• 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!

Union of Earth Republics

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
This is an idea I am working on. It is long-term (beyond our lifetimes). I would appreciate any feedback.

The Union of Earth Republics

The Constitution of the new Union of Earth Republics (UER) is the foundational document for the merger of all Earth nations into a single nation. It has many of the features of the United States of America (USA) Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and such. It includes three main branches of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary branches. It is not exclusively Democratic since the Chinese republic remains Communist. The UER is a union of republics, somewhat like the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was.

The UER Constitution includes features not available in the USA Constitution. These features include an Equal Rights Amendment, term limits for the UER Legislature, line-item veto for the Executive and balanced budget provisions. It also plans for a resolution of economic debt between the republics. Sustainability clauses and a family size limit provision is phased-in.

The UER starts out with just the landmasses of the USA and Russia. For the sake of clarity, the alternative name for the new nation will be the Union of Russian and American Republics. The merger of Russia and the USA is phased-in. It does not initially include free travel between the two republics, a merger of the two economies or a merger of the two militaries. China joins the UER at a later date. China's suffrage int he Legislature is phased-in because of the its larger population size. The goal is one-person, one vote in at least one house of the bicameral Legislature.

A primary goal of the UER is to cease the targeting of the population centers of the UER by the strategic nuclear arsenals of the UER. This change is phased-in. The UER is a pathway to a more peaceful nuclear weapons stance than that of the late 20th Century.
 

biglawnmower

Banned
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
432
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is an idea I am working on. It is long-term (beyond our lifetimes). I would appreciate any feedback.

The Union of Earth Republics

The Constitution of the new Union of Earth Republics (UER) is the foundational document for the merger of all Earth nations into a single nation. It has many of the features of the United States of America (USA) Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and such. It includes three main branches of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary branches. It is not exclusively Democratic since the Chinese republic remains Communist. The UER is a union of republics, somewhat like the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was.

The UER Constitution includes features not available in the USA Constitution. These features include an Equal Rights Amendment, term limits for the UER Legislature, line-item veto for the Executive and balanced budget provisions. It also plans for a resolution of economic debt between the republics. Sustainability clauses and a family size limit provision is phased-in.

The UER starts out with just the landmasses of the USA and Russia. For the sake of clarity, the alternative name for the new nation will be the Union of Russian and American Republics. The merger of Russia and the USA is phased-in. It does not initially include free travel between the two republics, a merger of the two economies or a merger of the two militaries. China joins the UER at a later date. China's suffrage int he Legislature is phased-in because of the its larger population size. The goal is one-person, one vote in at least one house of the bicameral Legislature.

A primary goal of the UER is to cease the targeting of the population centers of the UER by the strategic nuclear arsenals of the UER. This change is phased-in. The UER is a pathway to a more peaceful nuclear weapons stance than that of the late 20th Century.

good luck convincing most middle eastern nations to drop shariah law and their desire for an all islamic world government.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
good luck convincing most middle eastern nations to drop shariah law and their desire for an all islamic world government.

Well, my idea does not force any type of government upon the individual republic. I am just trying to create a practical blueprint towards a world government. I think that the existence of nuclear weapons makes world government the only reasonable alternative. The trick is where to get started. I think that the starting point is to get Russia and the USA to merge first. This will reduce polarization between two of the most important players in nuclear tension.
 

uptower

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
11,152
Reaction score
7,155
Location
Behind you - run!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
good luck convincing most middle eastern nations to drop shariah law and their desire for an all islamic world government.

Good luck getting any nation or ethnic enclave to agree with all the others on most things. As stated many Muslim countries cannot abide the separation of church and state; neither can half of the US. European nations have liberal welfare policies that dog-eat-dog economies like America and China won't tolerate. Totalitarian regimes won't accept the relative people power of the US and Europe. Aussies and Kiwis will never be forced to wear proper shoes outdoors.

It is simply impossible to get most countries to agree on anything. We're stuck with this planet and stuck fighting over it.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Good luck getting any nation or ethnic enclave to agree with all the others on most things. As stated many Muslim countries cannot abide the separation of church and state; neither can half of the US. European nations have liberal welfare policies that dog-eat-dog economies like America and China won't tolerate. Totalitarian regimes won't accept the relative people power of the US and Europe. Aussies and Kiwis will never be forced to wear proper shoes outdoors.

It is simply impossible to get most countries to agree on anything. We're stuck with this planet and stuck fighting over it.


I tried to acknowledge that merging economies has to come at a later time, maybe centuries from now. It is mostly nuclear weapons that drive my idea. Creating a pathway towards a more peaceful configuration is my long-term goal. Reconciling differences in economies would come later, maybe much later.
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
7,924
Reaction score
5,248
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is an idea I am working on. It is long-term (beyond our lifetimes). I would appreciate any feedback.

The Union of Earth Republics

The Constitution of the new Union of Earth Republics (UER) is the foundational document for the merger of all Earth nations into a single nation. It has many of the features of the United States of America (USA) Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and such. It includes three main branches of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary branches. It is not exclusively Democratic since the Chinese republic remains Communist. The UER is a union of republics, somewhat like the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was.

The UER Constitution includes features not available in the USA Constitution. These features include an Equal Rights Amendment, term limits for the UER Legislature, line-item veto for the Executive and balanced budget provisions. It also plans for a resolution of economic debt between the republics. Sustainability clauses and a family size limit provision is phased-in.

The UER starts out with just the landmasses of the USA and Russia. For the sake of clarity, the alternative name for the new nation will be the Union of Russian and American Republics. The merger of Russia and the USA is phased-in. It does not initially include free travel between the two republics, a merger of the two economies or a merger of the two militaries. China joins the UER at a later date. China's suffrage int he Legislature is phased-in because of the its larger population size. The goal is one-person, one vote in at least one house of the bicameral Legislature.

A primary goal of the UER is to cease the targeting of the population centers of the UER by the strategic nuclear arsenals of the UER. This change is phased-in. The UER is a pathway to a more peaceful nuclear weapons stance than that of the late 20th Century.

annrice234:

Why would any sovereign nation-state want to join the UER and surrender some or eventually all of its sovereignty to a higher level of government which in all likelihood would be less responsive to its local wants and needs? What does the UER offer states which elect to join it? What does the UER withhold from states which refuse to join it? If you want to build this idea and achieve a unified global level of governance, then you're going to have to sell it to people who don't think like you and who have very different ideological and belief-based world views. How are you going to get officially atheist Chinese, Shi'ite Iranians, Sunni Arabs and Indian Hindus or Buddhists to sit down and cooperate with your Judeo-Christian-based, classical liberal slanted ideas on how to run the world? Why should they listen to you; what does your idea offer to them which is more attractive than having power over their own little corner of the world? What is the political magnetism which is going to draw member states into your Union and what will be the glue which will keep them in your Union and be satisfied once they do join?

The world is filled with good and bad people. Unfortunately a disproportionate number of the powerful in most countries are too often the bad people. How will you convince these power-hungry and very greedy "bad" movers and shakers to cease being big fish in their own little ponds and become much smaller fish in a global ocean full of foreign sharks and killer whales?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
annrice234:

Why would any sovereign nation-state want to join the UER and surrender some or eventually all of its sovereignty to a higher level of government which in all likelihood would be less responsive to its local wants and needs? What does the UER offer states which elect to join it? What does the UER withhold from states which refuse to join it? If you want to build this idea and achieve a unified global level of governance, then you're going to have to sell it to people who don't think like you and who have very different ideological and belief-based world views. How are you going to get officially atheist Chinese, Shi'ite Iranians, Sunni Arabs and Indian Hindus or Buddhists to sit down and cooperate with your Judeo-Christian-based, classical liberal slanted ideas on how to run the world? Why should they listen to you; what does your idea offer to them which is more attractive than having power over their own little corner of the world? What is the political magnetism which is going to draw member states into your Union and what will be the glue which will keep them in your Union and be satisfied once they do join?

The world is filled with good and bad people. Unfortunately a disproportionate number of the powerful in most countries are too often the bad people. How will you convince these power-hungry and very greedy "bad" movers and shakers to cease being big fish in their own little ponds and become much smaller fish in a global ocean full of foreign sharks and killer whales?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Well, somehow the European Union was formed despite the differences between the nations of Europe. Surely, the existential threat of nuclear war is a reason to at least consider a union between Russia and the USA.
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
7,924
Reaction score
5,248
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, somehow the European Union was formed despite the differences between the nations of Europe. Surely, the existential threat of nuclear war is a reason to at least consider a union between Russia and the USA.

annrice234:

The existential threat exists because neither the USA nor Russia trust each other and their military rivalry is about 2/3 of what is dividing the world. Those in power in both states prefer to maintain the balance of terror created by nuclear arsenals rather than taking the chance and making the sacrifices necessary to end the need for very large nuclear arsenals. Likewise the leaders of India and Pakistan prefer to live on the nuclear knife-edge of mutually assured destruction rather than solving their core and fundamental differences. There is a demand among political elites from London, and Paris to Pyongyang and even Tokyo for nuclear weapons and the profits generated by a permanent state of forever-war with its attendant arms races. How will you compete with the greed of elites who see profit and power in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and their desire for greater power? It will take quite a prophet to seduce the greedy from profit. How will you do that?

The EU is much more culturally homogeneous than the rest of the world. Cobbling together an EU and keeping it together (so far) is much easier than creating a uniting global government from independent and very jealous states from around the world. You have got to have a big idea to sell this Union of yours. What is that idea, given that nuclear weapons arsenals suit power elites just fine?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
annrice234:

The existential threat exists because neither the USA nor Russia trust each other and their military rivalry is about 2/3 of what is dividing the world. Those in power in both states prefer to maintain the balance of terror created by nuclear arsenals rather than taking the chance and making the sacrifices necessary to end the need for very large nuclear arsenals. Likewise the leaders of India and Pakistan prefer to live on the nuclear knife-edge of mutually assured destruction rather than solving their core and fundamental differences. There is a demand among political elites from London, and Paris to Pyongyang and even Tokyo for nuclear weapons and the profits generated by a permanent state of forever-war with its attendant arms races. How will you compete with the greed of elites who see profit and power in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and their desire for greater power? It will take quite a prophet to seduce the greedy from profit. How will you do that?

The EU is much more culturally homogeneous than the rest of the world. Cobbling together an EU and keeping it together (so far) is much easier than creating a uniting global government from independent and very jealous states from around the world. You have got to have a big idea to sell this Union of yours. What is that idea, given that nuclear weapons arsenals suit power elites just fine?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I am really trying to sort out long-term priorities. It seems to me that the politics will take a long time to sort out, but why not get to work on that new Constitution? Maybe if some businesspeople with experience in mergers could get involved, they could offer advice about how to make it an initial merger happen in a matter of decades rather than centuries.
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
7,924
Reaction score
5,248
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I am really trying to sort out long-term priorities. It seems to me that the politics will take a long time to sort out, but why not get to work on that new Constitution? Maybe if some businesspeople with experience in mergers could get involved, they could offer advice about how to make it an initial merger happen in a matter of decades rather than centuries.

annrice234:

What is your top priority? Decide what that is and then come up with a way to get people who see the world very differently from the way you do to buy into your idea/priority. You have to be very creative and you will have to be very persuasive. Whatever you come up with, it would be interesting if you would consider sharing it here with us.

There might be another way to approach your goal. Rather than focusing on governments you might consider influencing people in a global grass-roots movement toward unification. Rather than going for a top-down appeal to governments which may very well reject global governance and fight it vigorously, you could take a bottom-up approach and create the fertile political soil in which the seeds of the Union could grow. The revolution in peer-to-peer communication and the power of social media make one person's voice with a good idea much stronger today. Get like-minded people from around the world on board and you may be able to effect change despite the powerful elites and their vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

Great ideas which can change the world are rare, but when they come along they are very hard to stop from spreading and establishing themselves. If your big idea is a great idea then you may succeed in your Union. But beware, great ideas are not always good ideas, and some great ideas in history have been pretty awful on humanity. So think long and hard about your big idea and try to craft it so it is both a great and a good idea. Then roll up your sleeves and get cracking on selling it to elites or common folk all over the world.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
annrice234:

What is your top priority? Decide what that is and then come up with a way to get people who see the world very differently from the way you do to buy into your idea/priority. You have to be very creative and you will have to be very persuasive. Whatever you come up with, it would be interesting if you would consider sharing it here with us.

There might be another way to approach your goal. Rather than focusing on governments you might consider influencing people in a global grass-roots movement toward unification. Rather than going for a top-down appeal to governments which may very well reject global governance and fight it vigorously, you could take a bottom-up approach and create the fertile political soil in which the seeds of the Union could grow. The revolution in peer-to-peer communication and the power of social media make one person's voice with a good idea much stronger today. Get like-minded people from around the world on board and you may be able to effect change despite the powerful elites and their vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

Great ideas which can change the world are rare, but when they come along they are very hard to stop from spreading and establishing themselves. If your big idea is a great idea then you may succeed in your Union. But beware, great ideas are not always good ideas, and some great ideas in history have been pretty awful on humanity. So think long and hard about your big idea and try to craft it so it is both a great and a good idea. Then roll up your sleeves and get cracking on selling it to elites or common folk all over the world.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I thought about how it might turn into a disaster, but the current nuclear tensions are, to me, more scary for humanity's long-term future. I agree that my idea has to have grassroots support, but the thing I am concerned about with taking a simple grassroots approach is that it might encourage allies to unite, such as the USA and the UK. My fear is that such would only further increase polarization between Russia and the USA. It is that polarization between those two countries that is the most important. A direct approach on reducing that polarization seems to me to be the best place to start because then the goals would remain the same even decades from now. It might take a long time. We might have to wait for the current leadership to leave office (Trump, Putin) and Putin might just end up being president-for-life of Russia.

Realistic long-term goals is what I am looking for so that I can tell my children that there is a rational basis of hope of someday escaping the current Mutually Assured Destruction policy/trap of the USA. I think that writing that updated Constitution will most effectively communicate the vision to the grassroots. Just study how the statesmen authored and promoted the US Constitution. It should help the parties involved to prepare to compromise in order to shape a better future for future generations.
 
Last edited:

queenmandy85

Active member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
276
Reaction score
115
Location
Saskatoon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Perhaps, it would be easier to build off the Commonwealth. Bring Russia and the US in as associate members to start with and then China. This concept of a world wide union has been tried before with some success. It was called the British Empire. We had a century of virtual peace called Pax Britanica. The Francophonie could also be invited to join. Of course, the current head of the Commonwealth would need to remain.
 

RobertU

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
718
Reaction score
199
Location
Vacaville, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
annrice234:

The existential threat exists because neither the USA nor Russia trust each other and their military rivalry is about 2/3 of what is dividing the world. Those in power in both states prefer to maintain the balance of terror created by nuclear arsenals rather than taking the chance and making the sacrifices necessary to end the need for very large nuclear arsenals. Likewise the leaders of India and Pakistan prefer to live on the nuclear knife-edge of mutually assured destruction rather than solving their core and fundamental differences. There is a demand among political elites from London, and Paris to Pyongyang and even Tokyo for nuclear weapons and the profits generated by a permanent state of forever-war with its attendant arms races. How will you compete with the greed of elites who see profit and power in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and their desire for greater power? It will take quite a prophet to seduce the greedy from profit. How will you do that?

The EU is much more culturally homogeneous than the rest of the world. Cobbling together an EU and keeping it together (so far) is much easier than creating a uniting global government from independent and very jealous states from around the world. You have got to have a big idea to sell this Union of yours. What is that idea, given that nuclear weapons arsenals suit power elites just fine?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Even the future of the EU looks dicey, given Brexit and the drift of Eastern Europe toward Trumpism.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Perhaps, it would be easier to build off the Commonwealth. Bring Russia and the US in as associate members to start with and then China. This concept of a world wide union has been tried before with some success. It was called the British Empire. We had a century of virtual peace called Pax Britanica. The Francophonie could also be invited to join. Of course, the current head of the Commonwealth would need to remain.

I think that Russia and the USA are the logical starting points because they present the greatest danger with their large nuclear arsenals. In fact, I imagine that, except perhaps for North Korea, you would want to invite nations into the Union based on the size of their nuclear arsenals. Then you would sort by if they have nuclear reactors and then by uranium mines. The rest of the nations would be invited in by other criteria. What I had in mind was a Union where the greatest threats to Peace would be addressed first.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Even the future of the EU looks dicey, given Brexit and the drift of Eastern Europe toward Trumpism.

The comparison with the EU is a loose one. My point is that countries can overcome their cultural and even language differences and form new Unions. It would take a lot of work, education and trust-building, but I think that the people of Russia and the USA can see the wisdom in addressing the relatively new threat of nuclear war by recognizing how destructive it would be to both sides. We have the United Nations, but I think a direct Union between Russia and the USA would produce faster results in reducing the polarization between these two countries.
 

queenmandy85

Active member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
276
Reaction score
115
Location
Saskatoon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think that Russia and the USA are the logical starting points because they present the greatest danger with their large nuclear arsenals. In fact, I imagine that, except perhaps for North Korea, you would want to invite nations into the Union based on the size of their nuclear arsenals. Then you would sort by if they have nuclear reactors and then by uranium mines. The rest of the nations would be invited in by other criteria. What I had in mind was a Union where the greatest threats to Peace would be addressed first.

It would be better to start with non-republics. The danger in starting with Russia and the US is both are republics. It would be difficult to get them to change. Among democracies, republics are the worst form of government.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It would be better to start with non-republics. The danger in starting with Russia and the US is both are republics. It would be difficult to get them to change. Among democracies, republics are the worst form of government.

But if you start with countries with fewer nuclear weapons, you might end up with a solution as weak as the United Nations. The UN has had a chance to reduce the nuclear threat, but it seems to have run its course. I do not see much further progress via the UN in the near future as far as making the world safer for future generations against nuclear war.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Does anyone think that a family size limit is impossible to implement? I can think of other means that might be more scary, such as randomly sterilizing some percentage of newborns in order to stabilize world population. What we need are laws that will help us to achieve sustainability. Being an optimist, I predict that someday, the people of Earth will reproduce in a sustainable fashion.
 

Raegchu

New member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This idea is a very good one, but there will be one problem: Not all countries will agree on this, first being foremost the fact that you suggested using the USA's Government System. In a United Earth, Democracy cannot exist, because then businesses will have no reason to even exist. Why? There'd be no trade. No foreign relations or whatever. And even if they do, It would just be utterly pointless - The flow of money will remain stale, and so everyone will be equal, no rich or poor.

And another thing - Not all countries will agree on the American Government System. Use Russia, as an example. They are the only one who have the will to try and conquer the world to make everyone fall under their control. Russia will become the Central Controlling Power, and if this idea of yours succeed, you will make war between your alliance and Russia and other nations who are with them.

I have a better proposal, but it isn't complete yet.
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
This idea is a very good one, but there will be one problem: Not all countries will agree on this, first being foremost the fact that you suggested using the USA's Government System. In a United Earth, Democracy cannot exist, because then businesses will have no reason to even exist. Why? There'd be no trade. No foreign relations or whatever. And even if they do, It would just be utterly pointless - The flow of money will remain stale, and so everyone will be equal, no rich or poor.

And another thing - Not all countries will agree on the American Government System. Use Russia, as an example. They are the only one who have the will to try and conquer the world to make everyone fall under their control. Russia will become the Central Controlling Power, and if this idea of yours succeed, you will make war between your alliance and Russia and other nations who are with them.

I have a better proposal, but it isn't complete yet.

I envision starting with uniting Russia and the USA into one country. It is a difficult step, but easier than trying to unite the whole World all at once. It would be tricky negotiations. I think that real challenge would be to get the USA to make the concessions needed to make the compromise work. I do not think that it would change the business environment much, except perhaps for the expensive defense industries. I am really looking for the minimum amount of change to get the nuclear weapon standoff between Russia and the USA improved.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
37,812
Reaction score
3,311
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is an idea I am working on. It is long-term (beyond our lifetimes). I would appreciate any feedback.

The Union of Earth Republics

The Constitution of the new Union of Earth Republics (UER) is the foundational document for the merger of all Earth nations into a single nation. It has many of the features of the United States of America (USA) Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and such. It includes three main branches of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary branches. It is not exclusively Democratic since the Chinese republic remains Communist. The UER is a union of republics, somewhat like the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was.

The UER Constitution includes features not available in the USA Constitution. These features include an Equal Rights Amendment, term limits for the UER Legislature, line-item veto for the Executive and balanced budget provisions. It also plans for a resolution of economic debt between the republics. Sustainability clauses and a family size limit provision is phased-in.

The UER starts out with just the landmasses of the USA and Russia. For the sake of clarity, the alternative name for the new nation will be the Union of Russian and American Republics. The merger of Russia and the USA is phased-in. It does not initially include free travel between the two republics, a merger of the two economies or a merger of the two militaries. China joins the UER at a later date. China's suffrage int he Legislature is phased-in because of the its larger population size. The goal is one-person, one vote in at least one house of the bicameral Legislature.

A primary goal of the UER is to cease the targeting of the population centers of the UER by the strategic nuclear arsenals of the UER. This change is phased-in. The UER is a pathway to a more peaceful nuclear weapons stance than that of the late 20th Century.



Why would the people of the UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Spain (amongst others) have to give up their monarchies and accept republicanism?

Why should they have to accept mob rule ?

The momentum today is for artificially created super-states to break up into smaller nations with their own identities.

The USSR broke up, as did Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia...the UK is not looking so steady.


Essentially why do you think people would willingly accept a foreign regime and foreign constitution imposed on them ?
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Why would the people of the UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Spain (amongst others) have to give up their monarchies and accept republicanism?

Why should they have to accept mob rule ?

The momentum today is for artificially created super-states to break up into smaller nations with their own identities.

The USSR broke up, as did Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia...the UK is not looking so steady.


Essentially why do you think people would willingly accept a foreign regime and foreign constitution imposed on them ?

Right now, we live on the edge of Mutually Assured Destruction. How else are we going to make progress about the nukes other than by merging?
 

annrice234

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Why would the people of the UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Spain (amongst others) have to give up their monarchies and accept republicanism?

Why should they have to accept mob rule ?

The momentum today is for artificially created super-states to break up into smaller nations with their own identities.

The USSR broke up, as did Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia...the UK is not looking so steady.


Essentially why do you think people would willingly accept a foreign regime and foreign constitution imposed on them ?

The break-ups you refer to are short-term trends. I am talking about long-term trends on the order of centuries. People want safety. The reality with nuclear weapons is that we live in a rather dangerous world right now. A world government with a proper constitution could be much safer than what we have right now.

In a sane, one-government world, nuclear weapons could be held in reserve to defend Earth from invasion by alien life forms. Right now we point them at each other's population centers and the whole scheme is on a launch-on-warning alert status. Every minute of every day is a hazard. Future generations deserve a better world than this.
 

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
37,812
Reaction score
3,311
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Right now, we live on the edge of Mutually Assured Destruction. How else are we going to make progress about the nukes other than by merging?

By "mereging" you mean smaller states being conquered by larger states ?


And that's supposed to make the world a safer place ?
 
Top Bottom