Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Monsieur Z" channel.

  1. Britain's basically the only one with anything to gain from the arrangement in practice though. Canada's basically stuck doing what the USA wants or getting wrecked regardless, Australia and New Zealand are still heavily dependant on Chinese trade and barely more protected from Chinese expansionism (if anything, such a union would just make us a bigger threat, and thus higher priority target)... And then there's the UK's track record with such arrangements. (See: ditching us to join the EEC, the entire disaster that has been leaving the EU (I mean, Joining in the first place was a terrible idea, but they'd have been hard pressed to handle leaving any more badly than they did without skipping the whole negotiation process and just declaring war on the EU.))
    4
  2.  @SirBrasstion  ... Meanwhile, pretty much anyone in the CANZUK nations who's been paying attention (to sources other than Australian television news, anyway, as that's just "fox, except we can't quite get away with being Blatant insane") has no interest in any such arrangement that isn't preceded by the Republican party being utterly destroyed, the Democrats heavily fragmented, and wholesale systemic reform to purge the corruption, excessive corporate influence, and blatant Insanity from the government of the USA... And that mostly as a precursor to actually being able to pass laws sorting out the USA's Appaling labor laws, disasterous prison system, disproportionately terrible law enforcement, and business law that's more loophole than law, just to start with. And no, that has nothing to do with China. The difference between China and the USA, from the outside? China uses political power to oppress its citizens and money to oppress outsiders. The USA uses money to oppress it's citizens and politics to oppress outsiders. Both use as much force as they can get away with without destabilizing the situation enough to endanger their elite both at home and abroad. And both cling excessively to outdated and defective ideology for legitimacy. Nations stuck having to choose between them generally just pick whichever leads to the lowest risk of being invaded or subjected to a coup.
    3
  3. Well... At least they're not trying to jam the USA in there as well...
    2
  4. Given the a later, similar, map, I'm fairly sure that, despite what the narration implies, that's a map of countries that use FPTP systems. Noticeably, New Zealand, which was part of the British Empire but does not use FPTP, is not coloured on this map buts is coloured on the map of countries that use proportional voting systems.
    2
  5. The problem with an anglosphere union is that it would arguably include South Africa (a disaster that would either be a massive stain on the whole thing or a Massive resource drain), the United states, which is probably the most poorly managed of the lit and would either end up defacto running the show or in a case of perpetual revolt (though splitting it up into smaller blocks (not individual states) and then dealing with those rather than the whole thing as a single unit might help, Britain's parliament is an embarrassment at least half the time (and then there's the seperateists)... Oh and good luck getting the USA to join a monarchy, meanwhile New Zealand's Government implodes for lack of legitimacy if you get rid of the monarchy or make it subordinate to an outside entity (oh, and bonus points, the monarch needs to be a descendant of Queen Victoria or the same issues come up) I'm reasonabley sure India would want nothing to do with the idea... And if not you run into the issue that if you're fair by population India dominates everything, but if you're fair by any other measure indian citizens are woefully under represented in and underserved by the resulting imperial government. And then there's how the hell you'd even govern the thing. Almost every nation involved uses very different electoral systems, and there's very little that's consistent about how they're run beyond Having an elected legislature. Most of them derive their legal tradition from pre-American independence British law to some extent, but have gone in radically different directions since. (And it's often the USA that would be the problem when it came to resolving things). And where would the capital be? Arguably geography says South Africa, which is a terrible idea. Various other arguments favour the USA or India, each with their own issues. London would be Traditional, but you'd be hard pressed to put it closer to potential enemies without sticking it in northern India, so that's clearly silly. Let's not even get into the headaches that are currency. Arguably the USA Alone is too big to run on a single currency without it causing significant problems, let alone a new Empire. (Though it would be nice to see florins back in use somehow...)
    2
  6. Actually, most of the other countries are Probably more worried about the USA, including, among other things, its occasionally rabid anti-monarchist bent, utter lack of respect for the sovereignty of other nations, horribly corrupt governmental system, and the sheer size of its economy compared to the rest of the would be member states. Among other things. Many, many things. On the up side, reduced Chinese influence, yay?
    1
  7. Meanwhile, Sane people wouldn't touch it with a barge pole until after the whole putrid edifice was actively purged of all but the most moderate of both democrats And republicans, and then the entire shitshow that is the american electoral system was ripped out and replaced with something less prone to extreme tribalism, and extremism in general. (Let's not even get into the utter disaster of corruption that is most state level politics. Or the corporate lobbying.)
    1
  8. ... no one wants that. It is a Terrible idea. I mean, maybe if you disolved the Union first and the independent states joined up a few at a time it might not be a total shit show, but I can't see it working any other way.
    1
  9. If you think That's a good idea, you haven't paid any attention to how the USA treats treaties and agreements. Give you a hint: the only non-standard thing about Trump was his unwillingness to even Pretend to deal in good faith. Congress just straight up never ratifies anything that isn't horribly lopsided in the USA's favour. Take a look at what happened to the TPPA: it started off as a bog standard trade agreement between a few smaller nations around the Pacific. The USA wasn't invited. They forced their way in anyway, threw their weight around until it included a million protectionist measures to cripple other nations businesses ability to compete with US corporations In Those Nations, slowing the whole thing to a crawl, then threw a hissy fit and bailed on the whole thing because it still obligated them to make any sort of consesions at all about anything. That last bit sounds like it's just Trump being Trump, but going by past history, congress would have used the same excuse not to ratify it anyway. Not unless enough politicians were bought off by the pharma, music, and movie industries to pass it so as to use meeting treaty obligations as an excuse to force through more anti-consumer legislation. And that's but the first of many problems to cone to mind.
    1