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

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> > 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.
> 
> Why not use parliament as is? They pass bills up to HoL? Actually, it 
> strikes me you'd need to do something to deal with the various levels 
> of concerns (local, state, area, planet, or whole-NAC). I'll think on 
> this.

how about this, then. currently (in the uk), the legislature is
bicameral:
there is the house of commons and the house of lords. the nac is the
same,
but rather than once house of commons there are half a dozen, one in
each
state. there is still only one house of lords. one way of looking at
this
is to think of each state being bicameral, but having a shared upper 
house. it neatly ties together the state and confederate governments.

the organisation of each state varies. in the uk, there are four
countries
(england, scotland, wales, ulster/ireland), divided into counties and
parishes. in new england, there are provinces and counties. in the
southern confederacy, there are states (georgia, alabama, etc) and
municipalities. it's subtly different everywhere. assimilate diversity!

> > > > > This is enshrined in the NAC Constitution
> > > > a constitution? never!
> > > Sorry, that won't work in something modern
> > i'm not so sure. does the EU have a constitution?
> 
> Not a country. It includes countries. Like the UN.
> 
> > 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.

thus, i would ask: at what point in its history will the EU become a
single state (deviating from the GZGverse and assuming it continues to 
integrate)?

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
> > '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.
> 
> 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!

> 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.

> 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.

> > 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 don't think so. I don't think the NAC is the EU. I don't think it 
> is a strictly economic union.

nor is the EU, not by a long chalk!

> 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.

> > > > i think avalon would gain member-state rights,
> > > 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 :-).
> 
> 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!

and we need to get this straight - it's Albion, not Avalon! even i keep
getting this wrong! damn gzg :-)!

> And I'm not sure any other colonies 
> are big enough to merit independent status.

probably not. most would be part of the kingdom of albion, some would be
ruled as dependencies of one of the states.

Tom