OT: Strange future for down-under?

Loser · #1 July 17th, 2003, 02:11 PM

Or redicoulous, rediculous future works too.

I'm guessing the Postal Code would be OZ.

[ July 17, 2003, 14:22: Message edited by: Loser ]

Erax · #2 July 17th, 2003, 04:15 PM

It isn't that ridiculous if you think about it. Hawaii and Alaska are states and they're non-contiguous with the other 48 states. Texas was an independent, sovereign nation before joining. There is no language barrier. Cultural differences are not a barrier (see Hawaii again). The US allows plenty of latitude in its state laws, so local legislation is not much of a barrier.

It's comes down to holding a national referendum and asking everyone, 'do we or don't we' ?

Loser · #3 July 17th, 2003, 04:37 PM

Hawai'i is small and was taken from another Country (Spain I think, unless you count the Hawai'ian Monarchy). Alaska is sparsely populated and has been the territory of someone distant for a long time. Texas, as a country, was founded by Americans who really just wanted to take the land for Mexico (or was it New Spain at that time?) so that doesn't make a good parallel.

Add to this Australia's isolationist immigration laws, usage of the Metric System, Socialist government (compared to the U.S. anyway), and whole mess of other laws that differ widely from U.S. Federal Law and you have a long and awkward digestion process.

Not to say it isn't possible, but it sure would be uncomfortable.

[ July 17, 2003, 19:41: Message edited by: Loser ]

geoschmo · #4 July 17th, 2003, 04:51 PM

Right, this will happen.

If it does we should insist they set their clock at least to Hawaii time. It's bad enough that Hawii is hours behind everyone else in the country, the state of Australia being a day behind would be just wrong. You guys have your summers and winters mixed up anyway, whats the big deal if you have you days and nights mixed up too.

Geoschmo

Thermodyne · #5 July 17th, 2003, 05:10 PM

Well from what I have seen, it could happen, given the right catalyst. But it would be a long shot. I have family that are Australian citizens, and they would like me to move down under. After a few weeks down under, I was glad to be back up over. America is a mess, but Australia is well on the road to being a second tier third world nation. A free trade agreement with the UsofA would help them a lot, but distance will limit the amount of income that will be created. IMHO based on my observations, Australia is two countries joined by a common government. On one hand you have the cities and on the other hand you have the vast rural areas. And both compete for limited resources. The cities are nice, but the standard of living is not what it is in the US. And in the country, the gap is even wider. If it were not for the low cost of living, people would be complaining very loudly. And if they were voted into the US, it would be as four or five states prolly, not one. That would give them 8 to 10 senators and 25 to 75 congressmen depending on population. Washington will think long and hard about bringing that many new votes into the game that is national politics here in DC. In the climate as it is today, I don�t see Australia being allowed in. It would take a shake up along the lines of a world war or planet wide disaster/event to alter this.

Loser · #6 July 17th, 2003, 05:45 PM

Well, I don't remember the exact rule for House of Representatives. California has a population around thirty-five million, and has around fifty-three Congressional Districts. Australia has, as a whole, a population under twenty million, so if the proportion is simply the same Australia would end up with thirty representatives. Not exactly a powerful bloc, but a bloc nonetheless.

And would the Australian political parties join an already established American political party, or would they just support a U.S. party on national issues (like presidential campaigns, Federal Bills, or Federal Court Justices) as it suited them?

Slick · #7 July 17th, 2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
... It's bad enough that Hawii is hours behind everyone else in the country...

What exactly is so bad about this? I find it much more cumbersome that almost all the other states use daylight savings time. Now there's an idea from the shallow end of the gene pool...

Slick.

geoschmo · #8 July 17th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slick:

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
... It's bad enough that Hawii is hours behind everyone else in the country...

What exactly is so bad about this? I find it much more cumbersome that almost all the other states use daylight savings time. Now there's an idea from the shallow end of the gene pool...

Slick.

I have never understood people's problem with daylight savings time. It only affects you twice a year after all. But being in a different time zone, that cause problems 24/7, 365.

If I trying to do business with someone in Hawaii and I call them at 9 in the morning, they are still sleeping the lazy bastards. And then they have the audactiy to call me at dinner time and try to do work.

Australia would be even worse. If I needed something done at the Last minute on a friday afternoon they would be all like, "But now? It's the saturday! You want me to work on the weekend?"

It's unatural I tell you. Everyone should be on the same time zone as me so I am not inconveienced. And if they whine all the time about it being dark during the middle of the day, well that's what lightbulbs are for aren't they?

Baron Munchausen · #9 July 17th, 2003, 06:33 PM

Now there's an interesting dilemma. It reminds me of the Quebecois 'secession' movement in Canada of the past few decades. If it had succeeded, the 'Maritime' provinces of Canada would have been isolated and probably ended up joining the US. AND... several of Canada's western provincial governments at the time (Alberta and Saskatchewan) had contacted the US State department and asked about the process of joining the US if this happened, so British Columbia would also have been cut off from the 'central' part in Ontario which would probably have led them to join the US within a few years. After that, what happens to the Yukon and NW territories? In other words, if Quebec had succeeded in mustering the political will to break out of Canada it would have shattered and in short order Canada = Ontario and maybe the 'Eskimo' province of Nunavut. Though they'd probably have declared independence by the time B.C. and the Maritimes had joined the US.

At the time I pondered the political ramifications for the US much as you have been discussing the Australia issue. By US political standards most Canadians are outright socialist. Adding a dozen or more 'far left' senators to the US senate would be an incredible earthquake in US politics. Lots of things that conservatives have been just barely staving off would get enacted, like national health care. Yet... it's precisely those 'conservatives' who would be most disadvantaged by this who are the most 'nationalistic' and would be in favor of extending the US anywhere and everywhere they can. It would be really fascinating to see how they would deal with a major movement to add something to the US, whether a province of Canada, a part (or all) of Australia, or perhaps Cuba after Castro (another very real possibility). All of these territories have populations that would be mostly in opposition to them once the 'conservatives' got them into the union. How would they react to this situation?

At present I think this 'Statehood for Australia' movement far less serious than the Quebec secession movement and that was only half serious. The other half was just seeing what they could get out of the Federal government by rattling the bars of their cage.

The author is correct that (much like Canada) Australia just doesn't have a very strong positive sense of national identity, so they tend to daydream idly about 'changing' things even if they don't really want to. Being in fact a distinct nation, if not a confident one, they would have many issues with just adopting the US political/legal/cultural world wholesale. So unless there is a major economic collapse or some other situation that would make Australians seek 'rescue' by the big, powerful US I don't think you need to worry about it too much.

It would be kinda cool to have US Interstate highways running all the way from Washington, D.C. to Nome, Alaska with no border crossings, wouldn't it?

And maybe we would build a 90-mile suspension bridge to Cuba if they joined? Or a tunnel?

Australia would have to be happy with air links, I'm afraid, but we could build a really cool space port or two on the northern side near the equator and have sub-orbital shuttles for quick high-priority transit.

[ July 17, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

geoschmo · #10 July 17th, 2003, 06:45 PM

Personally I think the whole issue laughable and is just this historians way to drum up speeking fees and book sales by expoloiting the current anti-american sentiment abroad. His 20% chance in 50 years is patently ludicrous unless as some of you have said there is some global economic or political catastrophe, and noone can predict those sorts of things. Even if it does who's to say Australia will need us? As the nation more hevily dependant on technology and the current economic status quo perhaps we would be seeking to become part of Australia.

Either possibility is just as likely, as in neither will happen.