Atlantic Union
Polkergeist:
After WWII there was a movement (I don't know how big it was) for democratic nations on both sides of the Atlantic to federate under a federal constitution.
A book was written about it by Clarence Streit 'Union Now' both in 1939 and updated in 1949 and can be found in full online.
http://www.constitution.org/aun/aun0--00.htm
Streit argued that several nations should federate and went as far as to write a draft consitution and nominated founding members.
In his 1939 edition his founders list included:
US
Canada
UK
France
Holland
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Australia
New Zealand
South Africa
Ireland
Switzerland
Sweden
Finland.
In his 1949 edition Streit suggested that NATO founding members be the nucleus of this union.
The idea has its day in the 1950's and 1960's when the idea of an Atlantic convention was mooted by some in the US Congress and a North American confederation was a mooted by both Nixon and Rockefeller in their 1960 deal for Nixon to ascend to the GOP presidential nomination of that year.
But now the idea is dust. Why did this happen ?
and
If the Atlantic union came into being what would it be like?
What would have happened to the cold war?
What would an Atlantic Union election look like?
Brambila:
This is interesting as in one of my theories about the politics of the world I predicted that the western and some southern states would split from the eastern states, and the eastern half of the nation would unite with the European Union.
At any rate, I think that such a unity would be a huge mistake, as Europeans and Americans have completely different politics, and we would automatically become a very liberal nation. In addition, there'd be a lot of problems finding a leader of this nation who pleases all the ethnicities in Europe and the US. For instance, if we had a Spanish be president, the Basques would be angry; if we had a French as presidents, the Americans would be angry; etc. Hence, I believe that if such a unity happened, Europe and the United States would fall into a collapse, and the Soviet Union would take advantage of it. NATO would have been, comparatively, a good alternative.
M:
I like it! I think we could now include all of Latin America and Japan, at the least.
Polkergeist:
Quote from: Brambila on August 19, 2004, 10:10:30 AM
At any rate, I think that such a unity would be a huge mistake, as Europeans and Americans have completely different politics, and we would automatically become a very liberal nation.
I'd imagine that at least in the first few decades thw two main political groupings in this federation would no be left and right but federalist and Atlanticist (centralist). As any political body would be unlikely to give up much of its powers out of pure self interest. Hence big economic measures and social legislation would remain a the national level. Only after a few decades when we nations finally become comfortable with their fellow federal members will the federal power increase. By that time the political climate in North America and Europe may be different. To give an example if Federation occured in the 50's or early 60's it would give new meaning to the term Christian Democrat across the federation.
Quote from: Brambila on August 19, 2004, 10:10:30 AM
In addition, there'd be a lot of problems finding a leader of this nation who pleases all the ethnicities in Europe and the US. For instance, if we had a Spanish be president, the Basques would be angry; if we had a French as presidents, the Americans would be angry; etc. Hence, I believe that if such a unity happened, Europe and the United States would fall into a collapse, and the Soviet Union would take advantage of it. NATO would have been, comparatively, a good alternative.
There would have been national rivalries but that would have been checked by fear of the USSR. Hence in the 50's and 60's this federation might have seemed like a good idea but now with some emnity between the continental Europe and the US it is not a realistic proposition , if it ever was before
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자):
Without at least the UK or France on board, there is no way that the US would see enough potential gain from this to want to do it. France never had the potential interest. By the time France had accepted the fact that it could not maintain its colonial empire, it had already committed itself to idea of a European union, not an Atlantic one. A unified US/Commonwealth might have been a possibility as it would not have had by and large language problems. However the US political system with its explicit seperation of powers and the Commonealth's parlimentary politics don't make for an easy merger of the two systems, even with the complication of European royalty Had the UK either rejected or been rejected for inclusion in the EEC in the 70's, it is possible that instead of NAFTA we would have NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Area) which would include the current NAFTA countries, the UK, some or all of Scandanavian countries (at a minimum Iceland and Norway), the former British Carribbean colonies, and maybe Ireland.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page