quote:
Originally posted by Donut:
We've had this alliance before and all the countries you mentioned were part of it. We called it the 'British Empire' but everyone else got fed up and stropped off. 
No seriously, I think it's a great idea but I disagree with the name. I think we should call it 'Oceania' and that we should rename Britain 'Airstrip 1'. It's a 'novel' idea but we're 18 years late.
No seriously serious. You only have to look at the debates on this forum to see that it would never work. You weren't being serious were you Yorick? 
LOL! Oceania! Look out Nostradamus, George Orwall is the new Seer,
Yes a 'novel' idea indeed.
Point taken about the British Empire - except that America left before all of that took off. Before any Commonwealth. Also it's only the nations where the British totally eradicated the natives (or close enough) instead of merely ruling a discontent majority (eg. India, South Africa, Malaysia etc etc). Such a bothersome triviality existing landholders are eh?
Donut, I'm serious about asking the question, but I don't know whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. In light of no-one else arguing "for" I've been suggesting positives, but could quite easily suggest negatives.
The issue of where Australia will fit as the world gathers into blocs, concerns me.
Look at the world Cup as an example of sorts. Oceania is too populationaly small to stand alone. So the winner is either part of Asia, or part of....South America?
Australia is the largest Oceanic country with 20 million. New Zealand 3 million, and then there are the 'Nesias'. Poly, Micro, Mela.
For Americans they face the prospect of being outnumbered by China and also the European Union. If Asia gathers into a bloc what a monsterous market power that would be.
It's just something I was thinking about. It has some merit, it has disadvantages. It may be unworkable. But then is Europe working?
Well, it's good coffee table discussion anyway, and conversation makes the world go round (sort of).