Kiwis will only be acceptable when they learn to play cricket.

I did not think that their was anyone left in NZ. They have all moved to greener (not literally) pastures.

Irfan,

I never cease to be amazed at why article writers continue to urinate into the breeze. If you had been born here you would realise that New Zealand has long been regarded as the original failed state. Despite the competition from the Solomons, New Guinea, Fiji, etc., they still retain that image in the eyes of many Australians, but it is no longer valid.

What no-one in Australia seems to realise is that the Kiwis would never agree to join our federation. If our federation had continued as it was originally intended, with laws differing significantly in different states, with people racing from the police to the Queensland frontier, (from which there would be no extradition), there might be some slight hope, but as it is, there is none.

If New Zealand joined our federation it would mean giving up almost all say in their affairs. No country would ever do that unless faced by a catastrophic situation.

From the Australian side, thank heavens NZ didn't join our federation. Just think of the maori problem, which would dwarf the aboriginal problem.

Again, it is a matter of our basic philosophy, which is significantly different due to NZ's lack of a convict heritage. For the sake of boredom, let me restate the four basic points of Australian political philosophy:

1. The government is the enemy of the people, and can never be trusted.

2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency being made up from the sale of politicians' assets.

3. The trouble with elections is that no matter whom you vote for, a POLITICAN is ALWAYS elected.

4. ALWAYS vote NO in referendums.

Good article.

I think an EU like setup would be a better idea with same currency etc. Maybe even bring in Singapoure.

I have always thought Singaporeans integrate far better than Kiwis. But there is a valid point about the centralist tendencies of the Feds. Restore taxing powers to the states, create more of them, produce some genuine social and political diversity based on communities of interest and we may well end up with a workable federation that includes Kiwistan.

Of course, it would need to be more on the european model where the currency may be the same but each state keeps its football and olympic teams. Devolve power, consult regularly on consistent standards and produce a stronger whole based on real synergies.

Good, it is about time we got proportional representation here.

Before federation and the creation of Australia NZ was just another British colony. As I heard it there was talk of NZ joining the federation but the Oz mainland states wanted to spend large amounts of money on railways. The kiwis did not think that this was to their advantage and withdrew.
One seriously doubts that railways are the issue they once were and the dialogue should reopen, if fact it has. The day of the Nation state is drawing to a close, the Union is the new form. This started in Europe but this should be no surprise, so did the Nation State which took over from the City State. Therefore I think that we should move towards a union with NZ. This leaves things open for other countries to join in the future. After all the EU started with small agreements between Germany and France.

Quote plerdsus,

From the Australian side, thank heavens NZ didn't join our federation. Just think of the maori problem, which would dwarf the aboriginal problem.

End quote.

Can you explain what you mean by that please?

I doubt you will though.

Offer the Kiwis the political equivalent of two states (one for the North and one for the South Island) and the possibility is stronger.

More likely however is Auckland becoming the capital of a Confederation of South Pacific states ;-)

Perhaps the Maoris have a Pakeha problem.

StG,

You asked me to elaborate on the maori problem in NZ, and how that would dwarf the aboriginal problem we have here.

Firstly, the maoris are a much larger proportion of the NZ population than aboriginals are here, (about 10% I believe), and they are much more aggressive in pursuing their interests.

I gather for example that the maoris have a quaint idea that if they sell you land they get it back after a period of years, or when you die, I am not sure. I do know that an ancestor of mine went over there in the 1860's and bought a parcel of land from them, and then found that they had sold the same land to seven other purchasers.

For those who favour an EU approach to union, it would seem possible, as like them we have a big island adjacent to a small island. However to comply with EU requirements, we would need to establish a different aboriginal language in each state, with all official documents required to be published in all languages.

It would also be necessary for vehicles on the small island to travel on the opposite side of the road to those on the big island.

Unionists and internationalists never seem able to realise that nationalism goes with territoriality, which we share with most other mammals, and will never be exterminated. What is it about internationalism? Why is it so popular, considering that it is the antithesis of democracy?

Why is 10% Maori a problem? Harder to sweep under the carpet perhaps? Different attitudes to land title are common. In Europe it was dealt with by exinction of title.eg.the Saxons and the Celts, the Normans and the Saxons. If one does not believe that land can be sold then accepting money from as many as possible has its charms.
To have a Union is in no way saying that we should have the same 60,000 pages of rules. The structure of the EU is similar to VISA which is a club owned by its members. Nobody can buy it, it is not even listed. That is to say that the EU is more than a super state it is entirely different and powerful enough to have Jack Danials in 700ml bottles as per their rules. We would need to go through the process of formulating rules for ourselves. Alignment of possible members would take about 60 years as it did in Europe proberly longer. If one was to include all aborignal languages it would be in the order of 350 languages, obviously impractical. Why one per state, I thought we were a federation.
Mankinds groupings have grown from family groups to clans to tribes to city states to nation state and the process continues. There appears to be a direction here. What is important is we work for the best deal for all. Maximum benefit for the least pain

Plersdus... what you say about the maori problem is kind of destroyed by the fact that the Maoris don't have the same problems as the aboriginal communities.

I grew up in New Zealand. I found it quite strange, when at the age of nine I moved to Australia, and there were never more than one or two aboriginal kids in any of the schools I went to.
In New Zealand, the Maoris are a part of society - here they seem to be segregated in outback communities where alcoholism is rife.

Yes, there have been problems with native title in New Zealand, which undoubtedly contributes to paranoia in Australia. Funnily enough, it has been a Maori politician who has rode a wave of success railing against this state of affairs.

As for the article... I can assure you, New Zealand isn't interested in becoming another state of Australia.

Wouldn't that just make it the 52nd state of America?

TurnRightThenLeft,

For once we seem to be in complete agreement when you say that New Zealand is not interested in becoming part of Australia. As far as the maori problem is concerned, all I can say is thank heavens it is not our problem.

The most obvious difference between Aborignines and Maoris is that one were hunter-gathers and the other gardeners. This deep cultural diferencei s not due to raw intelligence, infact studies in NT show that aborignines have a higher raw intelligence than whites. It may be that Oz is not suitable for farming in the long run.
The EU model does not ask one party to join the other but for both to join a new entity. Quite a difference wouldn't you agree.

I am completely in favour of the proposal, and I would like to suggest ANZAC Day 2015 as a target date.

Our federation was meant to include the five states on the Australian continent plus Tasmania plus New Zealand. For reasons that probably made sense at the time, Tasmania (which had split from New South Wales in 1825) decided to join up, but New Zealand (which had split from NSW in 1840) didn't.

Even after a century, there is still no more difference between, for example, Victorians and New Zealanders than there is between Tasmanians and Queenslanders. Except, of course, that Victorians, Queenslanders and Tasmanians also see themselves as Australians, whereas New Zealanders obviously don't and won't.

The combined federation would have to be called something like "Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand", and the sporting teams would have to continue as they are, just like in the UK.

Given the amount of strife in the world when countries are rammed together for political expediency, I am staggered that this topic is being canvassed at all, let alone gathering a few voices in support.

It would actually make equal sense to dispense with the Commonwealth entirely, and go back to individual States.

We have far too many pointless activities keeping our Public Servants spending our hard-earned money to give this idea house-room. Next thing you know there's be a committee, a Quango, a department and a Minister, all on fat salaries, stupendous perks, limitless travel budgets and mind-numbing superannuation entitlements.

It's a joke, and it has gone quite far enough.

Pericles, would you say that NSW, TAS, WA, SA, VIC and QLD were "rammed together for political expediency" in 1901, and, if so, that great strife has come of it? I do not, on either count, nor do I see why either ramming or strife would be the case with Australia and New Zealand.

I am also not convinced that it would make equal sense to disband the Commonwealth and face the world as half a dozen separate countries. A population of just 20 million people makes our international negotiating position difficult enough. Together with New Zealand, it would be somewhat improved. Separated, it would be significantly harmed.

As Ian says Australia was not composed of colonies rammed together. It was a thoughtfully negoiated next step in the growth and evolution of the Australian nation state. Nor was the EU composed of nation states rammed together. In fact it was prior attemps to ram them together that forced the change. I agree that EU gets bad press. Perhaps that is because it is only thing that can force Microsoft to bundle its goods in a competive way or stop vast amalgamations because they could not operate in EU, a market of 550 million. I recommend the book Why will the EU run the 21 Centuary to balance negative press. I would like to see us start thinking about what would a South Pacific Union look like and what the time lines might be.

"It has been recommended that Australia and New Zealand consider merging into one country. Seriously!"

We already are. Why are we still using passports?

If I follow your logic, Ian, you are positioning New Zealand as a colony rather than a sovereign nation.

>>Pericles, would you say that NSW, TAS, WA, SA, VIC and QLD were "rammed together for political expediency" in 1901, and, if so, that great strife has come of it? I do not, on either count, nor do I see why either ramming or strife would be the case with Australia and New Zealand.<<

When I spoke of countries being rammed together I had in mind rather more important areas of the world, such as the Balkans and the Middle East.

>>I am also not convinced that it would make equal sense to disband the Commonwealth and face the world as half a dozen separate countries<<

If you read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote, you will notice that my view it that it makes absolutely no sense to amalgamate Australia and New Zealand, hence, by deduction, it would be similarly stupid for Australia to return to pre-Commonwealth days.

>>A population of just 20 million people makes our international negotiating position difficult enough. Together with New Zealand, it would be somewhat improved.<<

I doubt that very much.

Who - apart from a few thousand extra bureaucrats with their noses in the trough - would benefit from the coming together?

And exactly how would our "international negotiating position" be improved by the addition of 4,168,338 people?* and another piffling 16% on joint GNP?

And what is this nonsense, comparing us to the European Union? As Whispering Ted points out, they are twenty times A/NZ together. And who, in the name of all that is tradeable, would constitute a "South Pacific Union"? The Solomon Islands? Fiji?

No, the only people who could possibly consider such a travesty would be the overpaid, under-performing, dead-weight tax-funded public service, earnestly sending "working parties" to the four corners of the world in order to put together a "discussion paper" that will ultimately be used for only one purpose.

Or perhaps thrown into the wastepaper bin.

*population counted at 0700GMT 30th January 2007

I don’t see much parallel between the EU and our situation, because the EU is made of vastly different cultures, mutually incomprehensible languages, conflicting institutions and ancient enmities. It has served its original function of stopping its members from going to war with each other.

Australia and New Zealand have never been enemies and our cultures are about as similar as you could get, which seems to me to be one of the strongest arguments for a Commonwealth of ANZ. As Rainier says, “Why are we still using passports?” As we do not share that same cultural similarity with our other island neighbours, I wonder at the logic behind a “South Pacific Union”.

Pericles, my logic does not suggest that I am classifying either New Zealand or Australia as a colony. In the 1890s, NSW, TAS, WA, SA, NZ, VIC and QLD were seven self-governing polities whose similarities were far greater than their differences. In the 2000s, Australia and New Zealand are two self-governing polities whose similarities are far greater than their differences. Hence the parallel.

I appreciate that you do not feel that amalgamating ANZ makes sense. I was offering a reason why I think it would represent a logical continuation of our federation. I agree that the addition of New Zealand is a small step, but it is a step in the direction that I see as the right one.

I think an agreement with NZ based on the EU economic community and common market idea is well overdue.

You will never see Australia and NZ give up their identities as we have had them for so long. So the EU idea lets us keep our identities as we slowly evolve towards unity over time.

NZ needs to keep its Waitangi Treaty having special places on their Parliament, or they will have problems in their bi-cultural security.

A common market and common currency are a sensible idea. We could use a lower currency anyway, might be better for exports. An economic council with Waitangi principles would suit Fiji, Australia (with our Aboriginal representatives) and, if you like, Singapore. Why not?

A common border would be good. Passports should not be necessary, although photo ID cards and driver's licences would be a good security measure at customs. If we need customs at all. They already do this with the airlines with seat allocation.

Australia has special needs with quarantine to protect our fragile environment, but I'm sure we could work out something more efficient.

saintfletcher, I quite agree with you that "you will never see Australia and NZ give up their identities as we have had them for so long". In exactly the same way, you can imagine someone in the 1890s saying "you will never see Victoria and Queensland give up their identities ...".

What's more, they would have been right: our identities are still strong after a century of federation, and there is no reason why expanding that federation to include New Zealand would be any different. Canada has had its federation since 1867, but there has been no loss of identity for Alberta or Prince Edward Island.

Even more importantly, there has also been no loss of identity for Newfoundland, which (just like New Zealand) initially decided against federation and became a separate Dominion. That's why I think that the Australian (or indeed the Canadian) model makes more sense for us than the EU one.

I see a union between Oz and NZ based on EU principles as a good first step to a South Pacific Union. This first step should be done carefully as not to preclude admission of future members. A SPU can ot be formed over night, I think 60 years is a likely time span. We have the EU as a model but the countries of this region have higher variability. In the next 60 years we should be preparing the ground. Increased cultural exchange. Student and teacher exchange. A generous number of bursaries for poorer students to study in Oz. The region should start to speak out on common issues on the world stage. We will properly need to offer sensitive assistance in policing social disorder and help establish the rule of law. These are just a few ideas.
If we don't they might join an Asian Union, China's influence is growing in the area. Th Union is the new political /cultural unit, nation states are going the way of the dinosaurs. The Union of South American is underway with economic alignment and internal assistance.
The African Union is more rudimentary at present but it exists.
I think that this subject needs ongoing discussion. 60 years is a long time but the EU took 50 years.

Whispering Ted, I agree with your suggestions in relation to the Pacific Island countries: cultural and educational exchanges, a common voice on common issues (where they exist), assistance in security and nation building. I just don’t see this as leading to any kind of political union, because I don’t think this group of countries is compatible on that level.

The EU has trouble enough with compatibility and, as you point out, the Pacific countries are even more varied than the European ones. I am all in favour of being on the best of terms with our neighbours, but that does not mean that I want EU-style “ever closer union” with them. After all, neighbours are not the same as family.

Union based on geography alone seems fated to lead to little more than bickering and bureaucracy, even among countries with far more in common than Australia and Vanuatu. You mention a “Union of South America”, but in fact no such thing is even close to being proposed: the five-member attempt at a common market (Mercosur) doesn’t even have mechanisms for sorting out bilateral disputes. For the same sort of reason, I see very little chance of ASEAN ever developing into an Asian Union, or of the African Union ever being more than a talking shop for deciding to do nothing in Darfur.

To me, Australia + New Zealand makes perfect sense because of our common culture, values and institutions: we are family. On a larger scale, I would say Canada + Australia + New Zealand makes sense for the same reasons – the CANZ Group already speaks with one voice at the UN – and that would put us on the top table at the G8

Forgive me for being picky, but could someone describe one single concrete and tangible benefit of Australia and new Zealand forming closer ties, whether with a common government as was initially put forward in the article, or in an EU-like alliance?

Just one.

But it needs to be specific and real, as opposed to warm and fuzzy.

From your previous posts, Pericles, it seems that you would reject the potential benefits as being insignificant. True, a domestic market 20% bigger would make a relatively small change to our economy and a population 20% bigger would make a relatively small difference to our international standing. Many of the barriers to business, work, travel and study have already been dealt with, but there are still benefits in removing those that remain.

The greater changes would come from joining with Canada, which also shares our basic culture, institutions and values. That would more than double the size of our economy and greatly increase opportunities for work and study, but if we can’t make it work with New Zealand, then we have little prospect of anything more ambitious

>>Many of the barriers to business, work, travel and study have already been dealt with, but there are still benefits in removing those that remain.<<

I'm yet to understand what these benefits might be, in concrete terms. Can anyone enlighten me?

>>joining with Canada... would more than double the size of our economy and greatly increase opportunities for work and study<<

I'd still like to hear examples of specific instances as opposed to generalities. What exactly would we be able to do, following "joining with Canada", that we cannot do now?

Is this too much to ask?

>>I’d still like to hear examples of specific instances as opposed to generalities. What exactly would we be able to do, following “joining with Canada”, that we cannot do now?

Pericles, Australians would be able to work, study and set up businesses in Canada with the same ease that we currently can in any Australian state. Without the need for visas or permits or quotas, our children would be able to choose to study not only at Melbourne University or Macquarie or UQ, but at the University of British Columbia or McGill, and Canadians would be able to do the same. Do you not see that as an advantage?

It seems that either you are suggesting that there were no benefits to the inhabitants of the Australian states in forming a federation a century ago, or that benefits of the same nature would not obtain in expanding that federation to include New Zealand and/or the Canadian provinces. I’m not sure which.

Irfan, when both of us were Young Liberals - you with the Fundamental Catholic, I, with Korovin, I do remember you being good with your words and quite funny. Being a lawyer, you need to be good with your words.

However, your anti white Australian comments did surprise me. You are showing yourself to be of the same fault of many from Arab nations. That is, refusing to intergrate and quick to attack. Don't like it, leave.

With New Zealand increasingly weak on national security, Australia just may have to take control of New Zealand for her own National security which would be sad to see happen.

OK Ian, you have put together a set of features of our joining with Canada that makes sense from an individual's point of view. They are clearly "nice to have", but where are the advantages at a national level? Given the amount of compromise and tap-dancing that would need to happen to harmonize (say) our immigration laws or States' rights, is this all there is? Just a bit of extra convenience for people who want to study or work in Canada?

Most people who presently have a desire to study or work in Canada today tend to find a way, after all; there is nothing that prohibits either, is there? Why do you believe we need to go through these extraordinary political and economic gyrations simply to make things easier for people who, let's face it, couldn't be terribly keen in the first place, otherwise they would get off their backsides and find a way to make it happen?

Sorry, but the whole exercise is just make-work for bureaucrats with time on their hands and our money in their pockets.

Pericles, if I were involved in business I would probably give business-oriented examples, but as I am a teacher I gave an example more closely related to my area. Calculations regarding the amount of tap-dancing to be done and the scale of potential benefits at that level would, I suppose, have to be left to people who know more than I do. The advantages I see at the national level may well strike you as warm and fuzzy rather than specific and real.

Firstly, I think we have a tendency to be pretty parochial. Federation was a move in the opposite direction: it meant looking beyond existing borders and acknowledging that our similarities were far greater than our differences. If we can’t look across the Tasman and say the same thing now, then I think we have lost something that we had a century ago and given in to parochialism. Canada would be a bigger step, of course, but a step of the same nature. Our view of the world and of our place in it would necessarily become broader if we could think big rather than small and recognise, as the architects of federation did, that others share our basic culture, institutions and values.

Secondly, I think we can actually change how we fit into the international system. If New South Wales were a separate country, it would have relatively little to do with Asia, but Australia as a whole has a certain influence among its northern neighbours. Adding New Zealand to the federation would make a slight change, but a federation of New Zealand, the Australian states and the Canadian provinces would be on quite a different scale. CANZ would, more or less automatically, be part of the G8 and NATO. Rather than being a relatively small and relatively peripheral country that is rarely of any relevance in international affairs, we would be a substantially larger country whose opinion would be likely to count for something more often

We'll have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid.

Yes, we are parochial. But merging with other countries won't make us "un-parochial". We can do that ourselves, by being more aware - and informed - of other countries and geo-political relationships.

Do you think that the content of our six-o'clock news ("two people hurt in light plane crash in Northern NSW") would change significantly in CANZ?

Believe me, I'm not defending our parochialism, merely observing it.

I agree that merging with New Zealand and Canada would not necessarily have the effect of making us less parochial. I suspect that it might (together with the whole public debate and negotiation process), but even if it did, we would probably still have to agree to disagree on cost-benefit questions.

I accept that I am in a pretty small minority in seeing CANZ as a natural and desirable progression for our federation, although I do have some Canadian friends who share the idea

I see the process as being already in place, the game has already begun. There is little to no difference between the negoiations between Oz and NZ and the early negoiations between France and Germany that led to the European Common Market and then the EU. It is a continum.
I think that the inclusion of states other than OZ and NZ in a SPU will take 2-3 generations but we should begin the alinement now. These things take time the EU took 50 years and is still evolving.
I should point out that MEROSUR is more than a common market. By internal funding it diminishes the power of the IMF which is, for historical reasons largely controlled by the USA. This means that South America can regain sway over its own agenda. The IMF travels with that old Russian saying. "The shortage will be divided equally amonst the poor."
There is a problem with bureaucracy in Europe but this largely arises from national and local levels. The actual EU is surpisingly light for 550 million people.
Medieval Europe was a back water, the action was in the East. China had the first cities of a million and far exceeded Europe in steel production. Then through a long and painful process the city states gave way to the Nation States. First they devoured that remaining city states in Europe then swept the world in an orgy of colonisation. Now in Europe they have moved to the next step, a net work of nation states,the EU. This is the structure of the future. The idea that a piffling little nation state that is good at quarrying and cricket can survive for the next centuary is implausable. We are already under the thrall of others.

Whispering Ted, if you truly believe "the actual EU is surprisingly light for 550 million people", you obviously haven't spoken to my 85 year-old mother about it.

Nor, it would appear, have you consulted the EU themselves, who summarise the situation in their own words as follows:

"The existing regulatory environment in the EU is overly complex and consequently represents an obstacle for growth.

The time needed to start-up a firm is dependent on the administrative situation in member states and sometimes takes months.

The cost of regulation, notably the cumulative impact of individual pieces is of understandable concern to those who must work their way through the complex legislative jungle: EU enterprises and industries.

Sometimes the impact of draft EU legislation is not properly assessed and the consequences on the business community unclear."

http://ec.europa.eu/growthandjobs/areas/fiche03_en.htm

There is also the small issue of geography here. Many of the EU states have common borders, or are at most within an hour of their nearest EU "neighbour" by air.

I absolutely share your assessment that we are a "a piffling little nation state that is good at quarrying and cricket", but I am not sure that aligning ourselves with a) an even more "piffling" nation and b) one that is on the other side of the world will solve anything. We are still able to stand on our own two feet, and this will not change. However it could just be jeopardised by sharing our decision-making with others, who by definition do not have Australia's interests at heart.

Pericles I do not need to ask your 86 year old grandmother, although in fact her contact with the EU is likely to be minimal. I have recently returned from living in the UK for 4 years. Most for the regulation that impacted apon us was was national or local. It is true that if you want to set up a busines in EU you must do so in away that is safe and environmentaly friendly. Also you must not exploit your workers, well not to much and rightly so. These rules are weaker in OZ this is to our detriment. You appear to have a media inspired view of the EU. I refer you to "Why to EU will rule the 21st Centuary" by Mark Leonard and Jeremy Rifkins speach in Horizons 2020 at www.siemens.com/horizons. That things do not always run to plan is understandable when some thing new is being built. However one should remember that the EU has a surplus and US has a deficit and the Euro that was predicted to be toilet paper in 6 months now buys over a USD1.20.
The advantage of a union of piffling states is that they have seat at other tables such as Asean and the UN and votes can be used in a cohesive way. This brings more power to the powerless. In developement first there is dependance(colonies) then independance(federation) followed by independance(Network unions?) In this last stage everybodies needs are accomadated.

Oh dear, she wouldn't like that.

>>Pericles I do not need to ask your 86 year old grandmother, although in fact her contact with the EU is likely to be minimal.<<

For a start, she is still only 85 - you didn't take quite so long to reply as you thought.

Also, she has lived all those years in the UK, and has therefore had a great deal more contact with the EU than most people I know.

And if that weren't enough, for the past forty of those years she has been active in Party Politics, and is (and always has been) smart enough to spot when the electorate is being sold a pup at the expense of the bureaucracy.

>>This brings more power to the powerless<<

The underlying issue that she has always taken with the EU is that economic advances are one thing, losing control over your own destiny is another. Given the manner in which Brussels is gradually abrogating UK decisions unto itself, I see her point. Power actually has to be removed from the powerful in order to gift it elsewhere.

Where would that leave Australia in CANZ? Power giver or power taker?

Pericles, I see CANZ as an essentially different kind of beast from the EU because we are already part of one cultural family, whereas the EU countries have mutually contradictory values and institutions and are, in many cases, ancient enemies.

Our federation happened because the people of the different colonies recognised what they had in common. There would be no reason for a CANZ federation to happen unless we could do the same thing. No EU-style federation by stealth. Unless millions of people could look across the existing borders and feel that we all had something in common (something at present without a name, but based on being diverse, multi-ethnic societies built on British foundations), then we would have no reason to want to share sovereignty with each other.

Just as there is a certain power struggle between our states and our Australian federation, so there is between the Canadian provinces and their federation, and so there would inevitably be between the states / provinces and a CANZ federation. We would be part of a federation of 20-odd sates, provinces and territories instead of our current half dozen or so, but the principle would be much the same. The trick, as always, would be finding the balance so that decisions are taken at the most effective level: what the EU calls subsidiarity but fails utterly to implement.

You may be intrigued to know that a number of my British friends would dearly love to cut loose from Brussels and join us, forming a CANZUK federation, which would be another story altogether

Pericles it would appear that your granny is what is known in the UK as a eurosceptic. Eurosceptics run in opinion from those who would stop at a common market to the more rapid such UKIP, the fortess England mob. It is an opinion held by a number of people but rarely by business people. They know too well the benefits of the EU. If the UK pulled out of the EU they would still have comply with much of he regulation. Norway is one example of this. They decided not to join to EU, perhaps because they have not been independant long. But they still must comply but they have no direct input. Which brings us to Democracy very rule and regulation is voted apon by democracy elected members from the UK. Nothing is done by fiat. In fact the EU is constructed so that smaller nations can not be bullied. This makes them feel safe. To return to our own experience. The education system is totally run by bureaucrats with constant inspections. Expensive and an unaccounted for expense but little real result. The Health regulation Councils are bloated, over staffed and inquisitorial. Indeed some are of the opinion that they are doctor bashing paracyts. Both these are strictly National Gov concerns.
The network is the way of the future. We can rail against the like the city states railled against the nation states or not.

Ian has an interesting point, would the brits prefer to be aligned in a CANZUK. To have a union without common boarders is another but not impossible step. I think that UK opinion would vary a lot.For imstance the Scots have a warmer view of French. In South East England a large and growing group of people live one country and work in another. Because we share a language and some history with UK and Canada does not mean we would be a natural fit. There are a myriad of differences once one lives there. Still you have made me think about Unions with out a common geagraphic boarder, an interesting concept..

Ted, the Commonwealth of Australia has no problem including Tasmania, despite the stretch of water that separates it from the mainland states. There would be a somewhat bigger stretch in the case of a Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, but the principle is no different. Including the Canadian provinces – or indeed the UK – would just mean that the distances were a little larger. If we think in terms of land transportation, Perth was extremely isolated from the Eastern states at the time of federation: the journey had to be made by ship. These days it is usually by plane, just as it is to Auckland, Vancouver or Edinburgh.

I don’t deny that there are cultural differences between the various elements of CANZ (or CANZUK), but we have to think in terms of the degree of difference and of compatibility. There are significant differences between Tasmania and Western Australia, between Sydney and Bourke, or between Toorak and Footscray, but our similarities are far more significant, and we deal with the differences. These similarities go beyond a shared language and include our basic values, institutions and expectations of the way a society functions: they are the essential similarities that we also share with New Zealand, Canada and Britain.

Most of the Brits I know are Eurosceptics, precisely because they see the EU as containing differences of culture, values and institutions that are far greater than the similarities. The issue is not so much how EU decisions are reached, as the fact that they do not want to lose their sovereignty to a body that sees and organises the world in a way that is fundamentally foreign to them. Similarly, I know a number of Canadians who hate the idea of drifting towards being part of the USA, precisely because of what they see as important differences of values and institutions. For us, the problem is being left in the corner. ANZ, CANZ and CANZUK would be a continuation of the process of our federation, based on compatibility, not mere proximity

Spin it whichever way you will, gentlemen, but my point remains the same.

Ian, you appear to accept that "there is a certain power struggle between our states and our Australian federation", but proceed to wash over the realities of this in your eagerness to promote the fact that "we [CANZ] are already part of one cultural family".

We have regular, and massive arguments between the States as to who is allowed to do what - witness the current unseemly dog-in-the-manger approach to a national water policy. I suspect there will be similar battles over the environment when that little hobby-horse turns into a full-blown political weapon.

>>The trick, as always, would be finding the balance so that decisions are taken at the most effective level: what the EU calls subsidiarity but fails utterly to implement.<<

You have very cleverly insinuated that the basic reason for this failure is "EU countries have mutually contradictory values and institutions and are, in many cases, ancient enemies." I suggest that this is simply a convenient catch-all for the failure to harmonize the expectations of any given set of states, countries or even regions-within-countries. That they are traditional enemies actually means squat to the individual citizen.

People simply don't work this way. As Thoreau pointed out, "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation". Making grand plans on their behalf to attach them to one artificial political construct or another is bound to fail. Not only that, but will cause resentment against the body that enforces the plan.

We consistently fail to demonstrate, even to ourselves, that we are a genuine federation. The continuous posturing and powermongering shows to the citizen the absolute worst aspects of political game-playing, and they are extremely unlikely to trust a politician - State or Federal - who tells them "forget about the fact we can't solve our domestic inter-State problems, let's become part of an even larger configuration of self-indulgent, self-obsessed and self-interest-driven political geographies."

Sorry, it won't fly. And for all the right reasons.

Ted, being a Eurosceptic is a popular pastime in the UK at the moment, as they stagger towards the end of the piss-weak Blair government, one that has consistently and wilfully abrogated to Brussels its responsibility to govern the country.

You must also understand the impact on the British psyche of Blair's other creations, the Welsh and Scottish assemblies, and the weary cynicism that those bureaucratic monsters engender. It is hardly surprising that UKIP was created to take advantage of the power vacuum that Blair so casually and naively created. Watch closely too for the aftermath of the Scottish elections in May, should the Scot Nats gain ground. An "English Assembly" would then become a real possibility, as opposed to a background grumble.

Yet in the face of all this, you are proposing CANZUK.

You must have an absolutely monumental faith in the ability of a super-federal government to address not only these little "local difficulties", but also Quebec, Motuhake o Aotearoa and the sharing out of States' GST loot, to name but a few.

I'm not sure about your argument "Nothing is done by fiat. In fact the EU is constructed so that smaller nations can not be bullied" either. This is a major sovereignty issue, where the weighted votes of smaller countries, allied with the inertia of some larger members, maintain a corrupt and unfair agricultural policy.

There is also the problem of details like Article 308, which could be used by a government to enact legislation through the EC that they could not get away with in their own country. The most likely use of this, incidentally, would be for so-called "environmental" legislation, which has both an international feelgood factor, and an unpredictable impact on individual economies.

Ian, as a teacher you offer an academic and logical approach to the issue, thinking positively of the joining of similars, where I see the negatives of trying to glue together folks with entirely different aspirations.

There is nothing wrong with idealism, it can both shed light and open doors. But I still feel this is a dream too far.

Pericles,
Our ancestors made something like this happen once, so I don’t see why it couldn’t happen again, but I am under no illusions as to the likelihood of it actually coming to pass. I accept that there are serious problems with our existing federation, but I don’t think I see it as quite so much of a failure as you do. I also don’t think we need to solve all our existing problems before embracing new ones. (Feel free to shake your head in dismay at this point.)

Just to close, since I’m sure we have said all we need to on the subject, I have always accepted that if this federation business doesn’t happen from the ground up, then it doesn’t happen at all. When you say that people will resent any body that forces them into a grand plan, I quite agree with you. If the result of my talking about these ideas is that more people think it’s all a load of rubbish, so be it.

Pericles you should know that eurosceptism is not restricted to UK it is very strong in France. There is a feeling that it is going to fast. However they all face the same problem, how to reap the myriad of ecomonic and social benefits flowing from the EU without being in it. Of course this cannot be done. They whinge but they do not leave. There is always dissent in groups from families, to nations, to federations and beyond. This is a good thing, the constant examination keeps it alive. Federation is a process not a thing. Nominalization of verbs is a tragic thing. See what happens to your relationship with your parenter when you stop relating. Dead meat.
We should stop the endless stonwalling and get on with the job of creating structures that increase well being and freedom instead of fluffing about trying to sustain outdated tribal groupings. First union with the kiwis. Singapore would be nice but it would take time if it is possible. A hundred years from my great grand children could be living in SPU.

Ted, the problem that the Eurosceptics face is, indeed, that it is more difficult to unravel a political alliance than it is to put one together. Making an omelette requires a modicum of skill, but nothing compared to the challenge of recovering whole eggs from the end result.

But I have to take issue with you on the statement:

>>they all face the same problem, how to reap the myriad of economic and social benefits flowing from the EU without being in it<<

My understanding of their falling out of love with the EU is that while there may be the kind of economic advantages associated with any trading bloc, it patently does not bring "social benefits".

And sometime it creates most unwelcome "social benefits", such as a sudden influx of immigrant workers an order of magnitude greater than that which was forecast.

"The UK was one of the three countries, along with Ireland and Sweden, to place no restrictions on workers from the 2004 entrants... After an unexpectedly large influx of workers from Central Europe - an estimated 600,000 in two years - the UK announced that it would impose restrictions on workers from Bulgaria and Romania." Source: BBC

The original government estimate? 15,000 a year.

In fact, this level of immigration has a positive impact on the economy. They keep wages down, driving down costs in areas as diverse as road construction and domestic plumbing services. According to the CBI "Immigrant workers comprise eight per cent of the workforce but ten per cent of the UK's Gross Domestic Product"

However, none of the above resonates with my 85 year-old mother (or even my mythical 86 year-old grandmother).

She won't be convinced that she should think in terms of "creating structures that increase well being and freedom instead of fluffing about trying to sustain outdated tribal groupings."

She still thinks that her "tribal grouping" has been going to hell in a handbasket since they joined the Common Market.

Let me list a few of the advantages of the EU, advantages that may eventually available in a SPU.
More even distribution of wealth.
Greater quality of life than Us since early 1990s.
Longer holidays, US get only 2 weeks a year non mandated. Shorter working week leading to more family time.
A Social support system that reduces imprisonment. In US 2% of the work force are in gaol at huge expense to the tax payer and yet the homicide rate is 4 times higher.
A population that saves compared with massive consumer debt in US. In Europe only the UK has the distiction of spending 120% of its income.
Stronger currency, the euro, the one that was going to be toilet paper in 6 months.
This info is lifted from Jemery Rifkins speech at www. siemens/horizons2020 have a read you might learn something.
News to hand on www.nhne shows that the carcinogen paradioxane is present in baby shampoo in the US but this is not allowed in Europe where there is more evironmental protection.
Is the EU prefect? Far from it but with 61 of 100 largest businesses and 14 of the top 20 banks they ain't so shabby. It is a good model to start with but start we must or be left in the dust scrambbling for a seat with whoever will take us.