Jacoby wrote:
I've always like the idea of Anglosphere union of some sorts tho, it would seem like a good alternative to the EU for the UK even without the US being officially apart of it by forging closer relations with Canada, Australia, New Zealand. To me that seems a lot easier to swallow given our shared language, heritage, and culture.
We have more in common culturally with Europeans than Commonwealth people who live on the other side of the world. It's also much more practical.
If America were a part of it, then we might be talking - but the union would probably be intolerably right-wing for the Commonwealth to accept it.
AntDog wrote:
Australia and New Zealand are usually not defined as part of the New World. They are separated by the Pacific Ocean.
A union of the 4 would just need the UK added to it to be called the British Imperial States.
The "New World" isn't a geographic term, more of a sociological one (though it is sometimes used in biological contexts). Australia and New Zealand's relatively recent discovery and colonisation by Europeans means that they are often defined as part of the New World, but I'll accept your definition for the purposes of this discussion.
Still, T&T...
Magneto wrote:
However, after the annexation, Canada and America no longer exist - there is only one region, the U.S.N.A. Why should the people in the north of the U.S.N.A. be allowed to leave and form their own country, against the wishes of most of the population?
Self determination.
Again, see Scotland.