<snip>
> Certainly now Canada maintains much of it's "integrity" as a major
I have perhaps a different vision of what the NAC is than some other people
seem to. It sometimes comes across that people think of the NAC as some
kind of Mega-United Kingdom, with all the various components directly
controlled from the capital - very Federal system, presided over by the
Monarch and with suitable Lords of this and that (ie the Lord Governor of the
former US colonies after the UK and Canadian forces arrive to restore order
post civil war).
I see it rather differently - that the NAC is more along the lines of a
cross between where the EU is going now and NATO. I can't see Canada out of
the blue giving up our sovreignty just 'cause the US needed help after their
civil war. There was obviously something to be gained by it for us. With the
free trade block in North America toasted by the war, obviously
there would be economic benefit to banding together - particularly as
Europe seems to have maintained it's integrity to some degree around that
time. But what would we really stand to gain by subsuming our nation into a
giant version of the UK, run (at least initially) by and for London? I'm sure
it wouldn't have happened that way. So, how about an organization of separate
nations that gets together out of common interest, sets up a
free-trade economic block, sets up a joint military structure (like
NATO, but moreso) taking the best of what each contributing part had to offer
but maintaining some degree of national character (heck, the US, Canadian and
UK militaries aren't THAT different, anyway...), and setting up a single
council / parliament / governmental structure to sit on top of the heap
-
like the EU. Canada remains nominally Canada, sends representatives to the NAC
parliament, and we surrender direct control over foreign trade, foreign
relations, and National Defense. As for the UK, maybe the UK government is
dismantled, and the countries that make up the UK represent themselves in
this over-parliament. Same with the regions of the US. I remember
back a few weeks there was discussion about what might have happened to the US
after its civil war, when the constituent bits joined the NAC. People
suggested that it be broken up into larger geographic areas than the
present states, based on areas of cultural/historical commonality or
something. Maybe each of the states would join separately - they each
do have some independance in law now, anyway (with each state having its own
constitution). The Canadian provinces as they exist now have never had an
independent existence - ok, there were separate colonies here prior to
the formation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867, but the modern legal entities
that each province represents don't have any legal status separate from
Canada (well, maybe - we'll see what happens now that the seperatists
just won another provincial election in Quebec...). A number of the US states'
constitutions pre-date the formation of the US, I believe, so there'd be
some claim to say if the US fell apart, those areas would revert back to their
previous existances... Who knows, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, though I've
read the US Constitution a few times.
We end up with each region (Canada, UK, four or five mega-states in the
US,
plus others as they join later ?? - and perhaps the colony worlds as
they become viable) each controling things like education, health care, local
administration, cultural affairs, etc etc etc and having taxation power
-
like the Canadian provinces do now - with the NAC parliament taking
control of only a few BIG areas (foreign affairs, national defense,
international trade, etc).
Anyway, that's it for me for now - stretched my $0.02 out a bit...
Thoughts, anyone?
You know, I like this concept best of all that I have heard yet...It certainly
feels better to me than some I have heard.
<snip to reduce size of post without completely severing the idea I liked so
well>
I see it rather differently - that the NAC is more along the lines of a
cross between where the EU is going now and NATO.
<snip>
So, how about an organization of separate nations that gets together out of
common interest, sets up a
free-trade economic block, sets up a joint military structure (like
NATO, but moreso) taking the best of what each contributing part had to offer
but maintaining some degree of national character (heck, the US, Canadian and
UK militaries aren't THAT different, anyway...), and setting up a single
council / parliament / governmental structure to sit on top of the heap
-
like the EU.
<snip>
We end up with each region (Canada, UK, four or five mega-states in the
US,
plus others as they join later ?? - and perhaps the colony worlds as
they become viable) each controling things like education, health care, local
administration, cultural affairs, etc etc etc and having taxation power
-
like the Canadian provinces do now - with the NAC parliament taking
control of only a few BIG areas (foreign affairs, national defense,
international trade, etc).
Anyway, that's it for me for now - stretched my $0.02 out a bit...
Thoughts, anyone?
Adrian
Given that the NAC stands for New Anglian Confederation, Jared's comments seem
to fit the bill nicely. The NAC consisting of a relatively loose
political/economic confederation would allow plenty of leeway for
diverse cultures developing on colonies but retain a fairly tight military
developement that makes the gaming side easier. Kind of like the Commonwealth
at the turn of the century. Canada, Australia, NZ, India, South Africa all
were essentailly independant of Mother Engalnd but pretty much followed her
lead in just about all matters military.
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
Just to give credit where due - The comments on the NAC structure came
from Adrian Johnson, not me. I added the top paragraph stating how much I like
the ideas. I left some excerpts<sp?> so it would be clear what I was talking
about. Unfortunately, Lotus notes is too stupid to properly quote messages and
so there was no divider between my message and the one I quoted.
<Theraputic Rant> I hate Lotus Notes...I hate Lotus Notes...I hate Lotus
Notes...I hate Lotus Notes
</Theraputic Rant>
There, that's better.
Jared Noble
---------------------------------------------------------
Given that the NAC stands for New Anglian Confederation, Jared's comments seem
to fit the bill nicely. The NAC consisting of a relatively loose
political/economic confederation would allow plenty of leeway for
diverse cultures developing on colonies but retain a fairly tight military
developement that makes the gaming side easier. Kind of like the Commonwealth
at the turn of the century. Canada, Australia, NZ, India, South Africa all
were essentailly independant of Mother Engalnd but pretty much followed her
lead in just about all matters military.
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> We end up with each region (Canada, UK, four or five mega-states in
The point here being that the Crown or the NAC parliament (presumably still
heavily influenced by its UK roots) has the power to declare wars and send
troops to them. This means that the individual powers (ie Canada) no longer
send their own troops out on their own initiative to do things like UN
missions.
Tom.
/************************************************
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Hmm, if we take the tack of an earlier discussion on the UN (courtesy
I think it still will. At least for the big ones. (ie Desert Storm 2183).
The NAC has moved off planet to Avalon; good
> move distancing itself from a purely English based seat.
Although I believe Jon T indicated palaces in London, Ottawa, Washinton, and
Albion.... which the King would rotate between (maybe spend a quarter at
each?). I think (given the population the NAC
governs on Earth - estimate 400-500 million - this SO FAR outstrips
the population of Albion or Avalon or whatever it is plus all the other
colonies combined that they CANNOT help but have an Earthy flavour. I suspect
their are parliaments in Ottawa, London, and Washington and Albion
(representing all of the outlying colonies) and all debate things separately
(with some debates hooked in via VR for
the NAC-spanning issues).
The NAC has evolved from its UK, Canada,
> USA origin and should have its own flavours.
Right. Just as Canada evolved from Native American, British, Irish, and French
roots to be something different. But you can sure see our historical
antecedents in today's law and in today's political situations.
Within the armed forces you
> will find that traditions inherint in a military system will prolong a
Agreed. This would be a necessity. The NAC of 2183 is more likely a
Constitutional Monarchy than anything, and a broad based one at that that must
give some independence in local matters to its members. BUT, at the same time,
I suspect the King and Parliament have a lot to do with deciding who with and
when wars are fought and other issues of like importance.
/************************************************
Hmm, if we take the tack of an earlier discussion on the UN (courtesy fo
Adrian Johnson I believe)then the UN will not be using NAC (or any other
nations) troops for missions. The NAC has moved off planet to Avalon; good
move distancing itself from a purely English based seat. So in 100 or so years
a lot of interest groups will be influencing the NAC so I don't think it is
safe to 'presume' too much. The NAC has evolved from its UK, Canada, USA
origin and should have its own flavours. Within the armed forces you will find
that traditions inherint in a military system will prolong a strong original
flavour for a while (relative term) but I would like to think that the NAC
will change and develop as it grows.
Owen G
[quoted original message omitted]
I love future 'history':)
Any way, my two cents worth:
I always assumed that the Second Civil War witnessed the complete collapse of
the US civilian government (Federal). After the Fed fell apart, various states
alligned themselves in two basic camps: Loyalist Union States, and break away
states/areas under what government/power took over. This second category
ranges
from local dictatorships to remaining state/city/county/etc govs.
When the UK and Canada joined in the war, they sided with the US military and
were forced to 'accomodate' with some of the more moderate splinter groups. In
a campaign we ran here a few years ago, there was a short, but bitter war
between the Restoration Alliance (our nickname for the Anglo led
forces-RA) and
the Southern Coalition (the former states of Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, the
Carolinas, Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana). The Coalition was
too strong for the RA to beat in open warfare, so after long peace talks the
RA was able to get the Coalition to join in the restoration effort.
After the war ended, the former US joined, as bits and pieces, the Anglican
Confederation. I figured that Canada and the UK stayed intact for a while, and
that the various sucessor states (of what was the US) sent their own
representatives to the new 'Congress'. The Lord Governer became the Crown's
'overseer' and made sure that the various sucessor states played nice with
each other.
I would imagine, however, when the Confederation reorganized itself that most
of these 'old' nations were dismantled for the most part, and that the NAC
became more centralized in nature, much the same way that the US has (there
are some people here in the US who advocate the end of states). Afterall,
after about 200 years or so of being part of the NAC, I would imagine that
people in the NAC would see themselves as being less American, British, or
Canadian and more, well... Confederate!:) Afterall, when the US got started
everyone was a Virginian (or something). Now though, you would be hard pressed
to find an American who has lived in one place all of their life.
Anyway, I doubt that a 23d Century Canada that had been part of the
NAC/AC for
200 years would be very recognizable to a 20th Century Canadian (like the 23d
Century South would be to me, a 20th Century Southerner).
Anyway, that's what I think... for what its worth.