Federal Commonwealth of Nations + USA?

[Tani Coyote]

"Federal Commonwealth of Nations"

Here's an idea I've been playing with recently. I know VRWCAgent - I think - suggested something similar long ago, but what if the USA joined the Commonwealth of Nations?

And no, not as some loose Confederation(though I imagine that'd be the initial step). I'm talking of a EU-style union, gradually expanding into a cohesive entity.

What I mean by this is, the "Commonwealth Federation" would:

A. Institute common economic policies, eventually even a single currency(probably called the "Commonwealth Dollar" or something, to compromise between the American half and British half) and a customs union in nations that were stable enough.

B. Create a single powerful legislature, initially with limited powers, but given increasing amounts as new constitutions were ratified. This legislature would have the equivalent of the United States' Supremacy Clause and therefore eventually be the supreme law of the land. The legislature would have a house based on population/income, and another with equal representation by all members, to prevent American hegemony. Possibly a third house to help keep power nicely distributed.

C. A common Executive Branch. Possibly divided between two potent executives, in the form of President elected with both the popular vote and a majority in the Electoral College, and a Chancellor elected to power by the Legislature. They would ideally serve to check and balance eachother.

D. A common Judicial Branch. Given the scale of the Judiciary, however, I imagine it'd be split into several areas of authority, with one common court that could fix areas of overlapping authority and overlapping rulings.

E. Possibly even a common defense, once enough time passed. The union of the American resources with the other states would more than likely create the strongest military on the face of the planet, backed by the strongest economy.

F. Provide an alternative to the European Union, in the case of the UK.

G. Overall, greatly increase the stability of the world by mixing various regional and economic interests. Given time, current nationalism could be curtailed, even in the United States and Britain. It would also preserve the balance of power by giving Europe a larger rival. China and maybe even Russia would add to this equation in their own rights as mini-superpowers.

H. United States specifically - cause a massive shift to the left in social policies. Too much of a shift to the left could be prevented by giving lower entities some more authority, as part of the principles of Federalism. As part of the new union, the USA would likely adopt the metric system as part of the policies of economic uniformity.

I. Language reform. Being a mostly English-speaking entity, this Federation would have the authority to work on reforming the English language, to mend out regional differences and overall make the language make more sense.


What sort of issues would such a union have to deal with? Do you think it could survive, and if so, how? What are some specifics you think would aid it's survival?

I've always been a fan of greater economic and political integration with Canada given our proximity, but given time, I would support economic integration with the wealthier Commonwealth states, and later, the entirety of the First World. During this entire process, the United States and the union it's part of could help raise other partners to First World levels, allowing greater integration.

 

[civ_king]

Cool! but impractical.... the US and Canada would never integrate peacefully

 

[eazyhasaids]

the second amendment doesnt allow this to happen

 

[Quackers]

I'm kind of confused - this is a union between Anglo-nations right?

EDIT: Ahh you mean the Commenweealth? Which we lead USA back in the fold -good

 

[Lillefix]

the second amendment doesnt allow this to happen

Then just change it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Cool! but impractical.... the US and Canada would never integrate peacefully

Why not? If enough common ground could be found...

...That and, you know, we could purge ourselves of our social conservatives... That should help things along enormously. Economic views can generally be reconciled and compromised, but social values are a never ending battlefield...

I'm kind of confused - this is a union between Anglo-nations right?

Yes, for obvious reasons, since the Commonwealth would be the springboard to the Federation.

EDIT: Ahh you mean the Commenweealth? Which we lead USA back in the fold -good

Not the Commonwealth as is. The Commonwealth would just be the initial framework, and would be mutated into a more federal union. Think of how the European Coal and Steel Community became the EU. There wouldn't be British "leadership" - all member states would be equal in practice as part of the bicameral legislature. The British, of course, likely would have prestige in the form of being the origin of all nations within the Federation.

The Federation can't happen if we don't go into it as equals, especially considering Americans are as humble as Brits.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Then just change it.

Bingo! We'd just go through our own Lisbon; each member state would have to amend it's Constitution to give the necessary powers to the Federation.

 

[emzie]

Every time the question comes up, the biggest flaw is a lack of interest. What's in it for Canada, Australia or New Zealand?

 

[orrery]

over my dead body.

 

[Quackers]

What are you a Yank?

 

[bhsup]

Then just change it.

Dude, seriously, that would cause a revolution in America.

 

[say1988]

Why not? If enough common ground could be found...

You realise that not being American is one of the defining points of being Canadian (seriously, being not American is as important as being Canadian to many people). And most Canadians have political views contrary to much of the US (our Conservatives would be pretty close to your Democrats).

And do we want to give up any power to the US? they would dominate economically and everybody but India by population (though Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh would somewhat be close).
I suspect that most would be unhappy if the US joined in its current state (though many would be unlikely to say it).

Then the fact that from the inception of the Commonwealth, this is contrary to its purpose. It was formed to assert the independence of the Dominions.

Then, despite the cultural differences throughout Europe, the Commonwealth has far more (India, Australia, Britain, Nigeria, South Africa, Solomon Islands, Rwanda etc...) and the lack of any geographic proximity and in many cases close economic relationship.
Just establishing a strong Commonwealth government would be impossible, even without the US. If limited to Canada, US, Britain, Australia, New Zealan, and maybe South Africa or some island countries and you remove a significant portion of the cultural barriers, but there would still be no need for it.

 

[emzie]

You realise that not being American is one of the defining points of being Canadian (seriously, being not American is as important as being Canadian to many people). And most Canadians have political views contrary to much of the US (our Conservatives would be pretty close to your Democrats).

And do we want to give up any power to the US? they would dominate economically and everybody but India by population (though Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh would somewhat be close).
I suspect that most would be unhappy if the US joined in its current state (though many would be unlikely to say it).

Then the fact that from the inception of the Commonwealth, this is contrary to its purpose. It was formed to assert the independence of the Dominions.

Then, despite the cultural differences throughout Europe, the Commonwealth has far more (India, Australia, Britain, Nigeria, South Africa, Solomon Islands, Rwanda etc...) and the lack of any geographic proximity and in many cases close economic relationship.
Just establishing a strong Commonwealth government would be impossible, even without the US. If limited to Canada, US, Britain, Australia, New Zealan, and maybe South Africa or some island countries and you remove a significant portion of the cultural barriers, but there would still be no need for it.

By Commonwealth, I think he meant white-people Commonwealth -- eg, Aussies, Kiwis, Brits and Canadians.

 

[Cutlass]

I think the US is too large and set in its ways to be integrated into a larger federation in the foreseeable future. I'm iffy on even believing the European integration will work. Not the right time.

 

[aronnax]

Keep America outta MAI Commonwealth! I don't want no Evangelical driven party to mess with my politics! Keep your Sarah Palins and your Glenn Becks and your Sean Hannity or your side of the ocean.

 

[Camikaze]

No. How on Earth would Australia keep winning the Commonwealth Games if they had to compete against America?

 

[bhsup]

Hire Tonya Harding to deal with the competition?

 

[PiMan]

Take out Commonwealth countries in Asia, then the US would only barely be outnumbered the rest of the Commonwealth combined.
Include those countries and India would only barely be outnumbered.

This would present problems in any democratic legislature.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'd much rather see a North American Union than what you suggested. (and even that not so much)

 

[Tani Coyote]

Every time the question comes up, the biggest flaw is a lack of interest. What's in it for Canada, Australia or New Zealand?

Well, generally, economic integration is very beneficial. Not to mention the massive benefits in just about any other field.

You would also be able to obtain resources off our economy via redistribution once enough economic cooperation is in place.

over my dead body.

Why? If it's a mutually-beneficial arrangement, what other than puny nationalism goes against it?

Dude, seriously, that would cause a revolution in America.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. What if the constitution was changed Articles of Confederation style, where 12/13 of the state come together and decide to dissolve the Federal government? Of course, that would be an issue in itself. It's easier to get 12 states to agree than 46-48.

Anyway, that's off topic and probably deserves a thread of it's own.

You realise that not being American is one of the defining points of being Canadian (seriously, being not American is as important as being Canadian to many people). And most Canadians have political views contrary to much of the US (our Conservatives would be pretty close to your Democrats).

Yes, I do. But I am a type that throws nationalism out the window, so I don't pay attention to what an "American" or "Canadian" is. I see us all as human beings who should work towards common, mutual interests. Also, it's sad if you have to define your identity based on relation to another. But that's not really relevant.

Yes, there are many differing views. This is why federalism is important. The Canadians would have as much say as the Americans in the government of the Federation via the upper house. In addition, the localities of Canada would retain great power. Federalism + checking of mob rule.

And do we want to give up any power to the US? they would dominate economically and everybody but India by population (though Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh would somewhat be close).

You're not really giving up any power to us. In fact, if there was any "domination", it would be possessed by the rest of the Federation. Why? Our 1 vote would be enormous canceled out by the far more numerous votes of the other members. The United States would only be able to preserve it's sovereignty via the lower house, but India's inclusion could hurt that. So if any power is "lost" in such a union, it is America that suffers.

I suspect that most would be unhappy if the US joined in its current state (though many would be unlikely to say it).

Forget the politics or social views. All states would pretty much stay the same, with limited federal powers decided on by all the other members. Think of it this way: California vs. Texas. They're drastically different, yet remain part of the same union. Why? I would imagine because it's beneficial, in terms of defense, economics, etc. Such would be the case of any Federation.

Then the fact that from the inception of the Commonwealth, this is contrary to its purpose. It was formed to assert the independence of the Dominions.

Well, personally, I don't feel anything for the Commonwealth. It could remain it's own separate organisation, actually, like NATO and the EU. I just view it as a means to an end. If the members want it, they can keep it. I'll still press for a different, separate union then.

Then, despite the cultural differences throughout Europe, the Commonwealth has far more (India, Australia, Britain, Nigeria, South Africa, Solomon Islands, Rwanda etc...) and the lack of any geographic proximity and in many cases close economic relationship.

America has remained cohesive despite it's many cultural differences, has it not? Like the Commonwealth, we pretty much share only a language(and of course, a history of British rule). And yet we hold together. I don't think it's something unique to America, and that all the Commonwealth could do it as well.

Just establishing a strong Commonwealth government would be impossible, even without the US. If limited to Canada, US, Britain, Australia, New Zealan, and maybe South Africa or some island countries and you remove a significant portion of the cultural barriers, but there would still be no need for it.

I'm a cosmopolitan, what can I say? I support integration for integration's sake. That and, you know, in the end, there's generally more benefits in cooperation than competition.

Perhaps I should have just dropped the "Commonwealth" part, period. It seems that there's some massive anti-American sentiment around it. I care more for the Federation idea than the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is just a means to that end.

By Commonwealth, I think he meant white-people Commonwealth -- eg, Aussies, Kiwis, Brits and Canadians.

Moreso, the developed parts of the Commonwealth. Economic integration is a key factor of any successful unification I feel. So, naturally, only the First World parts could really, fully integrate. However, I would support an aid agency set up by the leading Commonwealth nations to develop and prop up the poorer states, so as to allow them full integration.

Keep America outta MAI Commonwealth! I don't want no Evangelical driven party to mess with my politics! Keep your Sarah Palins and your Glenn Becks and your Sean Hannity or your side of the ocean.

Most of America's influence would be local. The same goes for any member state. As I mentioned above to another poster, if anybody is going to have their power curtailed in such a union, it would be the US itself, by merit of the fact that in both the upper house and lower house, the United States would be outnumbered by the members and the population of India alone, respectively.

Provided most of the union supports things different from those two... you'd be safe.

I'm of the opinion of the Commonwealth being a white blood cell, and the Federation as HIV. If the Commonwealth can be used - and even destroyed - as a means to Federation, that is okay. All for the greater good. If not that, I support a separate organisation, allowing everyone to keep their Commonwealth.

Take out Commonwealth countries in Asia, then the US would only barely be outnumbered the rest of the Commonwealth combined.
Include those countries and India would only barely be outnumbered.

The Upper House, which gives equal power to all members, would solve such an issue.

This would present problems in any democratic legislature.

Similar to the American Constitution, it would be far from direct democratic. The USA would, for the xth time, be the one most likely to suffer under proportional influence in the Federation, by merit of being outnumbered in both chambers.

I'd much rather see a North American Union than what you suggested. (and even that not so much)

Ah, I would favor such a union as well, though primarily with Canada, as I don't quite think Mexico and the others are ready for full integration. One day, however.

But why not? If such a union is peaceful, consensual, and mutually-beneficial, what really is there to disagree about?