What about an ANZ federation, Trinity? Does that seem too hard to achieve?

When Australia’s population topped 20 million, some commentators were saying “we need a bigger domestic market for economies of scale” and others were saying “this continent can’t handle any more people”. By joining forces with New Zealand, the domestic market instantly jumps to 24 million, without adding a single person to the environmental load. Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Certainly it would be trickier getting people used to the idea of looking to the other side of the Pacific as well, but Australians are great travellers, and I’m sure we could soon warm to going skiing in British Columbia while our Canadian countrymen come surfing down under.

I would probably be in the same boat as Trinity, except that I'd really prefer to be talking about "The Copernican Constitution" -- the culmination of years of work and study, reviewed by Senate Committee, and making real headway in the broader republican movement, but hey that's life!

AUS + NZ: New Zealand becomes a state (or perhaps two) of the Commonwealth under Chapter 6, s121. Australians won't mind that at all, its up to New Zealand. Since this idea has been discussed on and off for 120 years and got nowhere, we know what the likelyhood is. A multi-layered federation with Australia and New Zealand as equal partners is out of the question.

AUS + CANADA: Enormous geographic question mark. This is New South Wales vs Victoria multiplied by 12,000 km. Canadian Senators are retired en mass (they're all appointed). We ask Hawaii to leave the USA (it still has the Union Jack on its state flag) and we put the new capital there. 1 in 2 english-speaking Canadians migrate to Queensland. Australians refuse to learn French, so Quebec says "au revoir" and splits Canada into two.

CANZ + UK: The least likely! Further geographic question marks. Eurosceptics become Canzeptics. UK abandons its 300 year old Westiminster traditions, adopts written constitution, retires House of Lords but keeps the Queen, but Prince William forced to marry a Canadianne against his wishes. UNITED Kingdom divided into Scotland England and Wales again. New name which Americans find very, very funny. Northern Ireland? Don't even want to think about it! Five football codes. Six levels of government. The dream of a cooperative Europe abandoned and the peace dividend from WWII is squandered. Defence planners driven nutty and Dover coast becomes fortress CANZSEW.

NEW BRITISH EMPIRE: How about a new Roman Empire?

Ok, I have had a bit of a think about it. No longer in same boat as Trinity. Less and less convinced it's even a plausable idea.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand get along famously and very co-operatively as independent nations. Existing Commonwealth of Nations plays an important role for developing countries.

[Deleted for language, and once the language was deleted there was no point in the rest of the post.]

We are now off the main page.

Thanks to everyone who contributed their comments.

David

A delited message concluded extracts from a number of postages and one line only: WHAT a C….P!
And the following exchange of letters with moderator is on topic as to further illustrates freedoms and possibilities for opinions not imposed from London:
<<<<<<What a hypocrisy!
In a place where F-word has been considered legitimate to extent of using it even on TV broadcast, CRAP is "abusive"- maybe, for not disturbing of licking the backs of walking relicts whose place in a rubbish bin of history is long overdue.

Graham Young <graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au> wrote:
Michael,

I've deleted your post of yesterday, principally for using the word "Crap", but once I'd deleted the word, the post didn't really make any sense, so I took that away as well.

Could you please avoid using abusive words?

Regards,

Graham Young

Chief Editor
On Line Opinion
Executive Director
National Forum>>>>>>

MichaelK

I saw your post before it was deleted. It consisted of a selection of postings followed by the line "what a load of c**p".

This line does not present any form of cogent debate. After removing this piece of invective there was nothing left except for the selected postings, therefore there was nothing to present as a valid posting from you.

You can argue all you like as to whether C**p is an expletive or not, the bottom line is you did not present anything approaching a valid argument to explain why you believed that the selected postings were "C**p".

The majority of posters here put a lot of thought and work into their postings (whether you agree or not is entirely moot), the least you can do is present a cogent argument to further the debate.

Now please present your case as to why you believe the postings were the equivalent of excrement.

Thank you.