Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> > a house of lords made up in this way would be relatively stable - it
would
> > not change with every election 
> 
> Is there any accountability or recall?

under the RL UK HoL system, none at all. well, sort of. in principle,
the
monarch could deelevate someone from the peerage, but i don't think it
happens. there is something called the parliament act, which limits the
power of the HoL: for a start, the HoL can't stop a bill, just send it
back to the HoC (house of commons) to be revised. furthermore, if the
HoC
sends a bill up to the HoL three times in one session, it overrides the
HoL and the bill goes through.

since i propose the HoL to be the sole NAC legislative body, this is a
problem. the peers are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the
state
government (ie, chosen by the state government - the monarch will never
do
something original), so maybe if the state government dislikes what the
peer is doing, it passes a motion to get rid of him, and the monarch
obliges? this would have to be made quite tricky and unusual, otherwise
the HoL would lose much of its character. i'd say the proceedure exists 
but is seldom used.

> > > This is enshrined in the NAC Constitution
> > a constitution? never!
> 
> Sorry, that won't work in something modern invented to include 
> Canada, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South and Central America, 
> and the USA. Too many of us know about Consitutions and wouldn't be 
> happy living in a place without one.	

i'm not so sure. does the EU have a constitution? what about NATO? the
EU
has the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, but much of it has been defined
in other treaties, directives, agreements, etc. i suppose when i say 'no
constitution' i mean 'no single written constitution'. i think the nac
'constitution' should be made up of the Anglo-American agreement which
invited britain in after ACW2, the Anglo-Canadian treaty, the Treaty of
Oahu, the Cheyenne Proclaimation, the Governance Act, the Parliament
Act,
etc. things are clear, but there is no single piece of paper at the
root.

besides, remember that most states will still have their own
constitutions. i am sure the constitution of New England is highly
regarded by its citizens, and the constitution of the Southern
Confederacy
("article 1: all citizens have the right to bear arms") equally so. if
the
NAC is more along the lines of a confederation rather than a single
superstate, as has been suggested, this seems quite tolerable.

> > i think avalon would gain member-state rights, with its own palace,
> > parliament, first minister and peers in the house of lords. the
other
> > worlds would be governed as dependent territories, like the
falklands.
> 
> Avalon, on behalf of all the outworld colonies (till others get big 
> enough to separate from this block).

that's another idea. yes, the outworld colonies could be part of the
Kingdom of Albion, much like Guadeloupe and Martinique are overseas
counties of France. of course, a few would be dependencies of Albion,
some
dependencies of the UK or Canada, and some dependencies of the Crown,
just to keep things badly organised :-).

Tom