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

This is my reply to Thomas' part 2 of his reply to my original post on
this
subject...


>> these forces immediately begin to deploy into the US.  Joint British
>> and Canadian landings in Georgia and South Carolina are fiercely
>> opposed by FCC forces, but after the previous years of tough
>> conflict during the Civil War, these forces are worn down and have
>> little equipment remaining in good condition.
>
>But a bunch of Combat Veterans. That would be nasty. And they know 
>the terrain. And its far warmer than Brits or Canucks prefer. 

Maybe they are worn out, have low morale, little ammo, little equipment
left, etc etc.	It all depends on how we write the story.  In the end,
we
should be able to create a justification for this.

I wanted to have some conflict between the Brit/Can forces and somebody
-
purely for "dramatic" reasons.	As I've said in other posts, we wouldn't
be
invading the US - we were invited in.  A small amount of conflict makes
it
more interesting.  We could always rewrite the situation so that it is
impossible for the Brit/Can forces to intervene.  But that isn't what
happened.  We *know* they did, 'cause the history books say so!  :)

<snip>

>  Within weeks, British and Canadian
>> troops have deployed through almost all of the US, begin restoring
>> order and start providing humanitarian relief.
>
>Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to 
>manage this. Maybe with significant US help. or UN help. 

What about in 30 years?  After a long ugly conflict across our southern
border - would we be sitting around hoping that it doesn't spill this
way?
When Canadian assets would be of strategic value for the combatants (ie
one
side capturing water in Alberta and BC to destroy the agricultural
industry
in California, dependant on imported water...) - would we not have to
provide protection for ourselves.  What about the millions of refugees
that
would flood across the border.	When enough came over, some US leader
might
decide that Canadian territory is all-of-a-sudden looking good. 
Manifest
destiny rears up again?

Canada put 45% of our military-age male population in uniform during
WW2.
Over a million people, out of a total pop of what, nine million?  Twelve
million?
Who's to say we won't have a much bigger military in 30 years - or that
we
wouldn't start building it up after watching what happens in the US...

Also, we wouldn't be invading the US.  Helping the people there restore
order, provide humanitarian relief, etc etc.  We get invited in by the
US
itself - or at least some factions there.  

Think about Somalia - the Airborne Battle Group we sent took over a HUGE
area and very successfully calmed it down, organized aid distribution,
built schools and medical clinics, helped organize a local police, etc
etc.
 With only around a thousand troops - in a VERY militarized area.  The
Airborne was WAY better than their potential "enemies", and though
surely
greatly outnumbered, was able to organize in a way the locals weren't. 
Our
troops deploying into the US would represent, in many cases, the only
heavily armed fully-equipped force in an area.	And they could lead the
way
with food shipments, medical care, etc.  After a long civil war, the
population would really only care about peace - having the fighting stop
and having some security.  The Canadian and British forces might have to
fight - but once they demonstrated that they were (a) not going to take
any
abuse and are good at fighting, and (b) really only interested in
helping
out by providing security and civil aid - they probably wouldn't have to
fight much.  If it were done right, we wouldn't need a lot of troops in
any
given area - just enough to be able to show some muscle - as long as we
had
the ability to back them up with something powerful.  This is how the
force
in Somalia worked.  Same in Bosnia.  Mostly successful, with some
relatively small incidents of conflict.  We forced an end to the
fighting
in Bosnia by sticking troops in the middle and saying "if you mess with
us
and keep fighting, we'll bomb you into the stone age".	The real job of
the
British and Canadian forces would be to act as an "impartial" sword over
the heads of the combatants - to provide an atmosphere of security for
the
general population so that they could, with help, reorganize themselves.

<snip>

<snip a big bit about Quebec - lots of discussion about that in other
posts>

>> The New Anglian Confederation, as it quickly comes to be known, is
>> formed officially by acts of the various member governments -
>> Quebec, Canada, the UK, the rump US government representing the
>> North-East, and the various state governments in the remainder of
>> the US.
>
>It's an attempt to explain the GZGverse, look how hard a sell the EU 
>had.... and it has problems with French Pride, British 
>Nationalism, and Norwegian and Dutch law. I'll be convinced of 
>your scenario when I see it.... (I don't think it is viable). 

OK.  How do you suggest it happened.  (I use past tense 'cause we know
the
NAC starts off with that membership - unless I'm mis-remembering the
official timeline in the GZG books...  I've been trying to think of the
"how" and "why" to the story, given the "reality" of the official
history)

>
>  Much of the US is organized under the direct administration
>> of Canadian, UK or US military forces who organize civilian
>> elections to recreate the state legislatures - which represent the
>> people of the state during the formation of the NAC.  
>
>What happened to the civil gov't of Canada? The military wouldn't 
>have this capability in Canada. The Military will not organize 
>elections in Canada nor the UK ever again I suspect. 

What do you mean?  The civil gov't of Canada were the ones who sent our
military into the US to help out.  I was suggesting that the Brit/Can
forces who go into the US take over control of the areas they are in for
a
short period of time - like the UN did in Cambodia - just long enough to
organize decent elections and then let the Cambodians run themselves. 
Our
military forces don't do the same thing in Canada - I was just referring
to
the parts of the US that Brit/Can troops move into, the ones that are
disorganized because of the fighting.  This happens for only enough time
to
help the locals set up administration for themselves.

> 
>> THE NEW ANGLIAN CONFEDERATION
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Head of State
>> 
>> The Crown - embodied in the personage of the reigning monarch - head
>> of the House of Windsor, and King or Queen of England, Scotland,
>> Wales, Ireland (it reunited and rejoined the Commonwealth), Canada
>> and the associated members of the Commonwealth - and now
>> Confederation
>
>I think a lot of the Irish must have buggered of to somewhere like 
>the colony of Tir'Na'Nog to continue their Irish independence. 
>Someone pointed out and justly so that they are more likely to join 
>with the EU than the English....
>

I included the Irish 'cause I was sure I just read somewhere about the
Irish and the Commonwealth starting tentative discussions about Ireland
rejoining.

 
>> Executive Body:
>> 
>> The Confederation Prime Minister and Cabinet - all of whom are
>> members of the Confederation Council.  The Prime Minister is
>> formally appointed by the Monarch, chosen from a list presented to
>> the Monarch by the Speaker of the Council.  In practice, the Council
>> votes on the names to be submitted on the list presented to the
>> Monarch, and the Monarch traditionally chooses the senior choice of
>> the Council.  Normally, the process of politics among the membership
>> of Council will have determined who will be chosen and the Monarch's
>> reaction well before the voting takes place.  The Prime Minister
>> appoints a cabinet of Ministers to assist her/him in the
>> administration of the Confederation Government - with Cabinet
>> members heading the various government ministries.
>
>Sounds British .... and possibly what would have originally been in 
>place. Or perhaps the Prime Minister is elected.... like in Canada? 

The Prime Minister in Canada isn't elected as such.  We vote for our
local
MPs by political party.  The party leader of the party with the most
seats
in the House of Commons is by tradition asked to become the Prime
Minister
and form the government.  Party leadership is determined solely by the
members of the political party itself.	I believe that if the PM were to
die in mid-term, the deputy-PM would temporarily take over until the
party
could organize a leadership convention, and the new leader would not
need
to call an election until the end of the term of government.  Whoever
was
elected leader of the party at that convention would by default become
the
PM (unless they weren't a member of parliament, in which case a
backbencher
in a solidly held riding would be asked to resign, and the party leader
would run for a Commons seat there).  This happened when Jean Cretian
became leader of the Liberals - he didn't have a seat in the Commons for
some weeks.  And Kim Campbell, the PM before Cretien, became PM by
virtue
of a leadership convention, not a general election.  

Someone else has suggested that the NAC Council (or whatever we decide
to
call it) be more akin to the House of Lords in the UK - which from a
story
point of view is interesting.

> 
>> Legislative Body:
>> 
>> The Confederation Council - Composed of representatives of the
>> states making up the Confederation.	Council members are elected in
>> popular elections, similar to the way EU parliament members are
>> elected in Europe. Each region or state determines how its public
>> will vote for its Council seats.  Representation on Council is
>> limited to a maximum of twenty members per area/state.  Each has a
>> minimum of 10 seats, and up to 10 more depending on population size
>> - though some effort is made at the formation of the NAC to see that
>> the various areas are roughly equivalent in terms of population and
>> thereby representation in Council.  The founding members did not
>> want to start with a gross imbalance...
>
>You seem to be avoiding the tendency towards direct-er democracy we 
>can see in Canada and the US today. 

Yes - quite on purpose.  While I personally like the idea of more direct
democracy in the world I live in - I think it is more interesting if we
give the NAC a slightly more authoritarian perspecive.	I don't like the
idea of the NAC becoming some kind of "perfect" capitalist liberal
democracy - but again, this is solely from a story point of view.  The
"direct" democracy happens at the local level, but it would be really
difficult to run a light-years' spanning society as a direct democracy. 
I
hypothesized some democracy - we get to elect our reps for the NAC
council
- but other than that, the NAC council is seen as this kind of distant
high
place, maybe full of Lords and other Important People...  I wanted there
to
be some feeling of distance from the general populace - particularly if
we
bring back the nobility in areas other than the UK - "Duke of Memphis'
Own..."

I think a situation like this would become even more likely when the
capital of the NAC moves off-Earth.

<snip>

>And Ireland, a newly independent Scotland, and the fiercely 
>nationalistic Wales would as soon jump into deep space in a pair 
>of boxers as put themselves under English again...

They wouldn't be under English anything - the idea goes that they'd be
partners with equal status, like the Canadians and Americans, etc (equal
in
the sense that they are all independent founding members of the NAC).
They'd run their own local issues - especially things like cultural
stuff -
and the bigger foreign trade and political affairs type issues would be
run
by the joint NAC government.  As I pointed out, kind of like a
combination
of the EU and NATO - of which they are already part...	

Besides, everybody knows that the Scots really run the UK anyway... :)

<snip>

>> The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control
>> of health care, education, public works, natural resources,
>> immigration, cultural policy, etc.
>
>I don't think resources. We've already argued they are the ultimate 
>strategic resource in the future. 

That makes sense - but remember what happened when Trudeau created the
National Energy Policy - we practically had a revolution in Alberta.
People have a tendancy to want to have some control over what gets dug
up
out of their backyards.  Can you imagine the tensions that would occur
if
the NAC government  on Albion (which planet is the Capital???? I forget
the
name) tried to tell Albertan oil producers what to do with their oil. 
We
have a hard enough time doing it now in Canada, let alone when you're
talking an interplanetary administrative area.	I figure the NAC Council
would generate resource policy and guidelines, but a lot of the
specifics
would be determined locally.  The NAC government would need some
control,
perhaps even a lot - but there would need to be some balance between
central control for strategic reasons and "local" concerns.

>> Language, Cultural and Religious Rights in the Confederation
>> 
>> (The "official" picture:)
>> 
>> Due to the variety of backgrounds in the constituent members of the
>> Confederation, and as a means of generating confidence in Quebec and
>> the Hispanic areas of the former US toward joining, the NAC adopts a
>> policy of recognizing official language rights for the major
>> minority groups.  While the official spoken language of the Monarchy
>> and NAC Council is English, the NAC government and Supreme Court are
>> required to provide all services, publications, etc and publish all
>> laws, policies, decisions and so on in English, French and Spanish. 
>
>Expensive.

Absolutely.  Cost of providing services in more than one language vs.
possible costs of social conflict and disintegration over
language/cultural
issues.  I'm suggesting that if they agree from the very beginning that
those costs are a necessary part of doing business and aren't open to
negotiation, people will get used to the idea and get on with things. 
It
would be convenient to think that the entire population of South America
will learn English when the NAC takes over, and same for the Hispanic
pop'n
in the US (many of whom do speak English already) - but I like the idea
of
a somewhat multi-lingual-tolerant society in which these various groups
are
at least partially accounted for.  We know that the main language of
business, government, the military, etc will be English - but still...

Just imagine the Queen's Own Royal Buenos Aires Dragoons charging into
battle in their Challenger MK XII Grav Tanks, singing God Save the Queen
in
Spanish... :)

>Do you have NAC wide rights? Or are you subject to different laws and 
>rights in different areas? This would be problematic I think. Esp 
>given the differences between a law system based on the Napoleonic 
>seigneurial system and one based on an English or US system. How do 
>you resolve these differences?

Same way there are presently different "rights" in different states in
the
US or in different countries in the EU.  There would be an overall
system
of law governing the whole NAC (which might be rather broadly defined),
but
may have various local interpretations.  You'd think that Criminal Law
in
the US would be consistent from state to state, but it isn't.  There are
Federal statues and local ones - but with the US Constitution and the US
Supreme Court as the final arbiter of your rights, or lack thereof.

> 
>> All founding members of the NAC remember the results of
>> racial/cultural/religious conflict seen in the radioactive ruins of
>> American cities - and there is a broad based support for greater
>> public tolerance.  This is enshrined in the NAC Constitution, and
>> the NAC government strongly enforces where necessary the provisions
>> for official tolerance.  Religious and political groups advocating
>> discrimination are marginalized.  
>
>What about letting small groups form independent enclaves?
>What are the provisions for leaving the NAC if you want to?
>

Independent enclaves?  Sure, why not.  As long as they followed the
basic
tenets of the NAC-wide laws/rights.  This might work similarly to how
the
system of Native Law is developing on Canadian First Nations lands.
Assault is still assault on a reservation, but they may provide a very
different form of "punishment" for the crime - we've seen this sort of
resolution a few times recently, with a judge providing a "sentence"
based
on local elders' recommendations.  

Leaving the NAC?  Well...Harrumph!  Why would anyone want to?  :-)

>Big Question:
>How does the UN figure in? How has the alterations in UN mandate 
>affected its role? How do new UN rules and new UN proclamations 
>affect the way the NAC is constituted? What might these be?
>

Too big to tackle here (I don't have time tonight) - I'll try later
'cause
these are important, good questions.

>> The New Anglian Armed Forces
>> 
>> The largest branch of the NAC government, the New Anglian Armed
>> Forces is composed of ...
>
>They should not be so. They should be a tool of government, not a 
>part of it. That implies they control things rather than are 
>controlled. 

I agree - didn't mean to imply that.  The NAC armed forces would very
much
be subordinate to the civilian leadership.  What I meant was that they
were
part of the government in the same way that the Canadian Armed Forces
are
part of "the government" - the Department of National Defense is the
largest government department (I believe);  certainly it has one of the
largest budgets of any government department, and the 'Forces are all
Federal employees.

>> At this point I'm going to stop - though I've more ideas, I want to
>> get other people's thoughts on this going...  The armed forces is
>> the bit that most directly interests us, obviously, so I'm
>> interested in what everyone else thinks!
>
>I loved (whoever's) solution: retaining member character.
>You end up with cool stuff like 
>The 151st Light Infantry (The King's Own Memphis Rifles). 
> 

I really liked this alot, also.  I figure there would be some basic
standards for the various parts of the Armed Forces to attain - but that
character from unit to unit may be quite different.  Over time, things
like
tactical doctrine would homogenize - it would have to or units from
different areas would have a difficult time operating together - but
things
like the national character represented in regimental traditions, etc
would
stay.

<snip>

Thanks for taking the time to read it through and give me some
thoughtful
responses!

Adrian