Union of Anglica? - Page 2

Yorick · 02-23-2002, 01:42 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Djinn Raffo:

Its true! I feel more of affinity with many commonwealth countries citizens though i am at a loss to put a defined 'why' to it.

With Canada i have heard talk in the papers and from the people about how soon enough maybe within ten years we will begin to use american cash... I don't know if that will happen or not in ten years but i do think it is probably inevitable.

Whose laws would govern in this amalgamation Yorick?

I for one dont want the american system for my country. At least some of it. I for one like my Canada with gun control. No guns is the way to go and to hell with the right to bear arms says I!

As things are now. The States would keep various lawmaking and revenue collecting abilities. As with Europe, some Union laws would cover the federation. But that would be for people to decide, as they are working out in Europe, and as they did when America and Australia both federated.

There are strong gun laws in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Britain but also New York City. Why would that need to change?

There are precedents for this.

The aforementioned American and Australian unifications, plus the initial federation of Germany long ago, that ended up leaving out Hapsburg Austria - who could have been a key player in the German Federation.

With Australia and America, the states kept a great deal of individuality in certain areas.

[ 02-23-2002: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Scholarcs · 02-23-2002, 02:42 AM

About laws:
If we did ever join with america, I would not want laws to change. For example, the death penalty. America has it, Canada I dont know, but NZ and australia do not. If we joined with america do you think that they would try and impose the death penalty and similar laws upon us? I hope not.
Another example is the gun control laws. In america there is a huge problem with gun-realated deaths, as shown by Columbine and other numerous places. In NZ, the only people who have guns are the gangs (very few of those), and a few farmers.
And police shootings. How often does it happen in America? Very often I think. In NZ, one person gets shot evey 3-5 years by police. A very rare thing to happen.

Now the point? I dont want anything like that, or any nuclear stuff happening in NZ.

MILAMBER · 02-23-2002, 04:04 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Scholarcs:
About laws:
If we did ever join with america, I would not want laws to change. For example, the death penalty. America has it, Canada I dont know, but NZ and australia do not. If we joined with america do you think that they would try and impose the death penalty and similar laws upon us? I hope not.
Another example is the gun control laws. In america there is a huge problem with gun-realated deaths, as shown by Columbine and other numerous places. In NZ, the only people who have guns are the gangs (very few of those), and a few farmers.
And police shootings. How often does it happen in America? Very often I think. In NZ, one person gets shot evey 3-5 years by police. A very rare thing to happen.

Now the point? I dont want anything like that, or any nuclear stuff happening in NZ.

If it were a joining in the literal sense of the word, I don't think any party would be imposing any laws on any other.

I don't think it would work having everybody "join" America. A new country would have to be formed. Every country that wished to be a part would have to take a hand in creating common laws that all abide by. By each country joining this union they would accept these laws. I just can't help but feel that it would be a tuff pill to swallow for all of these countries to give up their soverign status to be a part of a new country.

Djinn Raffo · 02-23-2002, 04:52 AM

quote:
Originally posted by MILAMBER:

If it were a joining in the literal sense of the word, I don't think any party would be imposing any laws on any other.

I don't think it would work having everybody "join" America. A new country would have to be formed. Every country that wished to be a part would have to take a hand in creating common laws that all abide by. By each country joining this union they would accept these laws. I just can't help but feel that it would be a tuff pill to swallow for all of these countries to give up their soverign status to be a part of a new country.

It is true it would be a tough pill to swallow for all to accept. But is this not the way that the world is heading? World without borders? Thought the period of change would be hard...in the long run would it not be for the best?

khazadman · 02-23-2002, 05:17 AM

i don't see the u.s. getting involved in such a thing.while we like alliances(to a certain extent)we do not like the idea of giving up any of our sovereignty either.and as much as the political left in the u.s. might deny it,the u.s. is a pretty conservative place.we are too individualistic.hell,we don't like our own government telling us what to do.we do have one thing in common though:a strong shared culture that is better than anything else the world has ever produced.
but you know what the biggest stumbling block would be?sports.your football,our soccer,will never be much more than a womens college sport here.

JR Jansen · 02-23-2002, 08:05 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Epona:
Hi Yorick, good thread.

Although Scholarcs talks about anti-American sentiment, there is a split in England about our involvement in Europe. Some of that is due to those who think England should be able to stand alone (they forget that the Empire is gone, poor things). Other business interests are much more in favour of throwing their lot in with the US, hence their anti-Europe stance. They live in the modern world enough to realise that the British economy cannot stand alone in the Global Village (especially since most of our industry has been decimated over the last 20 years), but want to go 'Anglica' as Yorick says.

The media is used to try to whip up people's fears about going into Europe by telling us we will be ruled from Brussels, we will all have to speak German, and the Queen's Head will no longer be on our currency, but there is an agenda behind this - we have to go one way or the other and throw our lot in with Europe or America.

Personally, I am very dubious about both. This is not because I am under any delusion about the strength of the British economy, but simply because the agenda is set by big business - who at the end of the day will make sure that whatever happens works in their favour. And that usually means shitting on the rest of the population.

The only thing that i want for the British is that they would make up their minds on the European union. I'm not saying love it or leave it, but you can't be part of something like this and still expect that everything has to be in your best interest. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices in one department to get something better in the next. But when something happens and the Brits aren't OK with it, they halt the entire process and on other things (most recently the war on terrorism), they failed to make their involvement known to the union and when they did it was only after they already were involved. The decent thing to do is to at least tell the union that the US asked them and that they will agree. They could still make that dicision on their own but then their 'partners' would have known and maybe help them in some way.

Yorick · 02-23-2002, 12:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by khazadman:
i don't see the u.s. getting involved in such a thing.while we like alliances(to a certain extent)we do not like the idea of giving up any of our sovereignty either.and as much as the political left in the u.s. might deny it,the u.s. is a pretty conservative place.we are too individualistic.hell,we don't like our own government telling us what to do.we do have one thing in common though:a strong shared culture that is better than anything else the world has ever produced.
but you know what the biggest stumbling block would be?sports.your football,our soccer,will never be much more than a womens college sport here.

The USA hasn't always been the way it is now. The Louisiana purchase doubled it's size. Alaska and Hawaii extended the nation considerably. If Puerto Rico voted for it, it would be the 51st State of the Union. As it is they are a protectorate I believe, but the provision is there.

I agree with Milamber about the 'new country' statement. Hence the name ANGLICA has a nice ring to it don't you think?

MILAMBER · 02-23-2002, 01:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

I agree with Milamber about the 'new country' statement. Hence the name ANGLICA has a nice ring to it don't you think?

You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen. Yorick has just decreed the name that will shape our futures! History has been made right here at Ironworks.

khazadman · 02-23-2002, 02:31 PM

puerto rico is a commonwealth.and i don't see it becoming a state.it's a completely different culture and they don't seem to want tobecome a state.they even field their own olympic team.
and i still doubt the u.s. would get along well with the other members of anglica.we is too uppity!
but could you imagine the dominance of an anglican (or anglica?)olympic team?we'd rule."here,just hand over the hockey and basketball medals here at the opening ceremonies."

Yorick · 02-23-2002, 05:24 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MILAMBER:

You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen. Yorick has just decreed the name that will shape our futures! History has been made right here at Ironworks.

[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

02-23-2002, 01:42 AM	#11
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Its true! I feel more of affinity with many commonwealth countries citizens though i am at a loss to put a defined 'why' to it. With Canada i have heard talk in the papers and from the people about how soon enough maybe within ten years we will begin to use american cash... I don't know if that will happen or not in ten years but i do think it is probably inevitable. Whose laws would govern in this amalgamation Yorick? I for one dont want the american system for my country. At least some of it. I for one like my Canada with gun control. No guns is the way to go and to hell with the right to bear arms says I! As things are now. The States would keep various lawmaking and revenue collecting abilities. As with Europe, some Union laws would cover the federation. But that would be for people to decide, as they are working out in Europe, and as they did when America and Australia both federated. There are strong gun laws in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Britain but also New York City. Why would that need to change? There are precedents for this. The aforementioned American and Australian unifications, plus the initial federation of Germany long ago, that ended up leaving out Hapsburg Austria - who could have been a key player in the German Federation. With Australia and America, the states kept a great deal of individuality in certain areas. [ 02-23-2002: Message edited by: Yorick ] __________________ http://www.hughwilson.com

02-23-2002, 02:42 AM	#12
Scholarcs Red Dragon Join Date: December 5, 2001 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Age: 38 Posts: 1,557	About laws: If we did ever join with america, I would not want laws to change. For example, the death penalty. America has it, Canada I dont know, but NZ and australia do not. If we joined with america do you think that they would try and impose the death penalty and similar laws upon us? I hope not. Another example is the gun control laws. In america there is a huge problem with gun-realated deaths, as shown by Columbine and other numerous places. In NZ, the only people who have guns are the gangs (very few of those), and a few farmers. And police shootings. How often does it happen in America? Very often I think. In NZ, one person gets shot evey 3-5 years by police. A very rare thing to happen. Now the point? I dont want anything like that, or any nuclear stuff happening in NZ. __________________ <br />\"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five\" - Groucho Marx<br />Member of the ORT Clan. <br />\"Some birds are not meant to be caged because their feathers are too bright\"<br />Ma bouche sera la bouche des malheurs qui n\'ont point de bouche, ma voix, la liberté de celles qui s\'affaissent au cachot du désespoir. - Aimé Césaire<br />La plus perdue de toutes les journées est celle où l\'on n\'a pas ri. - Sébastien Roch Nicolas

02-23-2002, 04:04 AM	#13
MILAMBER Lord Soth Join Date: March 5, 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,948	quote: Originally posted by Scholarcs: About laws: If we did ever join with america, I would not want laws to change. For example, the death penalty. America has it, Canada I dont know, but NZ and australia do not. If we joined with america do you think that they would try and impose the death penalty and similar laws upon us? I hope not. Another example is the gun control laws. In america there is a huge problem with gun-realated deaths, as shown by Columbine and other numerous places. In NZ, the only people who have guns are the gangs (very few of those), and a few farmers. And police shootings. How often does it happen in America? Very often I think. In NZ, one person gets shot evey 3-5 years by police. A very rare thing to happen. Now the point? I dont want anything like that, or any nuclear stuff happening in NZ. If it were a joining in the literal sense of the word, I don't think any party would be imposing any laws on any other. I don't think it would work having everybody "join" America. A new country would have to be formed. Every country that wished to be a part would have to take a hand in creating common laws that all abide by. By each country joining this union they would accept these laws. I just can't help but feel that it would be a tuff pill to swallow for all of these countries to give up their soverign status to be a part of a new country. __________________ \"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.\"<br />-General George Patton (1885-1945)<br /> <br />Member of CLAN HADB<br />Founder of The Anti Clan Coalition

02-23-2002, 04:52 AM	#14
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 49 Posts: 2,397	quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: If it were a joining in the literal sense of the word, I don't think any party would be imposing any laws on any other. I don't think it would work having everybody "join" America. A new country would have to be formed. Every country that wished to be a part would have to take a hand in creating common laws that all abide by. By each country joining this union they would accept these laws. I just can't help but feel that it would be a tuff pill to swallow for all of these countries to give up their soverign status to be a part of a new country. It is true it would be a tough pill to swallow for all to accept. But is this not the way that the world is heading? World without borders? Thought the period of change would be hard...in the long run would it not be for the best?

02-23-2002, 08:05 AM	#16
JR Jansen Drizzt Do'Urden Join Date: May 31, 2001 Location: Mol (Belgium) Posts: 658	quote: Originally posted by Epona: Hi Yorick, good thread. Although Scholarcs talks about anti-American sentiment, there is a split in England about our involvement in Europe. Some of that is due to those who think England should be able to stand alone (they forget that the Empire is gone, poor things). Other business interests are much more in favour of throwing their lot in with the US, hence their anti-Europe stance. They live in the modern world enough to realise that the British economy cannot stand alone in the Global Village (especially since most of our industry has been decimated over the last 20 years), but want to go 'Anglica' as Yorick says. The media is used to try to whip up people's fears about going into Europe by telling us we will be ruled from Brussels, we will all have to speak German, and the Queen's Head will no longer be on our currency, but there is an agenda behind this - we have to go one way or the other and throw our lot in with Europe or America. Personally, I am very dubious about both. This is not because I am under any delusion about the strength of the British economy, but simply because the agenda is set by big business - who at the end of the day will make sure that whatever happens works in their favour. And that usually means shitting on the rest of the population. The only thing that i want for the British is that they would make up their minds on the European union. I'm not saying love it or leave it, but you can't be part of something like this and still expect that everything has to be in your best interest. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices in one department to get something better in the next. But when something happens and the Brits aren't OK with it, they halt the entire process and on other things (most recently the war on terrorism), they failed to make their involvement known to the union and when they did it was only after they already were involved. The decent thing to do is to at least tell the union that the US asked them and that they will agree. They could still make that dicision on their own but then their 'partners' would have known and maybe help them in some way. __________________ JR<p>Damned i lost cousin Jan\'s techno gloves<p>Forest runner and first gnomish demiranger-protector with slightly rougueish tendencies and a natural dislike for Aerie

02-23-2002, 05:17 AM	#15
khazadman User suspended until [Feb13] Join Date: December 6, 2001 Location: the south side of ol virginny Age: 62 Posts: 1,172	i don't see the u.s. getting involved in such a thing.while we like alliances(to a certain extent)we do not like the idea of giving up any of our sovereignty either.and as much as the political left in the u.s. might deny it,the u.s. is a pretty conservative place.we are too individualistic.hell,we don't like our own government telling us what to do.we do have one thing in common though:a strong shared culture that is better than anything else the world has ever produced. but you know what the biggest stumbling block would be?sports.your football,our soccer,will never be much more than a womens college sport here.

02-23-2002, 12:36 PM	#17
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	quote: Originally posted by khazadman: i don't see the u.s. getting involved in such a thing.while we like alliances(to a certain extent)we do not like the idea of giving up any of our sovereignty either.and as much as the political left in the u.s. might deny it,the u.s. is a pretty conservative place.we are too individualistic.hell,we don't like our own government telling us what to do.we do have one thing in common though:a strong shared culture that is better than anything else the world has ever produced. but you know what the biggest stumbling block would be?sports.your football,our soccer,will never be much more than a womens college sport here. The USA hasn't always been the way it is now. The Louisiana purchase doubled it's size. Alaska and Hawaii extended the nation considerably. If Puerto Rico voted for it, it would be the 51st State of the Union. As it is they are a protectorate I believe, but the provision is there. I agree with Milamber about the 'new country' statement. Hence the name ANGLICA has a nice ring to it don't you think? __________________ http://www.hughwilson.com

02-23-2002, 01:56 PM	#18
MILAMBER Lord Soth Join Date: March 5, 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,948	quote: Originally posted by Yorick: I agree with Milamber about the 'new country' statement. Hence the name ANGLICA has a nice ring to it don't you think? You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen. Yorick has just decreed the name that will shape our futures! History has been made right here at Ironworks. __________________ \"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.\"<br />-General George Patton (1885-1945)<br /> <br />Member of CLAN HADB<br />Founder of The Anti Clan Coalition

02-23-2002, 02:31 PM	#19
khazadman User suspended until [Feb13] Join Date: December 6, 2001 Location: the south side of ol virginny Age: 62 Posts: 1,172	puerto rico is a commonwealth.and i don't see it becoming a state.it's a completely different culture and they don't seem to want tobecome a state.they even field their own olympic team. and i still doubt the u.s. would get along well with the other members of anglica.we is too uppity! but could you imagine the dominance of an anglican (or anglica?)olympic team?we'd rule."here,just hand over the hockey and basketball medals here at the opening ceremonies."

02-23-2002, 05:24 PM	#20
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	quote: Originally posted by MILAMBER: You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen. Yorick has just decreed the name that will shape our futures! History has been made right here at Ironworks. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] __________________ http://www.hughwilson.com

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
EU monetary union with Israel?	Dreamer128	General Discussion	2	01-13-2005 10:15 AM
It's the State of the Union address tonight.	D W Washburn	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	39	02-10-2003 07:47 PM
State of the Union?	Rokenn	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	4	01-18-2003 08:14 PM
Happy Birthday to the best state in the Union!!	Fast Hands	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	15	03-07-2002 01:14 AM
Keldorn family re-union	Janus	Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal	18	12-03-2001 03:05 PM