United English Speakers

I was googling randomly through the Internet the other day, trying to get aspirations from existing information on what organization / nation / regional power bloc the good guys belonged to. You see, while I’m pretty good at creating the bad guys, it’s the good guys that give me most trouble. In my current story, set in September 2115, I have the good guys belong to a multinational organization that had its own military. The idea behind the multinational angle for the good guys was partly in homage to the short lived seaQuest series, and partly because I believe that certain countries would band together and evolve into something more. After all, science fiction has its share number of examples of unified nations that form power blocs, or a unified global government; many of which forming throughout the mid to late 21^st century. The problem is how to shape things for the year 2115.

Despite a lot of my stuff, primarily the upcoming work of “Iron Falls” and its hopeful follow ons, being set in the future I like to portray certain degree of realism in them. That means research, seeing the trends and the like available online. One thing I came across was the idea of the unification of English speaking nations into one power bloc, and instantly thought that it be ideal -- a power bloc made up of all the countries once colonised by the United Kingdom. This certainly caught my attention, as it was advocated by such groups as United North America and the Expansionist Party of the United States. While there are ideas promoting New Zealand and Australia being merged into this English language union, along with the United Kingdom and Ireland, let me start with a union between the United States and Canada.

A wee while ago, I watched a very clever mini-series detailing the merger of the two North American countries -- using water shortage as the backdrop. If you get a chance, go look it up. But anyways, the reasoning here is pretty simple: both countries were founded by the British (just never mind that Quebec was French, and several states within the United States started of as colonies not of Great Britain, but of the Netherlands and a few other countries). The only difference being that Canada didn't have a violent revolution to get away from British rule.

Historically and culturally, both countries dominating the North American continent have a common heritage. Unlike Europe, which is divided among deep linguistic and religious lines that have formed over centuries of history, Canada and the United States are relatively new countries that share common languages, religions and people. The border that divides the two countries today was not created out of any interminable or irresolvable issues. It was instead simply a line drawn by an imperial power that has long since left the shores of North America. While the political disputes of the 18th Century have long since disappeared, their legacy continues to live on in the form of the border. The theories goes that:

A United North America would finally heal the wound of the first civil war that divided the people of North America, and bring about a reunion of historical proportions.

Economically it makes perfect sense, and certainly the most obvious reasoning to make; at least in terms of the sheer practical benefits it would provide to the average North American. United North America indicates that:

According to the Economics Department of the Bank of Montreal, "one of the critical benefits of greater economic integration for Canadians [with the US] is the prospect of higher living standards...”. By tearing down obstacles at the Canada-US border put in place by both governments, inevitably this will result in increased trade, which in turn benefits producers and consumers, employers and employees. The main benefactors of borders, by contrast, are those who either profit from lack of competition or those who collect duties, tariffs and other expenses – primarily the governments of Canada and the United States.

Ok, I'm no accountant or financial controller, but if I understand this -- all it'll take is a decrease of taxation and it can actually result in increased tax revenues for governments, elimination of trade restrictions would actually result in increased trade, economic stimulus, further increased government revenues and most importantly, increased prosperity for the average American and Canadian. Overall, the removing of myriads of redundant agencies and consolidating everything from budgets to currencies would eliminate waste and streamline the North American economic engine. Sure enough, I see logic there. It's the same one governing the continued existence of the European Union.

The other reason for gradual merger of the North American continent is militaristic in nature. Already the armed forces of the two countries are already under the aegis of the North American Aerospace Defense Command -- NORAD: a permanent agreement binding the security of Canada and the United States together domestically. Abroad, the two countries work together militarily through organizations such as NATO.

Again, United North America concludes:

Such arrangements have helped create an integrated, interoperable and cooperative North American security force within our continent and throughout the world. However, the overall defensive capability of North America is not enhanced, but rather diminished, by the fact that we continue to have two sets of military and government departments dedicated to our joint internal security. The burden of nearly doubling the administrative costs may have a debatable effect on the security of the continent.

Politically speaking, it can be argued that both the United States and Canada are more or less the same; both having an upper and lower house. The only difference being that the later still has ties to the Monarchy, while its neighbor to the south elects a President.

Then there is the whole idea promoted by the Expansionist Party of the United States, having Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and little old New Zealand join their idea of a United States. But my question is, "The United States of what exactly?" and "If Britain was to be part of this, what will happen to the Royals?"

This is it, while I personally don't see any value in New Zealand having a head of state living in another country, others do. In fact, a large portion of the English speaking world still hold the British monarchy in high esteem. The Expansionist Party and even United North America don't acknowledge that in their guest of unification, do both expect the British crown to simply abdicate?

Ok, there are more questions and issues at stake here.

For one, you cannot expect established countries to give up their sovereign identities and form under a singular government. There was a possibility of New Zealand to become part of Australia back in 1901, but it opted to go and establish its own identity that was unique to itself -- just like Canada opted dominion status over republicanism. No. If an Anglo-American power bloc is to exist in the future as an English speaking answer to the European Union, it could only do so by respecting those little differences that make us New Zealanders, Australian, Canadian, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English and American (along with respecting the indigenous populations of North America, Australia and New Zealand).

One thing to note is what to call such a union, as I'm sure that every English speaker in Botswana would be thrilled to be part of the United States of America.

The United States of America is an indicator that there are a bunch of states situated within the American continent, and are united in some way. As you can see, the map to your right shows English speaking countries in red, and a list can be found through the link. As you can see, it's pretty well spaced out. The English Speaking World isn't just situated in America, and while the Expansionist Party of the United States may like the idea of uniting all British speakers, the way they want to go about it kind of sucks.

The Expansionists essentially believe that countries such as New Zealand, Canada, Australia and those from the British Isles reform themselves into states and counties and embrace the American way of government. Ummm . . . the American way of government may be good for the United States, but it may not be good for New Zealand or even American Samoa (conversationally, there would be very change for American Samoa or Hawaii - as both are administered by elected governors). Not to mention reformat one country, with its various provinces, countries, fifes and what nots, into a state of a greater union modeled after the United States. And why should we model it after them anyway? Remember that the principle premise here is unifying the English speakers into one big happy family. Aren't we that already through the Commonwealth of Nations, and weren't we a big happy family under the British Empire?

Maybe, instead of expecting other countries to conform to their ideas, why not have the Expansionists urge the United States of America join the Commonwealth -- and help mold into an English speaking variant of the European Union?