Federal Commonwealth of Nations + USA?

I don't want to be in the same country as India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. They are too different from us culturally, in their beliefs, values, and so forth and economically and everything else. We would be incompatible. I don't want Mexico either. When they come to the US they assimilate and thats ok but that wouldn't be the case here and large unassimilate groups are just asking for trouble.

The only countries I would be comfortable with the US unifying with are Canada (liberals), the UK (liberals), Australia (conservatives to keep the GOP happy), New Zealand (sheep), maybe South Africa (black people), Singapore (nice city), Belize (I want the Mayan ruins), Jamaica (weed and beaches), Bermuda (beaches).

I guess the EU, Norway, Japan, Taiwan are ok too but I don't want to learn a second language. This is Amerikaaa we speak English here.

PiMan said:

Not sure about the UK, but Australia has federal elections on a Saturday no more than a set number of days after the previous election. (can't remember what that set number is)
Better than having it on rotating days of the week and not necessarily being able to get to the polls due to work hours.

Click to expand...

what do you mean? Our elections are always on Tuesdays. Specifically the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Taniciusfox said:

Further integration could be good. Imagine if we had a counter to the Euro. Unifying the American, Canadian, and British economies alone would - if memory serves correctly - give the Federation an economy stronger than that of the EU. Even moreso if the "Commonwealth Dollar" or whatever it would be called was in place between them. Picture the economic bonuses of free trade, free movement of labor and capital, etc.

Click to expand...

It would be impossible to come up with a sane monetary policy when dealing with so many countries in so many different stages of economic development. I simply don't want to see an influx of immigration from most of the commonwealth, and Forming an uber large country(whose members have few cultural ties) for free trade is like buying an airline for the free peanuts.

Picture the economic bonuses of free trade, free movement of labor and capital, etc.

Click to expand...

But true free trade would hurt some industries in each country and piss off large numbers of people. And the a sudden influx of people from Pakistan and India and such would be enormous and hard to handle at first, and no offense, but I don't think many countries (especially US and India) want free movement of people between themselves and Pakistan.

As I've said before, if any country runs the risk of having others' will forced upon it, it'd be the United States.

Click to expand...

If we just have an united Anglosphere, then the US dominates the Lower House, and has the money to push what it wants.

Conclusion: Finding a way to balance things out would be a massive headache, even if we try to export the American-style legislature out, simply because of the massive population clout India would hold if it was ever included...

Click to expand...

Not to mention the massive economic and military clout of the US. And if only the English countries are included, then they dominate politically, and if we district all countries, the US would dominate any third house as well.

It isn't possible to integrate these countries without either giving the US (and possibly India) a commanding position, or making each American (and possibly India) and dollar they pay in count for a lot less than other countries. The former would be completely unacceptable outside the US and the latter unacceptable in the US.
And this is before we get into and cultural or political differences or nationalism.

Karalysia said:

I oppose Scotland, Wales and New Zealand. No sheep buggery.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how true it is, but I've heard that the stereotype about Welsh and Scottish bestiality are derived from a quirk in English law. Stealing sheep had a very strict punishment (maybe even death, but I'm not sure), whereas borrowing the animal to have sex with it warranted only a modest fine as it was thought the shame of having the crime made public would be the main punishment. As such, whenever Welsh and Scottish sheep thieves were caught they would falsely confess to having sex with the animal. People back home knew they weren't telling the truth, so they would return home proud of having tricked the English instead of ashamed of anything.

Taniciusfox said:

We could of course, exclude the less-developed nations to make it a smoother ride... once more, though, those excluded would have associated status and preferred status in terms of aid. Only when fully developed could they be integrated into the Federation.

Click to expand...

Except that it's the more developed nations who would be most harmed by such a deal, as it cuts down on their ability to outsource.

Taniciusfox said:

We don't need to get into nationalities. I don't think ANYBODY wants even their OWN government to tell them what to do(or at least I don't, being a libertarian type).

Hence why the Federation would be very limited in scope and would try to distribute powers evenly amongst the nations involved. The internal differences inside each country would also mitigate things a bit. If we talk the white Commonwealth exclusively, the USA would be countered by 5 other votes in an Upper House, and it's majority vote in the lower house would be split by the Dems and Repubs.

The USA would possess the greatest power in the popularly-elected arena, but the members of this chamber would dilute their own power. Similar to how Congress is in theory the strongest branch of the US, but checks itself with all it's internal divisions, structural and partisan.

As I've said before, if any country runs the risk of having others' will forced upon it, it'd be the United States.

Click to expand...

None of what you've just suggested is even remotely workable. It would take coalitions of other countries to fight the US dominance, and their interests just won't coincide that much. The US can buy off smaller nations to vote for its proposals. It's a horrible idea.

MagisterCultuum said:

I'm not sure how true it is, but I've heard that the stereotype about Welsh and Scottish bestiality are derived from a quirk in English law. Stealing sheep had a very strict punishment (maybe even death, but I'm not sure), whereas borrowing the animal to have sex with it warranted only a modest fine as it was thought the shame of having the crime made public would be the main punishment. As such, whenever Welsh and Scottish sheep thieves were caught they would falsely confess to having sex with the animal. People back home knew they weren't telling the truth, so they would return home proud of having tricked the English instead of ashamed of anything.

Click to expand...

This is true, actually. Stealing an object over a certain value, including livestock, was punishable by death. It's the same reason such a large proportion of Australian convicts were deported for such innocuous-sounding crimes as stealing handkerchiefs. They'd actually stolen lots of stuff, but they plead guilty to stealing the cheapest item in their booty, so as to avoid the death penalty.

Shadylookin said:

what do you mean? Our elections are always on Tuesdays. Specifically the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought it was always a specific date in November.

But why a Tuesday? Saturday makes far more sense, since far more people have Saturdays off work.

We've struggled enough to kick the Brits completely out of here... and now, letting the Yanks in?

Dear God, no.

Karalysia said:

Since sheep's are incapable of communicating consent with humans we must err on the side of caution and assume they do not wish to engage in sexual intercourse with humans. Only if the sheep were to initiate the intercourse would it be acceptable. If the human were to ever initiate it then it would be rape.

Click to expand...

Well, isn't that awfully subjective I don't know about you, but I'm one helluva sheep magnet They just like to... flock around me. heheh and when they don't, I spank hit them gently with my stick

yared94 said:

Well, isn't that awfully subjective I don't know about you, but I'm one helluva sheep magnet They just like to... flock around me. heheh and when they don't, I spank hit them gently with my stick

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that it difficult for us to understand the difference between a sheep bending over to graze, and a sheep bending over in presentation. Sheep body language is difficult for us to understand, due to our different evolutionary paths. But basically, if the sheep looks you in the eye, winks at you and smiles coquettishly, it wants it.

God no.

Britainland is welcome to become a U.S. state, though.

Godwynn said:

God no.

Britainland is welcome to become a U.S. state, though.

Click to expand...

It'd be better to just divide it into 4 states, no? Though I'm not sure everybody wants Northern Ireland.

Lord Baal said:

I think the problem is that it difficult for us to understand the difference between a sheep bending over to graze, and a sheep bending over in presentation. Sheep body language is difficult for us to understand, due to our different evolutionary paths. But basically, if the sheep looks you in the eye, winks at you and smiles coquettishly, it wants it.

Click to expand...

And badly too. I know my sheep like they were my own children. I don't need a wink; a look in the eye is all I need, to know that they want some yared94 in them

yared94 said:

And badly too. I know my sheep like they were my own children. I don't need a wink; a look in the eye is all I need, to know that they want some yared94 in them

Click to expand...

I'm not sure "my own children" is the best analogy here. Whatever...

yared94 said:

I know my sheep like they were my own children.

Click to expand...

What the..?