HOME | DD
Mobiyuz — TL31 - North American Union membership, 2018
#alternatehistory #northamerica #northamericanunion #timeline31
Published: 2018-11-20 12:17:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 3524; Favourites: 44; Downloads: 10
Redirect to original
Description
There are three tiers of membership in the North American Union. These tiers are Full Member, Associate, and Observer. Full Members are entitled to representation and voting rights in the Congress of the North American Union, and are eligible for many of the programs and benefits of being a member, while also having to pay dues to the NAU. Associates are nations closely associated with the NAU and have voting rights for non-internal matters as they pertain to full members, while also being eligible for some of its programs and grants while paying a much smaller due to the NAU. Observers are simply allowed non-voting representation in the Congress and can be consulted on matters pertaining to the NAU as a whole, but do not receive any benefits nor do they pay any dues.As of 2018, there are 40 Full Members, 11 Associate Nations, and 4 Observers.
Associate Nations:
- Republic of Colombia
- United Republic of Guyana
- Kingdom of Hawaii
- Greenland
- Iceland
- Guyane Federation
- Republic of Suriname
- Aruba
- Curaçao
- Sint Maarten
- Faeroe Islands
Observers:
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- French Republic
- Kingdom of the Netherlands
- Kingdom of Denmark
One thing to note about the incredibly complicated nature of some of the Associate nations is that of the associate nations, only 6 are fully sovereign nations. The other 5, Greenland, Aruba, Curaçao, the Faeroe Islands, and Sint Maarten are constituent countries of their parent countries, with Greenland and the Faeroe Islands officially being "autonomous constituent countries" of the Kingdom of Denmark and Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten being constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. These considerations are considered "exceptions to the rule". Since these are considered "countries" yet are not fully sovereign nations being part of a single larger nation, they are not eligible for NAU Full Membership but are granted eligibility for NAU Associate Nation status with the option for Full Membership should they gain full and total independence from their parent nations. Further, the Kingdom of the Netherlands itself is a very weird situation, as three of its constituents are Associate Nations while the whole nation is just a member nation.
The NAU's borders are fuzzy and the constitution is a giant mess of articles that have "with exception for" tacked on.
Edit: I just realized that I'd accidentally made the Republic of Ireland part of the UK. That has been corrected. I am very sorry.
Related content
Comments: 12
The CSA is currently seeing some economic growth, but the economic stagnation they faced as an aftermath of the maintaining of slavery and being slow to adopt many more industrialized methods of things as part of their stubborn clinging to the "Peculiar Institution" has left them far behind many of the other advanced economies of the NAU. New Africa is similarly many years behind, having languished under a communist dictatorship from 1920 to 1982, but their economy was the fastest-growing in North America from 1983 to 2003, and even saw continued growth during the Great Recession. The CSA has problems with businesses moving production to New Africa and costing the CSA jobs (which sent them into an economic stagnation period during the 80s), but New Africa is still growing and industrializing, and is a great example of a post-communist success story, something like the Baltic States OTL.
Politically, the CSA is much more tightly held together by its central government, with the term "Confederate" being mostly an anachronism. After the First World War and the Red African Rebellion, when the lack of coordination at local and even national levels nearly killed the war effort, it was recognized that the CSA needed a stronger central government in order to survive. This led to two factions (ironically called the Democrats and the Republicans) fighting over whether the CSA should remain a confederation or become more federal, respectively. The Republicans ended up winning out, and in 1924 the elections gave them the ability to hold a "Second Constitutional Convention" in order to replace the old Confederate Constitution of 1861 with the Confederate Constitution of 1924, which created a stronger central government and weakened the state governments. This constitution remains in place to this day.
New Africa, meanwhile, started out idolizing a "Marxist-Leninist" ideology patterned after the USSR with some elements of Lincolnism to it as well. After World War II, however, when the USSR's atrocities were revealed to the world, they changed stance to a "Marxist-Lincolnist" ideology. It made little effective difference, however, as the nation was a dictatorship either way that went so far as to name its subdivisions simply as "District 1", "District 2", etc. After the death of Marcus Fischer, the man who served as its dictatorial leader from 1920 to 1963, the nation passed through the hands of several weaker leaders until it broke down into a civil war starting in 1979 and ending in an NAU-led intervention in 1982 that moved it towards a democratic government with a market socialist economy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What are human/civil rights like in these nations?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Slightly behind that of their contemporaries in much of the NAU, but not exceedingly so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The NAU has 4 official languages: English, Spanish, French, and Russian. However, of those languages, only 3 nations speak French: Louisiana, Quebec, and Haiti. And only Alaska speaks Russian. So the "Working Languages" of the NAU are in practice English and Spanish, and even then the fact that the Anglophone nations still outnumber Hispanophone nations by both number and population (and economic output) makes English the de facto primary language of the NAU. Still, that's a good idea for a map.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Alternate timelines tend to fuck with me, I may personally disagree with them but that doesn't make them less interesting. Perhaps the Union could've broken up, perhaps the Republic of California could've lasted more than a month, etc. Overall, nice map.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's funny you mention those possibilities in particular, because this timeline prominently features the California Republic and the Union breaking apart in the Civil War (although in this timeline, California becomes independent in 1862 rather than being the result of the Bear Flag Revolt).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for not being constructive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0