schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Why? Because it would do more harm than good to the US economy. I believe that's been the traditional US argument against integration, yeah?
Federal Commonwealth of Nations + USA?
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
Why? Because it would do more harm than good to the US economy. I believe that's been the traditional US argument against integration, yeah?
Mad Man
Your lord and master
agreed, I have no problem with America joining the real commonwealth, but the super federal union? No way! But the unification of Canada,US,Mexico and the West Indies is another thing.
I will never tolerate an America ruled from London or Canberra or wherever. USA #1 why should we allow these inferior nations into the Union? I'll consider it if they become states, but not as equal partners. I wouldn't mind the UK, New Zealand, Australia or Canada as new states.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Canada will be integrated as revenge for 1812!!
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Well actually, one possible way to balance that is to have a tricameral legislature: a Representatives-like House that gives power based on population.. India would rule here; a House based on economic contribution, where the USA would dominate; and finally, a House like the Senate, protecting all the rest. Overall population and economics would dominate two houses, but all the other states would be protected via this equal representation in the Upper House. It would be impossible for the United States to bully the Union, or India, or even the UK, Australia, etc.
But why would it do more harm? Provided we are all equally-developed, things should stay stable. The only real issue is if you put say, India and the USA with the same rights. This is why I support two-tiers, where true integration is reserved for only the states with a first-class living. Because, from what I know, I imagine India and the USA totally integrating would be FAR worse than Perot's giant sucking sound from NAFTA. The first class tier, would, ideally, provide aid to the second-class tier, to develop them into first class states with full privileges.
Why would a federal union be such a bad idea?
Especially if it's primarily economic(and follows the two-tier system so no massive economic collapse occurs in the USA and the other First World members)?Once more, though, I endorse this NAU if I can't get a Federation of the Anglosphere.
While we disagree on many issues, this is one reason I like you. I can NEVER tell when you're serious or not. You're an enigma. And all warfare is based on deception... If you ever did seriously intend to run against me, I may have my hands full...
PiMan
Deity
In the lower house, if India doesn't like it it wouldn't get through
In the upper house, if India doesn't like it you've annoyed half the population of the federation.
In your tricamberal suggestion, does it need to pass all three houses? If so, then nearly nothing would get done.
In your economic house based on economies, are we talking per person or as a whole, because the latter would give the US twice the votes of everyone else combined.
In the upper house, if India doesn't like it you've annoyed half the population of the federation.
In your tricamberal suggestion, does it need to pass all three houses? If so, then nearly nothing would get done.
In your economic house based on economies, are we talking per person or as a whole, because the latter would give the US twice the votes of everyone else combined.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
Why would a federal union be such a bad idea?
That's just it though, most Commonwealth members are NOT first world, most of them aren't even second world. Also as to the opening post, it wouldn't just be an economic union it will be a Federation of all or most English speaking countries. One of the many problems is that it would be a micromanaging monstrosity. As it is we just barely get things done with 50 states, so how do you think things will run smoothly with 500?
PiMan
Deity
It might not be so different. There are only 54 countries in the Commonwealth. Add the US and this makes for 55 states.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
Yeah there would be 55 countries, 55 countries broken down into......
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Compromise, compromise, compromise. It may take a while, but this is why keeping a good deal of decisions more local would help. The Federation would tackle things that need central, coordinating authority - defense, currency, weights and measures, etc. There'd be one Federation, but there'd be plenty of flavors of it in the form of the states/provinces/etc.
I mean as a whole, since it would be a measure of how much that member contributes to the Federation.
To clarify, I'd only support the economic house if India was given full voting rights, so as to make sure they can't bully members such as the US around. If India was not given those rights, I'd see no need for it, as the US's protection against tyranny from the others would be prevented by merit of the population-based House.
I only view the Commonwealth as a means to this end, since it's already a working system of the Anglosphere. I'd settle for a Federation separate from the Commonwealth if necessary. This also solves the issue of what the hell happens to the Queen's role in government - in most, anyway - of the Commonwealth states.
Perhaps I should try another proposal: a Federation of First World Anglophonic nations - the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and South Africa(I think I got all of them) - with other Commonwealth/Anglosphere nations having the rights to special privileges - such as preference in development aid - if they apply for such. When those selected for development aid reach First World levels, they can finally apply for full membership status.
But yes, indeed, it would be a micromanaging monstrosity. Hence why, ideally, most things would be handled at the local level. The government of the Federation would likely be limited in scope, but given that politicians have a habit of taking something small and turning it cancerous...
PiMan
Deity
How many counties does the US have? Wiki says 3140.
Oh my! How does the government possibly cope!?!
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
To be fair, counties don't really get counted in the US government; the states do. I'm sure there's exceptions, but the general rule from what I've heard is that funding, for example, is given to the states, who then distribute it to their counties and whatnot according to need. Obviously, the state knows how - in theory - to fit its needs far better than any big whig in D.C.
I'd attribute this to the different status of counties; states are constitutionally protected and represented, while counties are not.
I imagine any Federation would operate on this principle, with the Federal government giving funding and whatnot to the constituent states, which give stuff to their constituent states, etc. A chain of command, but with a new commander - the Federation - on top.
Speaking of which... on the issue of states. If the first sub-national entity(provinces of Canada, states of the US, etc.) of every proposed member of the Federation was counted, how many would there be, if anyone knows? This number obviously could vary hugely, depending on if the Commonwealth + the USA is counted, or if it's just the first world Anglosphere.
I'd attribute this to the different status of counties; states are constitutionally protected and represented, while counties are not.
I imagine any Federation would operate on this principle, with the Federal government giving funding and whatnot to the constituent states, which give stuff to their constituent states, etc. A chain of command, but with a new commander - the Federation - on top.
Speaking of which... on the issue of states. If the first sub-national entity(provinces of Canada, states of the US, etc.) of every proposed member of the Federation was counted, how many would there be, if anyone knows? This number obviously could vary hugely, depending on if the Commonwealth + the USA is counted, or if it's just the first world Anglosphere.
holy king
Deity
unbearable life conditions trigger revolutions.
constitution amendments dont trigger revolutions.
a coup may not be out of question though.
A federation of the USA and the Crown Commonwealth countries,ie the UK, Canada, Australia , and NZ could work.
We would need a neutral head for it, so that would be HM.
Allow other countries to apply later, South Africa etc, have it like the EU with free movement of labour, trade etc etc
The UK, Australia, Canada, and the UK becoming states of the US
cheeky sod only wants another eight Democratic Senators.
Imagine some poor damn Republican telling a crowd at the Sydney cricket ground that he talks to god each day.
They would lynch him for practice
We would need a neutral head for it, so that would be HM.
Allow other countries to apply later, South Africa etc, have it like the EU with free movement of labour, trade etc etc
The UK, Australia, Canada, and the UK becoming states of the US
cheeky sod only wants another eight Democratic Senators.Imagine some poor damn Republican telling a crowd at the Sydney cricket ground that he talks to god each day.
They would lynch him for practice
Yared
That Guy
Break up India into its states first of all. Divide the US in half between two factions.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._and_union_territories_of_India_by_population
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._and_union_territories_of_India_by_population
PiMan
Deity
Only counting permanently inhabited regions:
Spoiler :
732 subnational divisions all up.
211 if only counting nations listed as "very high" in the Human Development Index (a third of which are Malta, a quarter is USA)
333 if counting all "very high" and "high". These nations have been underlined.
Also, this? Just drop your damn agricultural protectionism and we're sweet on this front.
You can't just throw it out the window. It exists any even has to deal with it.
So we have an lower house dominated by India, with about 63% the US with under 20% and Canada with1.5%) and the upperhouse ruled by third world countries and tiny islands nations in the South Pacific. Your running into problems. None of the US, UK, Canada, Austrailia, South Africa, would ever accept this if it had any teeth.
If we limit it to the former white colonies (developed, English speaking), then they have half the population of the US. An the US has 1/6 of the upper house.
In comparison to the US, there are still far greater political and cultural differences than between the US states. Remember only 15 agreed to join the US as states, the rest were carved out of US territories which had no real say in whether to become such or not. And one of those was mainly inhabited by US citizens and their families.
And you are completely ignoring economic disparity and power. You have #1 GDP, the US with over $14,000,000 million, and #179 (Tonga) with $553 million, and despite having by far the largest economy, the US would have under 20% of the lower house and less than 2% of the upper house. Though this latter problem would be mitigated by giving each US state equal representation as other countries, then they have nearly half.
Because the cost would outweigh the benefits to Canadians.
The only way for there to be much more integration would essentially require Canada to join the US. There will be no other judicial or political integration and the economies are already very close as are our militaries.
We may gain economically, but lose politically. We have less say in federal matters and foreign affairs. Sure Ontario would rake 5 or 6 by populations, but we are no longer by far the largest. Quebec to about 13th, how can they reasonably fight for their language and cultural rights (and benefits) with representation equivalent to Washington. And Maritime provinces that already complain about under representation would all (5) have less representation than Montana which already has only 1 representative and 3 electoral votes. Not to mention the territories all with significantly lower population than American Samoa.
And the economic gains wouldnt be that great, we already have very closely integrated economies, in fact there are arguments that they are too close. The Canadian economy is at the mercy of the US economy, as in the recent recession. Canadian banks had next to nothing to do with the events and barely participated in trading the mortgage back securities, if at all. Our main problem was that our major trading partner got hammered.
The Canadian economy has historically been more stable then the US, in both up-ward and down-ward swings of the economy, removing what insulation there is could be very detrimental.
As for the Americans, the Republicans would never support it because most Canadians are far closer to the Democrats (even Canadian conservatives) and would represent enough people to cover a swing state or two, at least.
Three houses dominated by vastly different interests (note that the US and India would literally hold a majority of the seats in their respective houses). You dont see a problem with getting anything done? Countries have enough problems now with two different interested paties.
As compared to the EU, they hade major reasons for the initial economic integration (France depended on Germany and Germany on France, and they had no agreement before the Steel agreement) and political integration, having fought the deadliest war in history and facing a monstrosity on both sides of them. And with the exception of the US anc Canada they lack any geographic proximity.
Canada is peaceful and in a good position in the world. We arent the most powerful, but we are not threatened or anything and have economic integration (that already creates enough problems).
The majority of people in the commonwealth dont speak English (India has a billion who dont).
It is a very loose organization, with no authority. This is like saying lets use the UN to create a world government except the UN has more authority.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Theoretically I could support some larger union, but only if it has a Constitution better written to protect individual (negative) right than our own, and more strictly interpreted, and had to be approved in local referenda.
This progressive integration and gradual growth in powers idea is not acceptable. I see no reason to follow the EU model. I certainly wouldn't want an extra level of government to create agricultural subsidies as the EU does.
This progressive integration and gradual growth in powers idea is not acceptable. I see no reason to follow the EU model. I certainly wouldn't want an extra level of government to create agricultural subsidies as the EU does.
