation Canadian. as well, going on how someone speaks is a pretty poor measure of what they are like. Canadians may speak more like Americans, but they think along the same lines as other Commonwealth citizens. many people in the US, however, do not think the same way that we do. Canada and the Commonwealth have similar cultures, and we definitely see ourselves more like Britain than the US. i blame poor schooling/the media(on both sides) for portraying Canadians in the manner you speak of. we are really very much the same. my main point was that based on culture, society, and government, not what your accent sounds like, is why we are similar to each other and the US is not. i realise Ed you probably dont think this way, im just trying to explain my stance on the issue. i think its so hilarious sometimes how four countries who are inherently very similar and from a common history treat each other like they are complete strangers. political correctness gone mad if you ask me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh, I agree... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:19:42 01/27/05 Thu I am the first to leap up and shout at people on the telly who say that Michael J Fox or Dan Ackroyd, for example, are American. I am also keen to point out to Brits that Chris Plummer or Mike Myers, whom they assume are just British, are in fact Canadian, as this reinforces the impression that we're not that different. On the other hand, to continue with the idea of celebrities as examples, the most Canadian-sounding actor whom we know is John Lithgow, who is in fact from New York or somewhere equally ghastly. I think that he sounds more like Lloyd Grossman than Paul Martin, but so long as the majority are unable to get it right, you're going to have problems convincing the British public (although not me!) that Canadians are more like us than they are like Americans. As you say, one's accent is not a reliable indicator of character, but as a superficial way of judging people it is pretty much the easiest and most convincing. Can you tell the difference between the accents of a Frenchman and a Luxembourger? Or a German and an Austrian? I can because I speak French and German, but most people - in Canada too - can not. Similarly, while the inability to distinguish Canadians from Americans may not be excusable, it is certainly understandable. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: true... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:24:45 01/27/05 Thu i agree with your statements, and I hope before the FC is started there is a programme to educate citizens of each country and disspell silly stereotypes. if they stereotypes are removed, I feel people in all four countries would be more receptive to the idea. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Agreed | |
|
Author: Brent Cameron [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:39:11 01/28/05 Fri Ed: Could not agree more. And that makes the whole situation all the more lamentable. Not to cast dispersions on any other Commonwealth nation, but we may be the only ones outside the Mother Country who actually had to fight a war to remain "British." Moreover, we should not really forget who wanted to end our status. Yes, Aussie, I am not forgetting your account of WWII, but to compare your experience to ours in 1812, the Imperial Japanese forces would have had to occupied the State of Victoria AND burned the City of Sydney to the ground. Ontario was occupied, and Toronto was put to the torch. To those who want to understand why Canucks have some conflicted feelings about the US, please research the accounts of the United Empire Loyalists and the experiences of Canadians during the War of 1812. Then think about Dubya's vow to bring democracy to the Big Blue Marble, and the fact that the thing that separates us from the likes of him is not an ocean, but an imaginary line... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good grief! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:20:27 01/28/05 Fri Two people who agree with me! I must write this down in my diary as a unique event... or perhaps emigrate to Canada, since the best I've managed in Blighty is one person. In one respect, though, you're wrong. There's another people out there in the world who fought a war to remain British: the British South Africans. Indeed, we fought a couple of wars, although admittedly the first one was a farce which lasted for a few minutes at Majuba Hill, and as such was a skirmish rather than a war. We call it the First Boer War, they call it the First War of Independence: in reality, it was a rather pointless battle. There is another similarity between British South Africans and Canadians: we are both the only former colonies with a significant non-British community - in the case of South Africa, the Brits were and are a minority community. In Canada, you are a majority but by a small margin. This has always served to reinforce our Britishness, because - perhaps regrettably - people tend to define themselves by what they are not. We are not Boers, you are not French. (I here include 'African' South Africans on the British side of the ledger, since they supported us against the Boers, for the same reasons for which Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.) In this context, though, there is an important difference: in the end, we lost in South Africa owing purely to demographics: there were more Boers, and they just bided their time until Britain's weakness gave them their opporunity to establish the barmy, fundamentalist Christian, racist state which we had fought a war to prevent. In Canada, you are strong enough to stand up for yourselves against the occasionally deranged Quebecoix without military assistance from Britain (and if anyone contends my definition of the Quebecoix as deranged, then I refer you to their language laws). It is for this reason, in my opinion, for which British Canadians and British South Africans are the most loyal of all the descendents of British colonists: unlike the Australians and New Zealanders - indeed, unlike in Britain itself - there has always been a hostile internal bloc which serves to remind us where we came from and who we are. South Africa, though, as I have stated, is now a dead loss: we must pray that Canada does not go the same way through fear of offending its minority community. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Point taken, Ed | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:44:37 01/28/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Victoria Concordia Crescit | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:12:45 01/25/05 Tue I should like to address some of your points, but I should like first of all to point out that my neo-con, Americophile politics are not necessarily representative of the majority of CANZUK subjects, although here in Blighty they are not as rare as the BBC might lead you to believe. Firstly, you address the critical point that many in CANZUK will fear a take-over by the USA. Goodness knows that many fear it at the moment, even without political harmonisation. Admittedly, this is less true in the UK, since we are big and ugly enough to look after ourselves, although even here certain elements bang on about the 'curse' (I would be inclined to say 'blessing') of Americanisation. Personally, I think that this problem could be surmounted by federating CANZUK first, leaving it twenty years, and then starting talks with the USA. Before the War, there were games between "The United States vs. the British Empire": badges ('pins', I believe you say) were produced with a lion on one side and an eagle on the other, or the Jack on one side and Old Glory on the other, as if this was a meeting of two equals. If Crown Commonwealth federation were a fait accompli before the USA were even considered as a potential member, the feelings of inferiority would be replaced by a greater sense of equality in the negotiations (Ian will have something to say about this), and there would be a concomitant fall in hostility towards the States. Even as an almost rabid pro-American, I feel that this is important, because I will not sacrifice the monarchy to assuage the sensibilities of Americans who have been indoctrinated to believe that a tyrannical king tried to destroy their liberties in the 1770s. Your second point - that about anti-Americanism - can, I believe, be addressed by the solution above. Your third point, about Federation or Confederation, is a trickier one. Personally, I am a Federalist, in that I think that we should form a Federation with a central government with some powers devolved to the regions. Indeed, I would even be in favour of extending the [traditional but not modern] British system to the Federation: a highly centralised government which does virtually nothing except defence and servicing the debt, set against strong local authorities which sort out bread-and-butter issues in their own areas, such as health and education and other things which were once the remit of the individual. Confederation, if it is to be anything, should be a first step towards federation. Right of residence, work, franchise and so forth should be unified, as a precursor to more significant integration. From the British point of view, this is only natural, since all Commonwealth citizens (and not just Crown Commonwealth) can already come here, vote, stand for Parliament and become Prime Minister without a British Passport. Confederation would just involve relaxing immigration rules for CANZ citizens, and as such is not a significant step - although it will no doubt prove a difficult one. Your last point, as I recall, was about the expansion of the Federation to include former British Empire territories such as India and South Africa. As a Sith Ifrican, I can say quite conclusively that 'we' have 'lost' there. 'British' culture was destroyed by the Rocks 50 years ago, and although it looked like Mandela would usher in a Commonwealth-conscious renaissance in South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, as a Marxist, is not especially interested, except using CHOGMs as vehicles for defending Mugabe. To be honest, I don't think that a Marxist, racist government would sit well at the CANZUK or even CANZUKUS debating table... India is another case entirely. I have lived there, worked there, studied there, etc., but this is rare amongst Britons these days. The thing about India which makes it so special is that the Raj involved cultural symbiosis rather than colonisation. There are aspects of British culture in India and of Indian culture in Britain. It was enlightened, but it was brutal; it was altruistic, but it was profitable; it has left a country in which some everything is eerily familiar but not quite the same. Compared to Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, and even Americans, Indians are aliens; but there are more Indians in Britain than nationals of all these other countries combined (my fiancee is one of them); and I am sure that there are more Indians in Australia than nationals of Canada, UK and NZ combined; and so forth. It is an odd case, and should be treated differently. You also mentioned Jamaica. I'm not sure that I understood your point, since Jamaica already shares our head of state and is already included within our proposed Federation. Other than that, I'd like to say that I share your general attitudes towards our movement, but that the Devil is always in the details... that's why the British constitution has always worked: until now, we have avoided the details and gone with the broader and less controvertial picture, in which we are assisted by the fact that it is not written down. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |