SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Noel de Leon who wrote (116946)10/15/2003 7:28:40 PM
From: FaultLine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
At the same time these same people will argue that checks and balances have to be kept in place to keep the larger states from dominating the smaller ones.

Sounds exactly like the problems faced by the Constitutional Convention of the USA: how to keep the populous states from simply rolling over the smaller, less populous, states.

The larger states wield power in the population-based one-man-one-vote representation in the House of Representatives while the two-seats per state Senate allows the small states to organize over issues they hold dear. Getting anything done requires some measure of consensus in many cases.

This was fascinating problem -- the rights of people vs. the rights of states -- and a very clever and creative approach to a solution.

--fl



To: Noel de Leon who wrote (116946)10/16/2003 12:25:20 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Thanks. I am not sure what advantage there is in political union, when there was already a customs union and a military union through NATO. As you note, Europe remains quite linguistically and culturally diverse. It seems to me that one builds nations on affinities. For example, it would make some sense to have the UK, Canada, and the States become a superstate, perhaps even including Australia and New Zealand. And yet I know of no widespread sentiment to go so far........