• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Federation of Australia be dissolved?

The Stars Tremble

Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
21,363
Reaction score
13,764
Location
NSW, Australia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, this is not a lunatic States' Rights idea. I'm talking about Australian States becoming states of the US!

Firstly, let's deal with the Territories. The major Territories are Australian Capital Territory (no longer needed, becomes part of NSW) and the Northern Territory. If the NT is to become a State, I think it would make sense to carve the North of WA off and add it to the new State of 'Northern Australia.' Mainly because of the high Aboriginal population in both areas. But it might be strategically smarter to present 6 new US states instead of 7. In which case, it would be added to WA.

Does the US even want new states? Puerto Rico says no, but PR is relatively poor. Adding the Australian States to the US would increase (US dollar) GDP by 6.4% (IMF) or 6.6% (World Bank) while increasing population by 8.0%. This is not intolerable, considering that land area would increase by 78%

And what do the Australian states get? Free speech, gun rights and the unequivocal protection of the world's strongest military!
 
You have it the wrong way around: The U.S. should dissolve its government and join Australia: We'd get sensible gun control and environmental protection laws.
 
"Thank you, Miss Fleming, you call me when the shuttle lands."
 
Loulit01 said:
You have it the wrong way around: The U.S. should dissolve its government and join Australia: We'd get sensible gun control and environmental protection laws.
Click to expand...

Neither of those are protected by the Australian Constitution. It's a deliberately weak document, based on the observation that British democracy was working fine while American democracy was marred by a civil war. Without a strong Constitution, a Canberra based Union would be dominated by the more populous states of the US. So there likely WOULDN'T be sensible gun control.

Also, you can't abolish the US Senate, without the consent of EVERY current US State. In other words, you just can't.
 
There's also the perception that Australian States are small in population, but it's really only true of Tasmania.

Tasmania would be very narrowly the least populous state (Wyoming pips it by 10,000) but the others would nestle in well. New South Wales would be the 12th most populous state, after New Jersey. Victoria would be the 19th, after Indiana. Queensland would be the 25th, after Minnesota, West Australia would be the 36th after Nevada, and South Australia would be the 43rd after Idaho.

Merging the smaller states (South Australia and Tasmania) with neighboring States, would make the deal more attractive to Americans. But those States would certainly not consent. They have their equal representation in the Australian Senate, and they wouldn't give it up.
 
Yes, I know it can't happen just like Australia becoming part of the U.S. can't happen. We're just joking here.
 
Loulit01 said:
Yes, I know it can't happen just like Australia becoming part of the U.S. can't happen. We're just joking here.
Click to expand...

Well there are irreconcilable differences. Attitude to snakes on planes, definition of "football" or "hockey" and whether "Mexican" is a really a cuisine.
 
Outright annexation is an unrealistic goal. However, there are alternative options available. Australia already has close diplomatic and cultural ties to the United States. Under the right circumstances, they might be willing to form a federation with our country, which would facilitate a higher level of economic and military cooperation.
 
True. We're selling them nuclear submarines. Too bad Australia can't join NATO.
 
If Stanford and Cal can join the ACC, then I suppose if South Australia, Queensland, etc. wants to join the US, I suppose why not.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If Stanford and Cal can join the ACC, then I suppose if South Australia, Queensland, etc. wants to join the US, I suppose why not.
Click to expand...

One of the selling points is that the US would gain no more land borders. Taking Victoria and New South Wales would create two new borders (with SA and Queensland) so I think that would be a deal breaker for both sides.

It does solve the problem of Tasmania though.
 
I note a certain lack of enthusiasm from US posters.

Maybe if I show you a map (Peters projection, maintaining land area despite some distortion of shape)

 

Not too keen on any of this after enduring Rupert Murdoch for a third of my life.
 

In Australia, our rights are held in place by democratic sentiment, we can change both legislation and the Constitution by popular vote. In the US, rights are decided by unelected bureaucrats at the behest of the rich and powerful. I'm curious as to why you think the right to, say, abortion, being decided by whoever has paid for a bureaucrat's grandnephew's education is a better system?
 
I missed the bit about what the upside is for Australia if they merge with the US and take on responsibility for $trillions in debt that they don't currently have? We can be pretty sure that the majority of Australians don't envy US positions on gun rights, abortion, and even though Australian politics can be a bit dysfunctional sometimes, they won't be envying the corruption that pervades US politics either. In fact, I don't think there are many, if any, wealthy western nations that would see merging with the US as desirable given the current state of social, political, and economic dysfunction.
 

I hadn't considered debt. But really, are states responsible for the debt of the federal government?
 
Ug make hammer said:
I hadn't considered debt. But really, are states responsible for the debt of the federal government?
Click to expand...
Congress, who primarily determine the budget, is a collection of state representatives, so hard to to divorce the states for the budget that congress sets to spend in it's own states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…