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

Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> > > what about NATO?
> > 
> > Same. 
> 
> this brings us back to a devate over the nature of the NAC. some see
it as
> a single superstate, like a USA++. i (and one or two others) do not -
i
> see it as a collection of semi-autonomous states, very much like the
EU.

But the EU and NATO don't have the level of integration of military 
that the NAC does. You have a consistent NAC fleet, not a NAC fleet 
made up of ships from the members based on their own requirements. 
This suggests a level of integration beyond what the EU or NATO 
represents. There is, no doubt, other anecdotal evidence to point to 
this conclusion. 
 
> there is a continuum between single state (eg mexico) and association
(eg
> UN). the UK is a bit down from mexico (remember, we have devolution
now),
> then the USA (state assemblies everywhere), then the EU (moving
towards
> single-state). i think the NAC is more EUish than mexicoish.

I think the NAC would be like the EU if it had its act far more 
together. Which doesn't look a lot different from the superstate in 
some ways, but looks profoundly otherwise in other ways. 

How would one HoL keep up with the load from multiple parliaments?

Here's why I ask: In Canada, the PM and the Commons Legislate and the 
Senate is a check (good or bad, I refuse to debate). So the Senate 
sees ALL legislation AFAIK. Now try this with 1 HoL and n Parliaments 
in the lands of the NAC and you have a very overrun HoL. But you 
daren't dispatch the HoL or some other house from being a check on 
the Parliament - one house can do scary things without checks. 

> > That's painful. A joint consitution would be far better solution.
> 
> absolutely! a single constitution might be an optimal solution. i
think a
> world with few optimal solutions in place is more interesting! not to
> mention more likely - can you imagine a constitution with which both
the
> british and the alabamans are happy? there is no such document!

I don't kow about that. That presumes that as humans we don't share 
certain common views on what an inalienable right is and on how we'd 
like to be governed. I'm pretty sure you'd find that everyone would 
like a say in their governance, rights to safety and prosperity and 
the like. That's how I see the NAC constitution. It doesn't replace 
other laws, it just provides a framework they MUST work within.
 
> > It 
> > would enshrine your personal basic rights and responsiblities to the

> > state.
> 
> the EU has the convention on human rights. the UK has the human rights
act.

Sure, and does the UK have to harmonize with the EU? Probably not 
because it is an economic union only. Once you talk about defence, 
politics, linked ecomonics, and social issues, you then start to 
require some level of harmonization. I heard some of the Scandinavian 
countries are being dissed for having too many social programs 
because that in some way should be harmonized under EU (details 
are sketchy in my recollection). And Canada has repeatedly changed 
its policies under NAFTA pressures with the US. 
 
> > It would define the relationships between member states, and 
> > the methods of common governance. 
> 
> the EU has the treaties of rome and maastricht. the UK has the act of
> union and the parliament act. these things do not require a single
> constitution.

I believe it is a virtual requirement for the level of integrated 
state suggested by the NAC and by their fleets and armies. 
And I think the only reason England has gotten away with some of the 
stuff in its legal system (traditional basis rather than basis in 
law) is because it is Britain and has always been so. 
 
> 
> nor is the EU, not by a long chalk!
> 

Hmm. Well, I'll admit ignorance, but I think the EU you speak of is 
an utterly transitory state to a higher level of superstate. It 
doesn't mean well all be living in conformia, but you can bet that in 
the long run well certainly share (or you will in the case of the EU) 
many things with our neighbours, and then hopefully in the long run 
with all of mankind. (That's not anytime soon). 

> > And if it must make military, 
> > political, and social decisions, fundamental rights and rules of how

> > to govern must exist across the board.
> 
> absolutely. but i don't think this requires a single constitution. the
UK
> doesn't have one, and it has been a world leader in making military,
> political and social decisions for a long time.

Hmmm. You certainly envision what I would see as a ramshackle NAC 
that will fall apart. Why stay in a union that doesn't really do all 
that much to hold you together like ascribing common rights and law? 
I can be in a trade relationship and defence treaties without giving 
over my sovereignty to a foreign King. 
 
> > Wow, I don't think the NAC could field the fleets and military we
see 
> > in FB if it was that unorganized.
> 
> the uk is composed of two kingdoms, england and scotland. wales is a
> principality of england. ulster's status is unclear. the falklands,
> gibraltar and a bunch of other things are dependent territories. the
isles
> of man, jersey, guernsey and sark are odd dependencies. for instance,
they
> have their own legislatures, each different, they issue their own
stamps
> and currency (well, they mint their own 10p coins, etc, which have a
> non-standard design). they have different tax and banking laws. and,
until
> 1984 (iirc), canada was governed under an act of parliament. and yet
the
> uk has been perfectly capable of fielding the world's larget navy
(once
> upon a time) and a fairly decent army. complexity and inconsistency of
> organisation is not the same as disorganisation!

But it DOES translate to inefficiency. Your view is an alternate one 
that is supportable if one has a belief that the NAC would hold 
together with that light of a set of bindings. 
 
> and we need to get this straight - it's Albion, not Avalon! even i
keep
> getting this wrong! damn gzg :-)!

I thought it was... but everyone was calling it Avalon. Camelot would 
have been easier.
 
Anyway, this just underlines the fact their are two views of the NAC. 
I think we should look at all the things we know about it (from army 
and navy organization, to fictional blurbs, to timelines) and see if 
one view or the other predominates. 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/