PiMan
Deity
Actually, India would just barely not have the majority in a population based representation. More like 48%.
Federal Commonwealth of Nations + USA?
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
Actually, India would just barely not have the majority in a population based representation. More like 48%.
May depend on the source, based on wikipedia, getting totals from United States and Commonwealth of Nations infoboxes and here for individual commonwealth countries, India comes out with 53% (1173/2231), US with 14% (309/2231), Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria around 7-7.5%, UK with 2.7%, Canada with 1.5%, Australia just under 1%.
I am starting to see a problem for those countries. And economically none would come close to the US. Of all the countries above $100,000 million, the US holds over 59%, India second with 13.7, Britain comes in just under 10%.
Imbalances are okay, but not to this extreme.
I am starting to see a problem for those countries. And economically none would come close to the US. Of all the countries above $100,000 million, the US holds over 59%, India second with 13.7, Britain comes in just under 10%.
Imbalances are okay, but not to this extreme.
PiMan
Deity
Odd, I could have sworn I'd added up those exact same numbers but found the nations other than India totalling a little over 1.2 billion.
Shadylookin
master debater
Why would we want to? We already have economic trade with them. What would giving up our sovereignty give us? Besides I refuse to live in a country where the occurrence of elections is based on when the queen sees her shadow(or whatever nonsense your parliaments base them off of)
PiMan
Deity
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.
I read this book. Eastasia Eurasia is the enemy.
On a serious note, this would benefit almost no-one. Economically it would be bad for the US and most of the other nations - Australia may well be the ONLY economic beneficiary of this, due to our economy's focus on natural resources and agriculture - and there'd be massive political repercussions as well. Not to mention the fact that this would actually be illegal in many of the nations involved, specifically the US. It's a horrible unrealistic, unworkable plan.
On a personal note, I have no interest in having crazy Americans or Poms telling me what to do any more than already occurs. Although, considering the quality of Australia's current government, maybe if we were part of a federation of sorts the politicians would pay less attention to us, screwing us up less than they currently are.
On a serious note, this would benefit almost no-one. Economically it would be bad for the US and most of the other nations - Australia may well be the ONLY economic beneficiary of this, due to our economy's focus on natural resources and agriculture - and there'd be massive political repercussions as well. Not to mention the fact that this would actually be illegal in many of the nations involved, specifically the US. It's a horrible unrealistic, unworkable plan.
On a personal note, I have no interest in having crazy Americans or Poms telling me what to do any more than already occurs. Although, considering the quality of Australia's current government, maybe if we were part of a federation of sorts the politicians would pay less attention to us, screwing us up less than they currently are.
Wait, you people are seriously considering allowing India into this type of Union? Are you kidding? That country is backward in its laws, culture, mentality and institutions, poor by any measure, poverty ridden, corrupt, massively overpopulated, an environmental wasteland overtly nationalistic, has major issues with civil strife and terrorism, is in the middle of a civil war against Communists (who I hope win), borders freaking Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China, isn't even majority English speaking.
Why would we possible want a place like that to be in the same country as us?
Why would we possible want a place like that to be in the same country as us?
Why not? Couldn't be worse than Scotland.
Not even if the sheep's into it?
Sheep cannot given consent therefore it is rape. We cannot allow a nation of sheep rapists, the American people don't approve of that sort of nonsense expect people south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Might as well invite Zimbabwe, Sudan and Somalia as well.
Yared
That Guy
Or, you could see it as sheep being nymphomaniacs. It'd be animal cruelty not to satisfy their needs. Your own pleasure is just a bonus.
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.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
You guys should start a thread on bestiality... 
Anyway, I'll be giving an on-topic post in a moment. Just figured I'd get that idea out there for you all.
Anyway, I'll be giving an on-topic post in a moment. Just figured I'd get that idea out there for you all.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
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.
Oh I already took into account how few Americans would accept the Queen. Therefore, two cases:
A. In the case of America joining the Commonwealth, we could be a Commonwealth Republic.
B. In the case of Federation, the Queen would only have status in the states that want her to have it. This means Brits and whatnot can keep their cultural traditions, and we can do the same.
Similar to how I think a federal EU would deal with the monarchies present in Europe. Unless it chooses to execute them all Commie-style, of course.
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.
Illegal yes, but that's why we'd have to go through a Lisbon-esque process to give the necessary powers to the C-Feds.
On a personal note, I have no interest in having crazy Americans or Poms telling me what to do any more than already occurs. Although, considering the quality of Australia's current government, maybe if we were part of a federation of sorts the politicians would pay less attention to us, screwing us up less than they currently are.
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.
Point taken. Hence why I've developed an "associated status" category for countries like India and the less developed members. These countries would get preferred status for development aid, and until they are fully developed, cannot expect integration into any Federation.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
That could be solved, theoretically, by the establishment of a third, economic house, based on GDP, be it absolute or per capita. Only issue is that this would tilt the balance ENORMOUSLY in America's favor there. America would be the uber-California in such a House.
Perhaps the constituent countries could be redistricted into different states? This would have the issue of giving the USA more power in the upper/Senate-like house.
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...
Therefore, we need to greatly increase our population. I propose Mexico as lebensraum.
