[FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure of the NAC (really long)

> I didn't forget about any part of the US.

Where does the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, etc) fit in?

The Rocky Mountain States? We're pretty far from any Rockies...

[snip]
> OK - as to suggestions...: <pulling out US map and switching on US

Hmm...

> North East Region - The New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, New

Could also be called "The Eastern Seaboard" I guess... possibly more
appropriate since Maryland is hardly 'North'.

> South East Region - the Virginias, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia,

Yeah.

> Florida - direct entry 'cause of majority Hispanic population, and it

Hm. Possibly, yes.

> Texas - direct entry 'cause, well, it's Texas...

No doubt about that, I've been there... but does FCT control Texas on Terra?
Or just colonies? I mean, are the states of California and Texas independent
of the NAC?

> South West Region - Southern California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico -

Sounds good.

> North West Region - Washington, Oregon, Northern California

Ah, good! I would put Idaho in here though. I think Idaho identifies more with
the NW than the 'great plains'.

> Great Plains Region - Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Minnesota,

No, Utah would be in here IMHO. See above about Idaho.

> Great Lakes Region - Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio

> These names are completely generic. And uninteresting. Suggestions???

Perhaps, for the NW region, something completely silly like Pacifica? Of
course, Idaho doesn't have a Pacific shoreline, but I still think it should be
a part of the NW region. Hm, Pacifica sounds kind of cool actually.

> Yes they are, but later. Remember, my commentary was covering the NAC

Ah, sorry! I hadn't seen your original post.

Hello All...

I've been tossing about a few ideas on what might happen to Canada in the
GZG timeline - and being prompted to respond by Jonathan Jarred's
comments
- I threw down a whole bunch of ideas all at once.  Given that much of
my commentary on Canada was prompted by responses to Jonathan's comments, I've
left his comments in place - to show what I was responding to...

For those who are more interested in how the NAC might work, there is
commentary on that at the bottom of this post - my thoughts on where
Canada might go led naturally into the NAC. I think my commentary on the NAC
and its formation and structure are applicable to the NAC in its initial
formative years - maybe other people will leap in and contribute what
they think about where it would go from here...

> But what would we (Canada) really stand to gain by subsuming our

Early next century, the Quebecois vote for seccession from Canada in a
referendum. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that following a vote for
independence, Canada is legally and morally bound to negotiate in good faith
with Quebec. Quebec and Canada, after two years of careful and sometimes
heated discussions, agree upon a division whereby Quebec gains nominal
independence, but retains the Canadian dollar as its currency, enacts a
national defense agreement with Canada, and guarentees free passage to
Canadians through Quebec territory, primarily so that the Maritime provinces
are not completely cut off. The markets both internationally and within Canada
react at first with great trepidation,
and the Canadian dollar drops to an all-time low of $0.50 US on the
world market, causing the beginnings of a recession in both Canada and Quebec.
Both nations move quickly to prevent economic meltdown, and issue a joint
declaration emphasizing the political stability of the new situation. The US,
Canada, Mexico and the newly independant Quebec enter into discussions aimed
at bringing Quebec formally into the North American Free Trade Agreement.
There is some resistance in the US Congress, but president Gore and the
Democratic majority in both houses, riding high on their massive landslide
victory following widespread public protests at the
Republican-engineered impeachment of popular former President Clinton,
passes the proposed amendments to NAFTA without much trouble.

France tries to influence the EU to put pressure on Canada through tariffs and
import restrictions, but Britain and Germany block these measures,
having seen the results of seccession-turned-bad throughout the Balkan
states. The British Foreign Secretary states that "We can not allow France to
be the cause of conflict among two of our most valued allies. The peoples of
both Canada and Quebec have paid in blood for the freedoms we enjoy in Europe
today, and we can do nothing less than give them our full support as they
resolve their differences peacefully. The EU cannot be allowed to become a
platform for France to advance its agenda of promoting Francophone culture,
particularly at the expense of the peace and stability of our closest
friends."

The economic situation in Canada and Quebec stabilizes, particularly after a
mutually satisfactory division of the national debt is realized, and the
Canadian dollar begins a climb...

> Additionally, the breakup casts the entire Canadian union into doubt.

Relations between Quebec and the US stabilize after Quebec joins NAFTA, and
the US welcomes the newly created Quebec Air Force into NORAD (the North
American Aerospace Defence organization). Quebec does not cause any
disruptions along the St.Lawrence Seaway, because it relies heavily on
unimpeded access to US markets for its economic stability.

> The Maritime Provinces (which have already petitioned for U.S.

When certain groups in the Maritime provinces suggest that they be annexed by
the US, clearer sense prevailed. The US government had no desire to be saddled
with a large, sparsely populated and economically depressed area, and though
sympathetic to the problems Canada was now facing, would not agree to
annexation. The Canadian federal government had no interest in seeing more of
the country lost, and in a rare moment of
provincial-federal
cooperation, a compromise plan was worked out. The four Maritime provinces
would be joined into one large region, with a single government structure
based in Halifax. This would eliminate much of the inefficient duplication of
services in the small provinces, and subsequent cost savings. The area was
seeing an increase in its economy through an influx of high technology firms
taking advantage of the low costs of doing business and well educated
workforce (a-la Ireland).  A consortium of major shipping companies in
the US and Canada awarded the contract to build the new central East Coast
shipping complex in Halifax - since Halifax has the only good major deep
water protected harbour North of Florida. This becomes the central shipping
hub for all of the North East, and the subsequent influx of economic
development has side benefits for the entire maritime region.

> After a few more years, Ontario, its economy battered from isolation,

After a few more years, the economic situation in Canada has stabilized,
relations between the provinces and the Federal government have become easier
in the wake of the shakeup that resulted from Quebec's separation, and the
joint economic agreements with Quebec seem to be working well.

> Tensions between the newly-enlarged U.S. and Quebec continue, now being
Meanwhile,
> regional differences in the U.S. are exacerbated by the ongoing

Tensions between the US and its North American partners increase as regional
differences and cultural Balkanization of the south and southwest regions
leads to widespread public unrest and eventually violent conflict.
Conservative religious movements in much of the central and south-east
areas add to the destabilizing forces with strong anti-Hispanic,
anti-Immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Liberal sentiment - leading to the
enactment of State statutes in several areas directly violating Federal law.
Canada and the other North American states watch as the US devolves into civil
war. Mediation efforts by Canadian diplomats, experienced with
the successful integration of multi-cultural policies in Canada offer to
help, but are soundly rejected by the US Federal Government - itself
nearly frozen in confusion over how to deal with the seemingly uncontrollable
conflicts.

> Thus, when the Second American Civil War rips the continent apart a few

When the Second American Civil War rips the country apart along
cross-cultural and geographical seams, Canada, Mexico and Quebec
reinforce their borders with the US and sit back to watch what happens. The
Canadian government calls up the entire military reserve, begins a program of
recruitment to expand the forces on a wide scale, and requests aid from the
British and German governments, both of whom have large military training
establishments in the Prairie provinces and in Labrador. The German government
allows its forces to help with resettling the massive numbers of refugees
flowing north across the border including policing resettlement camps, but
only the British government allows its troops to join the Canadians in
patrolling the border areas.

The Civil War destroys much of the US infrastructure, with several major
cities in California and Texas falling to nuclear attack by renegade Army and
Airforce Generals allied to the Fundamentalist Christian Coalition. There is a
pause around the world in shock at the horrific spectre of nuclear war, and
the rump government of the US, now controlling only the
North-East area but still recognized as the legitimate government by the
UN, requests immediate aid in ending the conflict and helping the survivors.
By this time, the British and Canadian governments have assembled a large
military force in staging areas along the border, and 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. The fresh foreign troops,
landing in large numbers with new equipment and massive air superiority, have
little trouble defeating FCC and the various local warlords ruling the region.
Within weeks, British and Canadian troops have deployed through almost all of
the US, begin restoring order and start providing humanitarian relief. The
areas destroyed by nuclear weapons and suffering from fallout are given
special attention, with NBC teams from many nations including Japan and Russia
providing additional support.

> Despite opposition from France and a Germany that sees opportunity in

Despite initial opposition from France, Spain and Italy who see an opportunity
in keeping the US out of the international market, Britian and Germany
convince the EU to provide large amounts of aid to help rebuild the
US - helped at first by Europeans who feel that this will finally repay
the Americans' efforts following the Second World War. There is a certain
cynical edge to this support, since many Europeans also feel that the US never
hesitated to advance its own agenda by reminding the Europeans of the
debt owed it - and these same Europeans now wonder if the situation
could be reversed, with Europe dominating the relationship with a rebuilt US.
The German government is very uncomfortable with the direction being taken by
the French, Spanish and others, but is not willing to break with them directly
as it is still trying to maintain cohesiveness within the EU. The UK, however,
with the strongest ties to the US and long historical positive relationship
with its former colony, feels much resentment at this underlying cynicism
among its fellow Europeans. As the true costs of rebuilding the US become
apparrent, and one after another the European nations start to back out of the
aid plans or reduce their contributions, the UK's ambivalent feelings toward
Europe become stronger. Some historians see this period as the beginnings of
the fractures in the EU that eventually lead to the split between the French
and the Germans, which led to the formation of the FSE and the NSL.

> The Mainstream Culture movement in the American Remnants fastens on the

Rebuilding the United States' infrastructure is a simple engineering problem
compared with the extremely complex and sensitive issue of trying to recreate
a cohesive society among recently warring groups. A flow of former refugees
who spent the war in relative contentment hosted in Canada starts back into
the US, bringing with them the positive feelings developed toward Canada and
the UK.

The conflict between the UK and the rest of Europe over the rebuilding costs
of the US comes to a head, just as leaders in North America are searching for
some means of unifying the disperate groups in the US. The Canadian Minister
of Foreign Affairs suggests a plan whereby the states of the former US,
Canada, Quebec and the UK join together in a political association based on a
common history and shared culture, shared language
and shared interests - with the Crown as the unifying head of the new
Confederation. Quebec and the largely Hispanic areas in the former US are at
first hesitant due to cultural and language issues, but when assured that
provision would be made to protect the Spanish and French languages and
cultures as integral founding elements of the new Confederation, they
agree to join - seeing the advantages of being part of a large protected
market framework in a world dominated by large trading blocks in Europe and
Asia.

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. 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.

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

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.

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...

Confederation Membership:

The New Anglian Confederation is composed, initially, of the United Kingdom,
Canada, Quebec and the former United States. The United States is broken up
into several large parts, based on common historical, cultural
and geographical   factors.  The old State organization of the US is
disolved, with several exceptions: The new areas include New England, The
Great Lakes Region, The Carolinas, Florida, Texas, California, the South West,
the Rocky Mountain States, and the Great Central Plains. Each area is
organized as a larger version of what the States once were. In Canada, the
three Prairie provinces join to form a single large Western province
-
and Canada is then reduced to four provinces and three territories (British
Columbia, Ontario, the Maritimes, the Prairies, and the Yukon, North West and
Nunavut Territories). Quebec joins on its own. A widespread debate begins
within the UK as to how it will join the new organization. After previous
decades of devolution of powers to the various member countries of the UK,
there is much interest in Ireland, Wales and Scotland in joining the NAC
independantly and doing away with the UK government all together. The UK
government argues that joining together will give them greater clout, but
"nationalistic" interest prevails in the end and Scotland, Ireland, Wales and
England join the NAC independantly as the UK government disolves itself.

Confederation Areas of Government

The NAC Government is granted powers in several areas. It has control over
foreign affairs, international trade, national defense, national banking and
financial stability, the NAC Supreme Court, and coordinates standards
organizations (such as those that govern weights and measurements, set
educational guidelines, set health care guidelines, set telecommunication
standards, and so on). There is a separate Royal Auditors and Ombudsman
organization that reports directly to the Monarch and exists separately of all
other governmental agencies. Its role is to provide a completely independant
and impartial view of government operations at all levels, and enable public
confidence in the government by keeping it honest...

The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control of health
care, education, public works, natural resources, immigration, cultural
policy, etc.

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.  Each of the NAC member states/regions is
encouraged to follow this lead and provide services in the three languages. In
practice, the areas with significant population groups in one of the
official minority languages provide services in those languages - while
areas with unilingual population groups tend not to.

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.

The New Anglian Armed Forces

The largest branch of the NAC government, the New Anglian Armed Forces is
composed of...

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!

The next "chapter" beyond that would be entitled "The NAC Off Earth" and would
discuss how the Confederation changes as it grows into an interstellar
organization. The capital moves to Avalon and it grows with a number of colony
worlds and colony provinces on jointly held worlds. How does this affect the
way the NAC operates?

I hope those who've taken the time to actually read through all this have
found it to be worth the effort! I'll enjoy any and all comments that come of
it.

> At 11:57 AM 11/12/98 -0800, you wrote:

The idea was that the old states become subsumed into a few larger
administrative areas. The names I proposed were purely for convenience in
getting the idea across - it doesn't really matter what they're called.
All the states (except Hawaii and Alaska, which I forgot about) fit into
these - I did actually pull out a map.  "The Carolinas" and "Florida"
would include most of "the South", for example. You could call it "The South"
if you like. I didn't forget about any part of the US.

> You also have to incorporate all of South and Central America. This

Except that South and Central America weren't part of the NAC from the
beginning - and as I suggested somewhere in that huge post, I figured
that my ideas covered the NAC during its initial formative period. The next
chapter or two would cover stuff like the NAC growing, getting off planet, etc
etc. I suggested that Spanish and French be a recognized part of the NAC from
the beginning *because* it ends up taking a substantial Spanish speaking
population in both at the beginning and later.

> Adrian Johnson wrote:

> and geographical factors. The old State organization of the US is

You're missing great hunks of the US. Virginia, WVa, Maryland, Kentucky, etc,
etc, etc.

You also have to incorporate all of South and Central America. This isn't just
one big happy Anglo family with marginal numbers of
Hispanics.  They probably outnumber non-Hispanic Whites.  Brazil alone
today has 155,822,400 inhabitants, more than twice the population of the UK,
and they all speak Portugese!

There ain't nothing in the US East of the Rockies worth mentioning!

Viva los California y Tejas Libre!

Feeling funny after a big lunch....

Gene

> ----------

> and geographical factors. The old State organization of the US is

<snip, and add in bit from another post>

> Where does the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, etc) fit

<snip, and add in another bit from another post>

> There ain't nothing in the US East of the Rockies worth mentioning!

> Viva los California y Tejas Libre!

> Feeling funny after a big lunch....

> Gene

OK, before anyone else gets prickly about the names I picked for the regions
of the US that join the NAC, I'll make a couple of comments

First - I wasn't trying to offend anybody with the ones I picked - they
were convenient at the time. But what about the IDEA. I really don't mind what
names are used. I figure we could argue 'til the cows come home about which
states join which region, the merits of one area going here and another going
there, yadda yadda yadda. Please make suggestions. I'm open to anything. But
what about the idea?

OK - as to suggestions...:   <pulling out US map and switching on US
history memory from university...>

Alaska and Hawaii - direct entry into NAC 'cause of geographic isolation
(tho' you might say that Alaska is subsumed into the "Canada" region, by
virtue of location)

North East Region - The New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Maryland, DC, etc

South East Region - the Virginias, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana???

Florida - direct entry 'cause of majority Hispanic population, and it
doesn't quite fit "the South"

Texas - direct entry 'cause, well, it's Texas...

South West Region - Southern California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico -
majority population Hispanic

North West Region - Washington, Oregon, Northern California

Great Plains Region - Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah (?) tho' maybe Utah goes in the
South West...

Great Lakes Region - Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio

So - you end up with 10 separate regions joining the NAC at the same
time.
Remember what these are for - they aren't separate "countries", but have
a greater degree of independence in some areas than do present US states or
Canadian provinces.

These names are completely generic. And uninteresting. Suggestions???

> Alaska and Hawaii - direct entry into NAC 'cause of geographic

OK - the Alaskans wouldn't like that one bit.  They go in
independently...

> No doubt about that, I've been there... but does FCT control Texas on

Yes they are, but later. Remember, my commentary was covering the NAC at its
beginnings, before it gets South America and before FCT breaks
off...

> Perhaps, for the NW region, something completely silly like Pacifica?
Of
> course, Idaho doesn't have a Pacific shoreline, but I still think it

Sure!  Why not!  :-)

> [snip]

Alaska and the NWT/Yukon (or whatever they are calling themselves -
didn't
they merge or something?) makes some sense - though Alaska may try to go
semi-independant during the time of US collapse - By getting the
tremendously silly Federal govt out of their hair, large scale resource
production could really begin...Distance from the rest of the going-ons
helps isolate them from the worst of the collapse, and there is a significant
amount of military personnel and hardware to annex and put a credible defense
against minor threats.

Hawaii is another story - I can see conflicts with Japan over Hawaii -
They seem to own most of it anyway...

> North East Region - The New England states, New York, Pennsylvania,

Well, in keeping with 250+ years of tradition, how about 'New England'?

> Sounds good.

Although I think Utah makes more sense in the SW Region than great plains.
- Smaller Hispanic population, but geographically similar (Sun-blasted
desert wasteland - I'm allowed to say that - I went to school there!)
Also, peeling a few states off the rather large GP region helps cut it down to
a better size.

> Perhaps, for the NW region, something completely silly like Pacifica?
Of
> course, Idaho doesn't have a Pacific shoreline, but I still think it

Just don't let Seattle culture dominate or create the names - Who wants
to live in Starbucksland?;>

All in all, this sounds pretty good..

Let's not go there, John...

Jared

"John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> on 12/11/98 04:29:08 PM

Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

To:   gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the
structure of the NAC (really long)

> Adrian Johnson wrote:

> South East Region - the Virginias, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia,

I believe someone suggested that most of these formed a "Confederacy" or
something which fought hard against the US/UK forces and held them off
long enough to negotiate a certain amount of autonomy and hence direct entry
as the Confederacy.

> Florida - direct entry 'cause of majority Hispanic population, and it

Depends--the Panhandle is very much Old South.

> Great Plains Region - Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Minnesota,

Utah would be uninhabited after someone solved the question of the "Free
Republic of Deseret" with a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure whether to
include a similey--this would be the simplest answer.

> Adrian Johnson wrote:

> South East Region - the Virginias, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia,

I believe someone suggested that most of these formed a "Confederacy" or
something which fought hard against the US/UK forces and held them off
long enough to negotiate a certain amount of autonomy and hence direct entry
as the Confederacy.

> Florida - direct entry 'cause of majority Hispanic population, and it

Depends--the Panhandle is very much Old South.

> Great Plains Region - Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Minnesota,

Utah would be uninhabited after someone solved the question of the "Free
Republic of Deseret" with a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure whether to
include a similey--this would be the simplest answer.

> Jared E Noble wrote:

> Let's not go there, John...

I take it this is in response to the Free Republic of Deseret remark? I look
at it this way. Mormons have tended (in the past) to be highly insular and
higly resistant to control by "Gentiles"[1]. They fought three wars, 1 against
the US, 1 against Missouri militia, and once against Illinois Militia during
their formative years. And they shot at
any non-Mormon settlers straying into Utah before the US Government got
an appointed non-Mormon governor out there to control the territory (and
he required a military expedition to get him into Utah in one piece). And
today they essentially rule Utah as a church fief. So if the rest of the
country went to hell in a handbasket, the Mormons would likely circle the
wagons and ignore the rest of the country. As to digging them out, I'd rather
nuke the city than try to fight a guerilla war in such hellish terrain with
absolutely nothing of value as the
prize--what's in Utah that anyone would want?

I don't have anything against most Mormons (the former Governor of Arizona who
thought he had achieved Godhood and was impeached for embezzlement is an
exception) but that's an honest call on the future of Utah. It's no more
intended to be deliberately offensive than the
references by our Trans-Atlantic cousin to the "Fudamentalist Christian
Coalition" is intended to be derogatory to the average Christian[2].

[1]For those not familliar with Mormon buzzwords, this is a non-Mormon,
not a non-Jew.
[2]Assuming said Christian is not a Pat Buchanan/Pat
Robertson-worshiping fascist, that is (I can say this--it describes more
than one of my relatives.)

> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:

Quebecois. in english it is Quebeckers. Chretien pronounces this QuebeckeRRRs.

> France tries to influence the EU to put pressure on Canada through

and so the UK-FSE-NSL rift has its genesis.

> >Additionally, the breakup casts the entire Canadian union into doubt.

> >Relations between Quebec and the U.S. also quickly sour, with Quebec

there could be a replay of the Suez crisis here - american troops seize
the seaway, but have to give it back amidst international scandal.

which brings me nicely to my next point...

currently, if you want to move cargo from the north atlantic (usa, europe
+ suez traffic) to the north pacific (usa, far east), you really have to
go via the panama canal. this puts a limit on the size of shiup you can
use - the so-called Panamax size, of ~ 70 kT. however, this is all set
to change. global warming will melt some of the polar caps; this would open up
the northwest passage (round the top of canada) all year round, free
from the risk of icebergs. this is a deep-water route, so even the
biggest ships can go through. the route is about the same length as the panama
route. thus, there is suddely a better route around north america; this will
become one of the main arteries of world ocean trade. this has to be
figured into the analysis - halifax and vancouver will become endpoints
of a huge trade route. this would strengthen canada's trading position.

> >The Mainstream Culture movement in the American Remnants fastens on

> THE NEW ANGLIAN CONFEDERATION

basically, this works as it does in the uk now. in theory, the monarch is the
chief executive, but in practice the prime minister is. in theory, the pm is
chosen by the monarch on the advice of parliament. in practice, the pm is
chosen by the parliament. the pm then chooses ministers.

> Legislative Body:

hmm. i like the world 'parliament' better than 'council'. how about this:
all the member states of the NAC - england, scotland, wales, canada, new
england, california, etc - have a parliament or assembly, which works as
a local government. the body for the whole of the NAC is the House of Lords.
this runs mostly like the canadian senate, a bit like the british HoL. each
state has some quota of peers in the house, and whenever a seat falls vacant,
the state (the local parliament or first minister, depending on local
practice) nominates a successor. the house of lords has a lot of
NACish flavour about it - i think it's worth keeping. "the speaker
recognises the Earl of Tucson" etc.

a house of lords made up in this way would be relatively stable - it
would
not change with every election - and somewhat immune to the swings and
roundabouts of the media circus (image is irrelevant as they are not elected).
since most actual lawmaking is done at the level of local parliaments, the
house of lords has no major legislative function. laws are harmonised across
the nac by way of quadrennial legal conventions, where member states negotiate
common legal setups. the HoL would mostly be a talking shop and advisor to the
prime minister. being experienced (most will have come from state politics),
they are also very good at making technical laws, in such areas as finance,
etc (this is true of the house

of lords today). it also allows for long-running political infighting -
always good in fictional backgrounds!

> Confederation Membership:
After
> previous decades of devolution of powers to the various member

the problem here is one of differing sizes. england has a much larger
population than scotland or wales. i think it makes sense for britain to join
as a whole, with the former usa split into about three parts (i would guess
new england, the great lakes and the plains, although i'm not sure
where the south-east fits in; maybe four divisions?). this gives state
governments more clout and makes the fact that the HoL is unelected less
important. the NAC capital (palace, seat of HoL, etc) then rotates between the
state capitals (london, ottawa, washington, boston, milwaukee or whatever).
the civil service stays put and is spread out all over the NAC (the treasury
is in london, the home office in ottawa, ministry of defence in washington,
etc).

> Confederation Areas of Government

sounds about right. note that none of these things involve particularly
contentious legislation, so the HoL won't get in many big public arguments.
the cabinet, on the other hand, will.

> The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control of

right. thus, the uk hangs on to the NHS, whilst new england continues in its
heathen private healthcare ways.

> Due to the variety of backgrounds in the constituent members of the

we have a lot of practice with this in wales. all road signs, government
forms, etc, are bilingual. welsh roads have a lot of blind turns, so 'araf'
(slow) and 'arafwch' (slow down) are the two words of welsh known by many
britons.

it'd be the same in mexico. given that english is the de facto international
language, and the language of trade, engineering, science
(ie success in general),the number of english-speakers in other
countries will continue to rise. by the time south america is absorbed into
the NAC, most people will speak english as a second language.

> All founding members of the NAC remember the results of

a constitution? never! the nac would have no real constitution, just a set
of treaties on which everything is founded. no-one is really sure what
the legal basis of the state is.

> The next "chapter" beyond that would be entitled "The NAC Off Earth"
and
> would discuss how the Confederation changes as it grows into an
How
> does this affect the way the NAC operates?

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.

> I hope those who've taken the time to actually read through all this

absolutely! excellent stuff.

Tom

> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:

Quebecois. in english it is Quebeckers. Chretien pronounces this QuebeckeRRRs.

> France tries to influence the EU to put pressure on Canada through

and so the UK-FSE-NSL rift has its genesis.

> >Additionally, the breakup casts the entire Canadian union into doubt.

> >Relations between Quebec and the U.S. also quickly sour, with Quebec

there could be a replay of the Suez crisis here - american troops seize
the seaway, but have to give it back amidst international scandal.

which brings me nicely to my next point...

currently, if you want to move cargo from the north atlantic (usa, europe
+ suez traffic) to the north pacific (usa, far east), you really have to
go via the panama canal. this puts a limit on the size of shiup you can
use - the so-called Panamax size, of ~ 70 kT. however, this is all set
to change. global warming will melt some of the polar caps; this would open up
the northwest passage (round the top of canada) all year round, free
from the risk of icebergs. this is a deep-water route, so even the
biggest ships can go through. the route is about the same length as the panama
route. thus, there is suddely a better route around north america; this will
become one of the main arteries of world ocean trade. this has to be
figured into the analysis - halifax and vancouver will become endpoints
of a huge trade route. this would strengthen canada's trading position.

> >The Mainstream Culture movement in the American Remnants fastens on

> THE NEW ANGLIAN CONFEDERATION

basically, this works as it does in the uk now. in theory, the monarch is the
chief executive, but in practice the prime minister is. in theory, the pm is
chosen by the monarch on the advice of parliament. in practice, the pm is
chosen by the parliament. the pm then chooses ministers.

> Legislative Body:

hmm. i like the world 'parliament' better than 'council'. how about this:
all the member states of the NAC - england, scotland, wales, canada, new
england, california, etc - have a parliament or assembly, which works as
a local government. the body for the whole of the NAC is the House of Lords.
this runs mostly like the canadian senate, a bit like the british HoL. each
state has some quota of peers in the house, and whenever a seat falls vacant,
the state (the local parliament or first minister, depending on local
practice) nominates a successor. the house of lords has a lot of
NACish flavour about it - i think it's worth keeping. "the speaker
recognises the Earl of Tucson" etc.

a house of lords made up in this way would be relatively stable - it
would
not change with every election - and somewhat immune to the swings and
roundabouts of the media circus (image is irrelevant as they are not elected).
since most actual lawmaking is done at the level of local parliaments, the
house of lords has no major legislative function. laws are harmonised across
the nac by way of quadrennial legal conventions, where member states negotiate
common legal setups. the HoL would mostly be a talking shop and advisor to the
prime minister. being experienced (most will have come from state politics),
they are also very good at making technical laws, in such areas as finance,
etc (this is true of the house

of lords today). it also allows for long-running political infighting -
always good in fictional backgrounds!

> Confederation Membership:
After
> previous decades of devolution of powers to the various member

the problem here is one of differing sizes. england has a much larger
population than scotland or wales. i think it makes sense for britain to join
as a whole, with the former usa split into about three parts (i would guess
new england, the great lakes and the plains, although i'm not sure
where the south-east fits in; maybe four divisions?). this gives state
governments more clout and makes the fact that the HoL is unelected less
important. the NAC capital (palace, seat of HoL, etc) then rotates between the
state capitals (london, ottawa, washington, boston, milwaukee or whatever).
the civil service stays put and is spread out all over the NAC (the treasury
is in london, the home office in ottawa, ministry of defence in washington,
etc).

> Confederation Areas of Government

sounds about right. note that none of these things involve particularly
contentious legislation, so the HoL won't get in many big public arguments.
the cabinet, on the other hand, will.

> The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control of

right. thus, the uk hangs on to the NHS, whilst new england continues in its
heathen private healthcare ways.

> Due to the variety of backgrounds in the constituent members of the

we have a lot of practice with this in wales. all road signs, government
forms, etc, are bilingual. welsh roads have a lot of blind turns, so 'araf'
(slow) and 'arafwch' (slow down) are the two words of welsh known by many
britons.

it'd be the same in mexico. given that english is the de facto international
language, and the language of trade, engineering, science
(ie success in general),the number of english-speakers in other
countries will continue to rise. by the time south america is absorbed into
the NAC, most people will speak english as a second language.

> All founding members of the NAC remember the results of

a constitution? never! the nac would have no real constitution, just a set
of treaties on which everything is founded. no-one is really sure what
the legal basis of the state is.

> The next "chapter" beyond that would be entitled "The NAC Off Earth"
and
> would discuss how the Confederation changes as it grows into an
How
> does this affect the way the NAC operates?

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.

> I hope those who've taken the time to actually read through all this

absolutely! excellent stuff.

Tom

> I don't have anything against most Mormons (the former Governor of

John - by "Fundamentalist Christian Coalition" I was specifically
referring
to the "Pat Robertson-worshiping fascist" types - who as far as I'm
concerned bear about as much relationship to what Christianity is really about
as the nutcase Islamic fundamentalists do to what Islam is about. Certainly no
offense to Christians was meant by it. I certainly don't want
to get into a debate about the propriety of such comments - if I
offended anyone, I sincerly apologise. I'll think more in future before
casually throwing off such comments.

By the way - as to the "Trans-Atlantic cousin" part...  I was born,
raised
and still live in good ole' Toronto - I'm Canadian, and I've been in and
out of the US for my whole life, as well as studying US history in both
highschool and university...   I'm not saying that increases the
validity
of my points - just that I'm not viewing the US as a complete
"outsider"...

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

Hee, hee, hee!:)

> Jared E Noble wrote:

Yep.  Just a few remarks & clarifications - some historical, some
futuristic.

> I look at it this way. Mormons have tended (in the past) to be highly

True enough about 'control' - insular may be extreme, but maybe not.

> They fought three wars, 1 against the US, 1 against Missouri militia,

Actually they never fought the Missouri militia - more like got their
collective butts handed to them in numerous mob attacks - which were
condoned by the Missouri Govt.  (The one stand-off at Haun's Mill, which
resulted in the Massacre of 30+ Mormons I will not call a war with
anyone's militia). FWIW, it wasn't until the 1970's (forget the actual year)
that
the 'Extermination Order' signed into law by Missouri Governor Boggs -
which basically made it legal to kill Mormons in Missouri, finally got removed
from the books. Granted it hadn't been exercised in a long time, but that law
is what made the Mormons move to Illinois in the first place.

As far as Illinois, Joseph Smith was Governor of Nauvoo and in charge of the
Nauvoo Militia (and Nauvoo was the most populous city in Illinois at
the time - probably because of all the mormons.)  Again the Mobs/Militia
drove them out - there were some spurious attempts at defense, but it
was the Mormon leaders to who pacified the mormons and made the call to leave.

And last - there was no war against the US, per se.  People hostile to
the Mormons back in Washington D.C. whipped up stories about the 'Mormon
Revolt' that never happened. The US declared war on the Mormons and sent in
the troops. It was resolved pretty much without bloodshed. (Thought the US
Govt did seize all the assets of the Mormons and kept them for years)

So there have been disagreements, and even some bloodshed, but the rumors of
War have been greatly exaggerated.

> And they shot at any non-Mormon settlers straying into Utah before the

I think that's a HIGHLY exaggerated distortion of the facts. They would defend
their homes and land, but certainly did not go around
indiscriminately shooting non-mormons - regardless of who their governor
was.

> And today they essentially rule Utah as a church fief. So if the rest

Now this I can believe (and FWIW, they would take a good bit of southern Idaho
with them). And they would probably be better prepared for it than any other
large organization. Those radical 'Survivalist' types have nothing on the
Mormons in terms of emergency preparation and food storage.
Probably out-gun them though.  History has donne a pretty good job at
making them self-sufficient.

> As to digging them out, I'd rather nuke the city than try to fight

Well, I think that's a generally valid point about most guerilla wars -
and I agree about the terrain. I just don't see the US nuking their
citizens -
and if the shattered US ever get their act back together then Utah would
probably re-join.  Isolation during the Hell-in-a-handbasket period
would probably end when things were working again.

> I don't have anything against most Mormons (the former Governor of

Yeah - Jackasses in every group.  Three biggest jerks I know happen to
be
Catholic, Athiest, and Baptist, so it takes all kinds - Glad to hear you
recognize him as what he is, and not his 'group'. Lots of things would work
better if more people could separate the two concepts.

> [1]For those not familliar with Mormon buzzwords, this is a non-Mormon,