Talk:Continental union/Archive 1

Archive 1

North American Union

I removed the North American Union from the list of current continental unions and returned it to the list of "proposed" unions. Apparently at least one user feels it should be listed as a current union; it can be discussed here. -- Lonelywurm 09:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely not a current union--while I personally believe secret agreements are being made, and that it's not too far off into the future, it most definitely should be listed under "proposed unions" until it becomes official.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Change of Map

I propose the map colors be change on the "continental union" page to harmonize with the colors of these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Union

I will make a proposal to change the color of the EU map to something else--if the proposal is accepted, then the map can be changed to match.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia (1)

Australia is a federation of its member states, which have their own constitutions and laws and any Australian will disagree, Australia is the world's only continental union at this time.--71.242.127.31 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that Australia (the country) included New Zeland. Australia and NZ are both in the same continent, but they are not in a continental union. --zorxd (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But Australia doesn't have presidents/prime ministers for each of it's states, it has a single prime minister for the entire country. Australia is a country. 203.51.237.72 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia, like America, is a federation of constituent countries, and a Union is a Federation/Confederation, isn't it?--Tomtom9041 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A continental union, in its current usage, has several unique aspects which differentiate it from a classical "federation" of which Australia is one. Most specifically, member states retain control over matters of national defense, foreign policy, and taxation; Australia's states do not have de facto control over either defense or foreign policy, but are subject to the directives of the central government. Australia is a federal state occupying a continent, but it is not a continental union. — Lonelywurm 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree , OZ is the only "Continental Union" at this time.--4.68.249.3 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Australia's a country, not a continental union. It just happens to occupy the entire continent. The differences have already been established by Lonelywurm. Please stop adding it. --Hemlock Martinis 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"established" how exactly? I don't see any sources. Declaring something to be so on a discussion page hardly settles an issue. What source differentiates between "continental union"s and politically unified continents like Australia? As a matter of fact this entire article appears to be original research fit for deletion.Zebulin (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions of the Existing Continental Unions

This article lacks a core description of the existing continental unions. So I've gone to the existing Wikipedia pages for the different Continental Unions, The United States, Australia, EU, AU, USAN, and pulled the first paragraph of the article which generally describes the location, governmental type, time of formation ext.. and added it to this article to serve as the summary of that "Continental Union." A more in depth description of the formation, history and evolution of continental unions in general would be a valuable addition to the article and add more substance to what now is simply a list. Help with these additional sections would be welcomed. Thanks. OrangeCorner (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is still rubbish, especially the Australian bit

OK, I've waited a while for cited evidence that Australia is a continental union and, despite a claimed reference (to Twitter of all things!) from OrangeCorner above, there is still nothing. The reference does not mention Australia. It may have once upon a time, being Twitter, but it doesn't now. That highlights two things, the uselessness of Twitter as a source for anything, and the fact that no reference to Australia being a continental union exists. It makes that claim pure OR.

But on a broader and even more serious scale, we still have an article about an at least fairly uncommon term that has no reference for its basic definition in the first sentence. It doesn't have a definition in Wiktionary either. If the original editors really want this article to remain, a lot more work is required to make it encyclopaedic. Since several objections have already been expressed, it has to soon be a contender for deletion if no better referencing is done. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why I have tagged this page as OR

1. The definition of "continental union" at the very beginning of the article is uncited
2. Under many of the "examples", the article lists the attributes that make it like a CU rather than providing an outside source that actually calls them CUs. The fact that Australia is a big country that also happens to be a continent is interesting. It doesn't make it the same type of political entity as the EU or AU, however. Australia's population is only about 2% of the AU's, has a highly centralized federal system unlike the mostly toothless AU, and is mostly culturally homogeneous (although rapidly diversifying) whereas the AU is staggeringly diverse in terms of language and religion. You could find good academic arguments for and against directly calling Australia a CU, but no one had bothered to list any in this article. Instead it seems to be pushing an argument, rather that reporting on one.
3. Many of the examples are poorly compared, with the comparisons lacking parallelism and with no academic context. For example: the historical and political context of the US's Articles of Conferation are quite different from the EU's Lisbon Treaty. Or to take another example, why is the USA considered a CU when Canada and Russia, two larger federations, are not? Who made that call?

Please fix these issues before removing the OR tag. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Continental Union Picture

Can someone alter the map there? It is nowhere explained what a "problem region" is, and a continental union does not need to include the whole continent anyway. Why not scrap all those problem places, and simply have the existing unions and unions that have been proposed in solid colours. Besides the existing three, the Asian Union, Pacific Union, and Central American Union, and North American Union should be on the map, but that is up to debate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

More on Australia

When the Commonwealth (not union) of Australia was created in 1901 it was almost an accident that it included Western Australia and not New Zealand. Even now, regular efforts between the NZ and Australian governments are leading to ever closer relations between he two nations. These already affect immigration and trade. New Zealand is definitely not part of the same continent as Australia, so is this now a Super-continental union? I'm really asking that question to highlight the difficulties involved in defining a continental union. (I've still never seen or heard the term used in Australia.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Been thinking some more about the silliness of using the term continental union for Australia. Before being legally turned into the Commonwealth of Australia, what are now the states were ALL colonies of Great Britain. They were never really independent states. I'm not sure when they became a union. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In 1901 the states united to become the Commonwealth of Australia, though still nominally a colony of the UK (not great britain :) ). In 1931 the statue of westminster gave Australia an independent government, and the country has slowly moved away from the UK since. In regards to this article, I think that a section on Australia would be useful. Not as an existing continental union, but as a previous example of a continent uniting. The union of Australia was based on trying to get the entire continent under the one government. That is why Western Australia was not allowed to be a separate state, although some wanted it to. Furthermore, the constitution allows for new states to be added (specifically mentioning New Zealand) and therefore although there is no mandate to expand, there is the ability to. It was a continental union created back when supranationalism wasn't a concept yet, so it deserves a mention, maybe in a new section called "Similar concepts". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

United States

Much the same argument that is made for Australia's inclusion in the list of existing "continental unions" could be made for the United States. The United States finds its roots in the "first and second continental congresses" which raised the original "continental army" to defeat the United Kingdom during the revolutionary war. The first constitution of the United States, termed the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" brought together what were originally sovereign and independent states. Later on in its history republics such as the "Republic of Texas" or the "Republic of California" were added to the union of states as its membership expanded from the eastern to western coasts of the continent. Even under the second constitution of the United States, the federal government gained a relatively modest set of competencies (Internal improvements, Subsidies (mainly to shipping), Tariffs, Disposal of public lands, Immigration law, Foreign policy, Copyrights, Patents, Currency), most competences remained in the hands of the states or the people.

As to the question of if the United States covers enough of a "continent" to qualify as a Continental Union, I must conclude that it does. If the EU is any rule of thumb for this matter, we can see clearly that while it does not include all the people of Europe or the European continent, the European Union does consist of a majority of the people on that continent, just as while the African Union and Union of South American Nations do not completely cover those continents, they are none the less continental level political unions. In this same way the United States represents the majority of the people in North American Continent (300 million of 528 million).

So given that the United States is a continental level union of member states, many of which were internationally recognized independent republics, it seems to me only logical that the United States should be added to the list of "continental unions". Unless someone here is going to make a logical argument claiming that the "United States" is not a "political entity covering the majority of the population of a recognized continent of the world" then I would strongly suggest adding and keeping it on the list of "continental unions" of this article. I will wait for 24 hours for any person to make a convincing counter argument on this discussion page, and after that time I will add the United States to the list. OrangeCorner 22:05, 28 October 2009 (CST)

I would have to disagree, the definition says, "A continental union, often abbreviated to CU, is an inter-governmental or supra-national political union of member states located in the same continent, or close to it." For the United States to be added you have to prove that it is either inter-governmental or supra-national.

According to wikipedia's article on intergovernmental is "It is usually said that intergovernmentalism refers to the decision-making methods in international organisations, where power is possessed by the member states and decisions are often but not always made by unanimity. Independent appointees of the governments or elected representatives have solely advisory or implementational functions." The power in the United States is no longer held by the member states since the ending of the Articles of Confederation and the power shifted to the federal government. The decisions are never made by unanimity, and the representatives that we elect are hardly solely advisory.

Then for supranationalism wikipedia says, "Unlike states in a federal super-state, member states retain nominal sovereignty, although some sovereignty is shared with, or ceded to, the supranational body. Supranational agreements encourage stability and trust, because governments cannot break international accords at a whim." And "Full sovereignty can be reclaimed by withdrawing from the supranational arrangements but the member state would also lose the great advantages offered by mutualities, economies of scale, common external tariffs and other commonly agreed standards such as improved international trust and democracy and common external positions." The states in America can not claim full sovereignty, according to Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869). The supreme court "held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"." Then, "A supranational authority, by definition, can have some independence from member state governments in specific areas, although not as much independence as with a federal government. Supranational institutions, like federal governments, imply the possibility of pursuing agendas in ways that the delegating states did not initially envision. Democratic supranational Communities, however, are defined by treaty and by law." They clearly separate a federal government from supranationalism, because supranationalism is defined by treaties and when the United States federal government creates new laws it does not need to create a new treaty agreed to by all the states.

I am not arguing that the United States does not have a majority of the people in North America(even though Canada covers more land), but that the United States is neither Intergovernmental or Supranational. If you wish to keep the United States in here then you should either change the definition of what a continental union is or find a reference from a secondary source that absolutely claims that the United States is a continental union.76.183.160.130 (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: the United States is simply a continental union with one difference: the ability to withdraw. Each state maintains a unique government and can enter into agreements with other states - including other nations, if they so choose. And the argument that supposes that "when the United States federal government creates new laws it does not need to create a new treaty agreed to by all the states" is not entirely correct - the states grant the authority to pass consent to the Congress of the United States, much as the members of the EU give that authority to the European Parliament. Major changes DO require the consent of the states per the Amendment Procedure to the United States Constitution. User talk:AsukaSeagull 21:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.154.86 (talk)

The U.S. Constitution says in Article 2, Sec. 10 says, "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation...No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power" So they can not enter into an agreement with other nations-states or American states. In the EU, USAN, and AU, a member nation-state may declare war on another nation-state outside its supranational borders, create treaties without going through their supranational organization, or even make treaties between member countries. The United States is still not a Supranational or Intergovernmental organization that the definition of a continental union (in the lead of the article) requires it to be. To be Supranational or Intergovernmental you must be allowed to withdraw, and be allowed to stay sovereign, for example, to keep a peace time military. I have never came across a source that claims the U.S. to be supranational or an intergovernmental organization. I do not mind the United States being placed here as a continental union, but the definition must be changed to allow a federal government state, but I cannot find a definition that includes that as a source. All I can find is a definition that requires a continental union to be either Supranational or Intergovernmental. If the United States is to stay in the article the definition needs to be changed to include a federal state, and the source needs to be placed. Continental Union should just be defined as including a federal state and I would agree that the United States needs to stay. I just can not find a source to back it up. Perhaps you might be able to help me find a better definition for a continental union.76.183.160.130 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here are my points. First. No continental union or federation covers an entire continent, except for Australia. Certainly not the U.S or the E.U. A Continental union "supra-national or intergovernmental body" is pretty much a pre-phase of a continental federation. Now, one have to distinguish between the Area and the political union. Area. Any political union that covers MOST of a continent must be called continental otherwise there is none except Australia and the U.N realm of Antarctis. So, whether or not the EU or the US covers the "entire" of its continents or only "most of" it has no significance, it is nevertheless "continental". Secondly. A Supranational and intergovernmental union is a step in time before a federation is de facto present. I do myself argue that the development goes as follows. 1. Soverign state, 2. intergovernmental union (U.N) 3. Supranational Union (E.U)/ Confederate Union 4. Federal union (U.S) 5. Unitary State. It all goes down to the power struggle between the states and the union. This is the development or federalisation of member states. That is what happens now in the E.U and what has happened in American U.S for 235 years. Now even though the E.U is not finished yet, someone wants to put a label on it as "supranational and intergovernmental", which could fit. A third point in the argumentation here is that that America uses the Common Law system of cases where courts decide and actually make law. The Supreme court of the U.S has a lot to say about it's Union. One always refer back to other's definitions of, in this case a Union, through Jurisprudence. Typical Common Law. In Europe we use Written Law/Roman Law/Civil Law, which means legislators have all the say, which is a tradition from Code Napoleon and the French Revolution- that is, only the legislators and the people decide in the power struggle between the Union and the States. That is: E.U are continental unions if we decide so now by statutory law, not by old jurisprudence, which we can overrule by written law. Fourth. The political work of the E.U aims at such state which the exerpt from the U.S constitution above outlines. E.U is by no means a finished work but aims under by stealth towards a federal structure. The Treaty, which IS the constitution of the Union, is changeable by member parliaments. The EU Foreign and Defence policy includes military chapters and so forth. Five. The peoples of Europe dont want the Union, as seen when they voted No to the constitution and to the euro in some countries. So they keep the national part, that is, the tradititons and the languages - and the military forces. For the time being. This all says that the E.U is for the time being a "supranational and intergovernmental union" but this is part of the historic power struggle between the States and the Union, in the efforts of becoming a federal union. Now the U.S doesn't have the same power struggle, since it already is a federal union and is therefor not a intergovernmental union, even though it clearly is a union of states - and continental. For me it is nonsense to focus on whether a continental union is federal, supranational or intergovernmental. It is still a union of continental coverage. The definiton has to adehere to the common language and intuition - and as such any continental federation is a continental union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.227.250 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The two Unions of States in America and Europe

I, as an American educated European, totally agree that the United States of America is a continental Union just as is the EU.

Every state in America is pretty much the same size, population and GDP as a country in the European Union. It is just a matter of terminology. EU is after the Lisbon Treaty pretty much in its development where America was between the Revolutionary war and the Civil war. In fact both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Confederate States both resemble the Lisbon Treaty on most topics. What differs is the military aspects where the EU does not have super-powers but only intra-powers. With that I mean that consensus is needed for intra-state powers, whilst the super-powers means that the Union can override States. The EU has already the power to use the NATO military alliance as its own forces under EU flag. Now the NATO alliance uses intra-powers, not super-powers, which means there is a need for consensus.

The defence policy is one of the last areas that needs consensus for decsision. This is because that is how the NATO descions works. The Lisbon Treaty creates a more or less parallell defence alliance among EU countries, and the Berlin Plus agreement between the EU and Nato gives the EU access to anything it wants from Nato.

Clearly the American Union (Federal USA) has super-powers over its member states in form of the voting powers of the U.S Senate and the U.S House in Union-wide areas such as Currency and Defence. The EU has the same, and a European FBI is being set up along with such agencies that deals with issues between EU member states.

The main difference between the U.S and the E.U is that the American double representation is as follows: the U.S Senate represent each State Parliament with each having eaqual voting powers, while the House of Representatives represent the population of the entire Union based on population differences in different areas. In the E.U there is no such Senate yet and instead the council of Ministers have the double representation of the governments and the population, the latter which should be the sole task of the European parliament who represents the population in the same way the U.S House does- Nevertheless the Council of Ministers and the E.U parliament both, as with the U.S Senate and U.S House, need to approve any Bills in order for the President (of the E.U commission/ the U.S administration) to sign a binding Law for the Union.

So, yes if the EU is considered a Union of European States, then the U.S is considered a Union of American States. The United States of America is in fact the Union of States in North America.

Now, the USA has declared its independence, as of the 4th of July 1776. The EU has not declared itself a Soverign nation yet. But all the steps in this direction are slowly being taken. Read the Lisbon Treaty! What is happening now (2010) is that the inner machinery of the Union is being worked out, with new updated Treaties, and new parts of the Union being constantly worked on. The Lisbon Treaty has a chapter of self amending itself, so there any deeper integration should be smoother and not as medially controversial.

For instance, the EU is now a legal body in itself. Therefore, It CAN by definition declare its soverignty and take a place in the U.N alongside the U.S as a country and a continental union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.227.250 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what sort of awful American college you went to to get such a fundamental misunderstanding of how the United States government works. American states are in no way comparable to members of the European Union. There's no Iowan ambassador to Botswana. Even a basic understanding of the two entities would make it obvious that the US and EU are fundamentally different organizations.

The new legal personhood of the EU doesn't strike me as a way it can "declare sovereignty" if such a thing even exists. Can transnational corporations declare themselves sovereign and get a seat at the UN? I'm sure some other organizations like arms control mechanisms or the WTO or things like that have their own separate legal existence, could they do the same? I'd also be interested to know where democracy would fit in to the sudden dissolution of 27 independent nations into some super-country.

I've come across the page several times and it sure looks a lot better than it did before, what with dumb things liek the US and Australia taken out. That being said, what justification does that map have at the bottom? The idea of problem areas seems rather subjective. Who says an Asian Union has to include Japan AND Syria? Also what evidence is there that these proposed unions are actually proposed? I follow the news pretty closely, but besides conspiracy theories for a NAU I've seen nothing to suggest an Asian Union or Pacific Union along the lines of even the farcical African Union or the very limited Union of South American Nations is in the works. Smells like original research. Attor (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then how about you go to the Pacific Union and Central Asian Union pages and look at the references there? Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The United States does not belong in this article

A continental union by definition encompasses a continent, or most of it, or aims to. The US does not contain a majority of North America, does not propose to annex the rest, and - most importantly - does not number the concept of continental union among its current political goals or values. If it still qualifies as a continental union, why not Russia? Or Napoleonic France, or Nazi Germany, etc. Senix (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very strange article. (See my comments re Australia below.) It's very poorly referenced. For something that's as vague as this concept, that's really not acceptable. The USA could fit the opening definition of "member states located in the same continent, or close to it", because its states are (mostly) in the same continent, although it's a pretty sloppy definition. But that definition, in the very first sentence, has been awaiting a citation for a very long time. I'm really not sure what the point of the article is. Its enthusiastic editors don't respond to negative comments here. I wonder if they would respond to a proposal to delete? HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The United States is no longer a continental union. However it was a continental union for a period of 77 years (Ratification of the Constitution to the end of the Civil War) and thus should be in the article. I have included a sentence about the United states in the introduction and in a new section for former continental unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.239.79 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Croatian ascension to the European Union

Croatia is now a member state of the European Union, please update the map to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Asia Cooperation Dialogue and Pacific Islands Forum

Any reason not to include the Asia Cooperation Dialogue and Pacific Islands Forum? These will never become supranational unions, but it's unlikely the Africa Union will either. Rob984 (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)