"New Zealand as it might have been: What if we had joined Australia in 1901"

[David Tenner]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418201

I don't really know enough about Antipodean history in that era to
comment,but I wanted to draw it to the attention of those who may know more,
since we get so few New Zealand what-ifs here.

[jerry kraus]

Post by David Tenner
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418201
I don't really know enough about Antipodean history in that era to
comment,but I wanted to draw it to the attention of those who may know more,
since we get so few New Zealand what-ifs here.
--
David Tenner

The Union of Hawaii and Alaska to the U.S., as equivalent partners to the mainland of the U.S., is the first and only example I'm aware of, of far removed territories being real parts of the Mother Country. True, the French give some Federal representation to French Guiana etc., but they're not exactly part of France. And, before air travel, how practical would it have been to unite New Zealand with Australia? I just don't see how they could have been governed as a single country. Aside from the cultural difficulties of assimilating the Maori, etc.

[Dean]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by David Tenner
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418201
I don't really know enough about Antipodean history in that era to
comment,but I wanted to draw it to the attention of those who may know more,
since we get so few New Zealand what-ifs here.
--
David Tenner

The Union of Hawaii and Alaska to the U.S., as equivalent partners to the mainland of the U.S., is the first and only example I'm aware of, of far removed territories being real parts of the Mother Country. True, the French give some Federal representation to French Guiana etc., but they're not exactly part of France. And, before air travel, how practical would it have been to unite New Zealand with Australia? I just don't see how they could have been governed as a single country. Aside from the cultural difficulties of assimilating the Maori, etc.

The Falkland Islands are certainly a real part of the UK.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by David Tenner
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418201
I don't really know enough about Antipodean history in that era to
comment,but I wanted to draw it to the attention of those who may know more,
since we get so few New Zealand what-ifs here.
--
David Tenner

The Union of Hawaii and Alaska to the U.S., as equivalent partners to the mainland of the U.S., is the first and only example I'm aware of, of far removed territories being real parts of the Mother Country. True, the French give some Federal representation to French Guiana etc., but they're not exactly part of France. And, before air travel, how practical would it have been to unite New Zealand with Australia? I just don't see how they could have been governed as a single country. Aside from the cultural difficulties of assimilating the Maori, etc.

The Falkland Islands are certainly a real part of the UK.

Not really. They aren't represented in the British Parliament, are they? They're simply territories under British Control. Actually, and quite specifically, the Falkland Islands are NOT a part of the United Kingdom. That's just England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, quite specifically. That's precisely my point, you can, traditionally, have overseas territories anywhere, but, the mother country is distinct, and separate. The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a part of France in the same way as the mother country is. While Hawaii, and Alaska are quite clearly just other American states.

[Dean]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by David Tenner
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418201
I don't really know enough about Antipodean history in that era to
comment,but I wanted to draw it to the attention of those who may know more,
since we get so few New Zealand what-ifs here.
--
David Tenner

The Union of Hawaii and Alaska to the U.S., as equivalent partners to the mainland of the U.S., is the first and only example I'm aware of, of far removed territories being real parts of the Mother Country. True, the French give some Federal representation to French Guiana etc., but they're not exactly part of France. And, before air travel, how practical would it have been to unite New Zealand with Australia? I just don't see how they could have been governed as a single country. Aside from the cultural difficulties of assimilating the Maori, etc.

The Falkland Islands are certainly a real part of the UK.

Not really. They aren't represented in the British Parliament, are they? They're simply territories under British Control. Actually, and quite specifically, the Falkland Islands are NOT a part of the United Kingdom. That's just England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, quite specifically. That's precisely my point, you can, traditionally, have overseas territories anywhere, but, the mother country is distinct, and separate. The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a part of France in the same way as the mother country is. While Hawaii, and Alaska are quite clearly just other American states.

The Falklands are represented by Barry Duncan, MP. And the UK certainly fought to get them back in 1982.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by David Tenner
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418201
I don't really know enough about Antipodean history in that era to
comment,but I wanted to draw it to the attention of those who may know more,
since we get so few New Zealand what-ifs here.
--
David Tenner

The Union of Hawaii and Alaska to the U.S., as equivalent partners to the mainland of the U.S., is the first and only example I'm aware of, of far removed territories being real parts of the Mother Country. True, the French give some Federal representation to French Guiana etc., but they're not exactly part of France. And, before air travel, how practical would it have been to unite New Zealand with Australia? I just don't see how they could have been governed as a single country. Aside from the cultural difficulties of assimilating the Maori, etc.

The Falkland Islands are certainly a real part of the UK.

Not really. They aren't represented in the British Parliament, are they? They're simply territories under British Control. Actually, and quite specifically, the Falkland Islands are NOT a part of the United Kingdom. That's just England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, quite specifically. That's precisely my point, you can, traditionally, have overseas territories anywhere, but, the mother country is distinct, and separate. The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a part of France in the same way as the mother country is. While Hawaii, and Alaska are quite clearly just other American states.

The Falklands are represented by Barry Duncan, MP. And the UK certainly fought to get them back in 1982.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I've heard of the Falklands War, Dean. Yes, I know the Argentinians weren't able to control the Islands, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, you see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Phillips

Nigel Phillips is the governor, appointed by the Queen, of the Falkland Islands, an overseas territory of Britain, with its own internally elected legislative assembly. Britain controls foreign policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

Alan Duncan MP is the Minister appointed by the British Prime Minister as being responsible to the Queen, for the Falkland Islands. He is not elected by the Falkland Islanders. The Falkland Islands has no participation or say whatsoever in the British Parliament, it's the other way around.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Dean
The Falklands are represented by Barry Duncan, MP.

No one else seems to know this, including the House
of Commons website.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by jerry kraus
The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas
territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a
part of France in the same way as the mother country is.

I don't see this. French Overseas Departments are represented in the
National Assembly, and vote in presidential elections. As part of France,
it's part of the EU (which UK possessions, such as the Isle of Man or the
Channel Islands, are not (except Gibraltar)).

[jerry kraus]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus
The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas
territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a
part of France in the same way as the mother country is.

I don't see this. French Overseas Departments are represented in the
National Assembly, and vote in presidential elections. As part of France,
it's part of the EU (which UK possessions, such as the Isle of Man or the
Channel Islands, are not (except Gibraltar)).
--
Pete BARRETT

Yes, I know, I take your point Pete. I'm just skeptical that St. Pierre and Miquelon, for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon

off the coast of Newfoundland, are exactly part of France in the same way that Paris is. Even Corsica

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsica


has its own assembly, and is described as a "territorial collectivity" of France. So, I'm doubtful that the degree of control exercised by France is as great as that exerted by Washington D.C. over Hawaii or Alaska.

Here's the relevant section of the French Constitution.

"ARTICLE 72
The territorial communities of the Republic shall be the Communes, the Departments, the Regions, the Special-Status communities and the Overseas Territorial communities to which article 74 applies. Any other territorial community created, if need be, to replace one or more communities provided for by this paragraph shall be created by statute.

Territorial communities may take decisions in all matters arising under powers that can best be exercised at their level.

In the conditions provided for by statute, these communities shall be self-governing through elected councils and shall have power to make regulations for matters coming within their jurisdiction.

In the manner provided for by an Institutional Act, except where the essential conditions for the exercise of public freedoms or of a right guaranteed by the Constitution are affected, territorial communities or associations thereof may, where provision is made by statute or regulation, as the case may be, derogate on an experimental basis for limited purposes and duration from provisions laid down by statute or regulation governing the exercise of their powers.

No territorial community may exercise authority over another. However, where the exercising of a power requires the combined action of several territorial communities, one of those communities or one of their associations may be authorized by statute to organize such combined action.

In the territorial communities of the Republic, the State representative, representing each of the members of the Government, shall be responsible for national interests, administrative supervision and compliance with the law."

[t***@go.com]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus
The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas
territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a
part of France in the same way as the mother country is.

I don't see this. French Overseas Departments are represented in the
National Assembly, and vote in presidential elections. As part of France,
it's part of the EU (which UK possessions, such as the Isle of Man or the
Channel Islands, are not (except Gibraltar)).
--
Pete BARRETT

Yes, I know, I take your point Pete. I'm just skeptical that St. Pierre and Miquelon, for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
off the coast of Newfoundland, are exactly part of France in the same way that Paris is. Even Corsica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsica
has its own assembly, and is described as a "territorial collectivity" of France. So, I'm doubtful that the degree of control exercised by France is as great as that exerted by Washington D.C. over Hawaii or Alaska.
Here's the relevant section of the French Constitution.
"ARTICLE 72
The territorial communities of the Republic shall be the Communes, the Departments, the Regions, the Special-Status communities and the Overseas Territorial communities to which article 74 applies. Any other territorial community created, if need be, to replace one or more communities provided for by this paragraph shall be created by statute.
Territorial communities may take decisions in all matters arising under powers that can best be exercised at their level.
In the conditions provided for by statute, these communities shall be self-governing through elected councils and shall have power to make regulations for matters coming within their jurisdiction.
In the manner provided for by an Institutional Act, except where the essential conditions for the exercise of public freedoms or of a right guaranteed by the Constitution are affected, territorial communities or associations thereof may, where provision is made by statute or regulation, as the case may be, derogate on an experimental basis for limited purposes and duration from provisions laid down by statute or regulation governing the exercise of their powers.
No territorial community may exercise authority over another. However, where the exercising of a power requires the combined action of several territorial communities, one of those communities or one of their associations may be authorized by statute to organize such combined action.
In the territorial communities of the Republic, the State representative, representing each of the members of the Government, shall be responsible for national interests, administrative supervision and compliance with the law."

Overseas departments and overseas collectivities are
two different things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departments_of_France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_department

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_collectivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_France

St. Pierre and Miquelon have less than 7000 people on them
as residents.

Do you think that Reunion, which has a population of
over 800,000, should have the same amount of representation
in the French legislature as Clipperton Island, which has
an official population of zero?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipperton_Island

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Not really. They aren't represented in the British Parliament, are they? They're simply territories under British Control. Actually, and quite specifically, the Falkland Islands are NOT a part of the United Kingdom. That's just England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, quite specifically. That's precisely my point, you can, traditionally, have overseas territories anywhere, but, the mother country is distinct, and separate. The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a part of France in the same way as the mother country is. While Hawaii, and Alaska are quite clearly just other American states.

Well for that matter the British Channel Islands aren't either (not
sure about the status of the Isle of Man though nobody disputes who
owns it).

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Not really. They aren't represented in the British Parliament, are they? They're simply territories under British Control. Actually, and quite specifically, the Falkland Islands are NOT a part of the United Kingdom. That's just England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, quite specifically. That's precisely my point, you can, traditionally, have overseas territories anywhere, but, the mother country is distinct, and separate. The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a part of France in the same way as the mother country is. While Hawaii, and Alaska are quite clearly just other American states.

Well for that matter the British Channel Islands aren't either (not
sure about the status of the Isle of Man though nobody disputes who
owns it).

I think the point I'm making here, Horny, is that there's a difference between ownership -- what the mother country has with a colony -- and full participation in a unified nation. I'm not really sure New Zealand and Australia could have possibly functioned as a unified nation, in 1901. Certainly not in the sense that Hawaii and Alaska can be integrated into the U.S., currently.

[Errolwi]

<snip>

Post by jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
Well for that matter the British Channel Islands aren't either (not
sure about the status of the Isle of Man though nobody disputes who
owns it).

I think the point I'm making here, Horny, is that there's a difference between ownership -- what the mother country has with a colony -- and full participation in a unified nation. I'm not really sure New Zealand and Australia could have possibly functioned as a unified nation, in 1901. Certainly not in the sense that Hawaii and Alaska can be integrated into the U.S., currently.

At the time, physical communication (not sure about telegraph) between
Western Australia and the rest of the Dominion was via sea, at about
the same distance as Wellington/Sydney.

--
Errol Cavit

[jerry kraus]

Post by Errolwi
<snip>

Post by jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
Well for that matter the British Channel Islands aren't either (not
sure about the status of the Isle of Man though nobody disputes who
owns it).

I think the point I'm making here, Horny, is that there's a difference between ownership -- what the mother country has with a colony -- and full participation in a unified nation. I'm not really sure New Zealand and Australia could have possibly functioned as a unified nation, in 1901. Certainly not in the sense that Hawaii and Alaska can be integrated into the U.S., currently.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Errolwi
At the time, physical communication (not sure about telegraph) between
Western Australia and the rest of the Dominion was via sea, at about
the same distance as Wellington/Sydney.

But Western Australia was virtually uninhabited, and culturally identical to the rest of Australia. Neither was true of New Zealand.

Post by Errolwi
--
Errol Cavit

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:23:58 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think the point I'm making here, Horny, is that there's a difference between ownership -- what the mother country has with a colony -- and full participation in a unified nation. I'm not really sure New Zealand and Australia could have possibly functioned as a unified nation, in 1901. Certainly not in the sense that Hawaii and Alaska can be integrated into the U.S., currently.

One could make the same argument about Tasmania in Australia and
British Columbia in Canada in 1901.

The whole reason why Canada declared war in 1939 a week later than
Britain and Australia is that the Canadian parliament wasn't in
session in late August 1939 (unlike the other two) and the Prime
Minister decided that a week was the fastest he could reconvene
Parliament to declare war. The actual debate on the war declaration
resolution took less than 30 minutes. (This was before the days when
politicians routinely few in airplanes)

It definitely wasn't a lack of martial spirit or unwillingness to help
Britain!

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:23:58 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by jerry kraus
I think the point I'm making here, Horny, is that there's a difference between ownership -- what the mother country has with a colony -- and full participation in a unified nation. I'm not really sure New Zealand and Australia could have possibly functioned as a unified nation, in 1901. Certainly not in the sense that Hawaii and Alaska can be integrated into the U.S., currently.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Horny Goat
One could make the same argument about Tasmania in Australia and
British Columbia in Canada in 1901.

No. Not given the railroads for B.C., and steamship ferries for Tasmania. And, without them, it probably wouldn't have been possible.

Post by The Horny Goat
The whole reason why Canada declared war in 1939 a week later than
Britain and Australia is that the Canadian parliament wasn't in
session in late August 1939 (unlike the other two) and the Prime
Minister decided that a week was the fastest he could reconvene
Parliament to declare war. The actual debate on the war declaration
resolution took less than 30 minutes. (This was before the days when
politicians routinely few in airplanes)
It definitely wasn't a lack of martial spirit or unwillingness to help
Britain!

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Not really. They aren't represented in the British Parliament, are they? They're simply territories under British Control. Actually, and quite specifically, the Falkland Islands are NOT a part of the United Kingdom. That's just England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, quite specifically. That's precisely my point, you can, traditionally, have overseas territories anywhere, but, the mother country is distinct, and separate. The French Empire does have some Federal representation for overseas territories, but, it's somewhat perfunctory, they still aren't really a part of France in the same way as the mother country is. While Hawaii, and Alaska are quite clearly just other American states.

Well for that matter the British Channel Islands aren't either (not
sure about the status of the Isle of Man though nobody disputes who
owns it).

If memory serves, the Channel Islands are property of the Queen
herself. So the rules there are, ... different.

And I seem to recall that the Brits kept their two bases on Cyprus
as "Sovereign territory" or something like that. They're British, not
leased or otherwise Cypriot.

[Pete Barrett]

Well for that matter the British Channel Islands aren't either (not sure
about the status of the Isle of Man though nobody disputes who owns it).

The Channel Islands each have their own parliament, as does the Isle of
Man.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:39:20 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett

Well for that matter the British Channel Islands aren't either (not sure
about the status of the Isle of Man though nobody disputes who owns it).

The Channel Islands each have their own parliament, as does the Isle of
Man.

What I meant was that the Channel islands are personal holdings of the
Queen in her role as heir to William the Bastard; and I'm too lazy to
wiki the article on the legal status of the isle of Man.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Dean
The Falkland Islands are certainly a real part of the UK.

The Falkland Islands are a possession of the UK.

But Falkland Islanders, unlike the residents of
French colonies, do not vote in British elections
and have no representation in the legislature.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 06:04:28 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by David Tenner
I don't really know enough about Antipodean history in that era to
comment,but I wanted to draw it to the attention of those who may know more,
since we get so few New Zealand what-ifs here.

The Union of Hawaii and Alaska to the U.S., as equivalent partners to the mainland of the U.S., is the first and only example I'm aware of, of far removed territories being real parts of the Mother Country. True, the French give some Federal representation to French Guiana etc., but they're not exactly part of France. And, before air travel, how practical would it have been to unite New Zealand with Australia? I just don't see how they could have been governed as a single country. Aside from the cultural difficulties of assimilating the Maori, etc.

Well obviously Northern Ireland (or the whole of Ireland before that)
is not continguous to Great Britain but close.

France made St Pierre & Miquelon and Algeria departements. Not sure
about any overseas possessions.

Newfoundland is an island - it owns Labrador on the mainland but 90+%
of Newfies are islanders. As is PEI of course and Vancouver Island on
the west coast.