|
| ||||||
 | ||||||
An Anglo-American CongressAug. 22, 2009 When I talk to people about unifying the English speaking world into a single political and economic federation, the first question is always about power - who will wield it, and who won't have it. Let's consider a couple of principles and come back to that answer in a moment. 
417 Million People - all represented under one roof And so to answer the question, we share power. No one person has a greater share of power than anybody else, as power is equally apportioned between the men and women of the nation. If these principles hold true, then it need not matter if the population of the nation is 4 million or 400 million. Speaking of 400 million citizens...Now, there are an innumerable number of ways in which we could elect representatives from the five Anglo nations and send them to our imaginary congress. For the purpose of this article, we'll use the American Constitution, because it's the easiest to work with. Keeping the cap on the House of Representatives at 435 members, the following table apportions House Representatives based on the population of each proposed future state. The total Congressional Delegation is arrived at by simply taking the number of House Representatives and adding two Senators. Just so the sparesly populated large states don't feel so small, I've thrown in land area and GDP. Take a look at how things break down: The States of an Anglo-American Congress
As you can see, I've taken a few liberties with the table. New Zealand has been entered as two states - a South and North Island - doubling its allotment of senators. The thinly populated territories of Canada and Australia have been not been granted statehood, and have remained as territories. In this model, the Canadian Province of Prince Edward Island has failed to become a state due to its relatively small population (138,900). This would give P.E.I. the long-awaited opportunity to merge with her fellow maritime provinces - New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - to form a single state. Such a Maritime Union has been proposed perennially since 1863. The table reveals some interesting information about the transition from nation-state to statehood. Despite losing all of the advantages of being a fully independent nation-state, England, being the most populous, would top the list of most powerful states, with a whopping 9.2% of congress. This would make England the most powerful state, in the most powerful country in the world. All things considered, power is so diffused among the states of the would-be union, that only ten states would have more than 2% of the total Congressional Representation. Canada's largest province, Ontario, would rank as the 7th most powerful state; giving Toronto the springboard it requires to reach world-class status. Australia's most powerful state would be New South Wales, coming in at 16th. Let's see how each country of English-speakers fair in their current political divisions: The Nations of an Anglo-American Congress
The takeaway message from this table is that a unified English-speaking world be far and away the dominant global power. Forget the national breakdowns, just take a look at the totals for a moment. At 26 million square kilometres, the union would be one and half times bigger than the world's current largest country - Russia. With 417 million citizens, only India and China would have larger populations. And perhaps most important of all, the combined GDP of the union would exceed $17.6 trillion, retaking the number one spot back from the European Union. But, the most striking conclusion of all cannot be calculated on a table. With renewed strength and vigour, a united English-speaking world could finally take on the global challenges of political and economic fragmentation. I believe the formation of an Anglo-American Union to be the full and complete expression of the purpose of the English-speaking peoples: to spread freedom, democracy, and safeguard human liberty, wherever in the world it is threatened. 
|
|
|||||
| You are Here: Home > Proposed Unions > Anglo-American Union > An Anglo-American Congress | ||||||
And there are many here that would jump at this idea.
This is a great idea although i doubt it will ever happen during my lifetime although i wish it would.
In a funny way this article unintentionally illustrates some of the best reasons why the UK could never fit into a union with the US, with all the talk of "Congress" and "senators" - I presume there would be a "President" wielding executive powers as well? Britain's parliamentary system is simply far more compatible with our European neighbours than it is with the US.
They almost left once. The vote margin was narrow. The fact that they are not natural "Anglophiles" would be a strong factor against their membership.
Both are English speaking. Since you ignore dialect in your assumptions
The SA is pretty far from reality as a solid entity. I am not 100% certain they will end up as a full member.
The Grand Union suggested here is based on language alone. Politically and culturally, there are huge gulfs to be over come.
For the US to partake in any type of union it would have to be under the US Constitution. I agree a new constitution would be needed, but the US would never consent to. The US system is set up where only the elite (rich) can run for office, while being controlled by special interest groups and big business corporations. Government for the people is only an illusion. Other than close economic ties between the countries involved I see no other advantage.
I agree that New Zealand and Australia are trying to distances themselves from the commonwealth, but this is very different than the commonwealth. Each state would have its own voice and would democratically represented. The process of joining the Grand Union should also 'clean up' the Governor General issue and clarify the position of the monarchy (whichever way the people want it, likely a reduction in importance).
I also agree there would be issues with travel and communication between the proposed Pacific states (NZ and Oz) and the Atlantic states (US, UK, Canada). But today, there are countries which span many timezones (Hawaii) or are split (Alaska, Azerbaijan). While the distances proposed are greater, I do not believe they are insurmountable. Communication technology is improving everyday. I could see that by the time Grand Union comes to be (or another government spanning the oceans) that we would have representatives meeting in there own local legislatures, broadcast to the larger group and seamlessly integrated into one audio-visual stream (look at CNN’s recent ‘hologram’).
As to the comment about the United Kingdom being entered as a single state, it isn't. The state of England would be one of the most powerful states (which may cause issues in NZ and Oz).
Overall, a good idea. Exactly how it will play out in terms of specific policies (Iraq, Israel, healthcare) is impossible to predict, the Union would cause some parties to grow close or merge, others to harden their stance. Regionalism would reign, at least at the beginning, as it did in the EU.
The one issue I see is the use of the US system of government and constitution. I believe something better could be created from scratch, rather than trying to amend the US constitution to suit all parties. There is a widespread feeling that the US government is not the best model in the world, given warmongering, intransigent lobby groups and slowness to act on issues, all of which are problems inheriting in the system, not the operators of the day.
Overall, such an arrangement would be beneficial to all parties and would lay a solid foundation for a broader, global government.
Another curiosity is, why did you discriminate Ireland? It is part of the English world in the same level of the others 5 countries. I really feel it is completely unfair!