Difference between revisions of "User:Cookieman1.1.1/sandbox15"

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
=== Politics and government ===
=== Politics and government ===
Both Paloma and the Wendatia are both [[w:republics|republics]] that operate under a [[w:unicameral|unicameral]] type of legislature, with the only difference being that Paloma is a [[w:one-party state|one-party state]] and Wendatia is a [[w:multi-party state|multi-party state]]. A major difference between the two would be the political systems themself. Paloma is a [[w:Federal|Federal]] [[w:Marxist-leninist|Marxist-leninist]] one-party [[w:socialist|socialist]] republic which de-facto preforms as a [[w:oligarchy|oligarchy]] or a [[w:Anocracy|Anocracy]], Wendatia is a [[w:Unitary|Unitary]] [[w:semi-presidential|semi-presidential]] [[w:republic|republic]]. Both countries are headed by a president, which acts as both head of state and head of government.
Both Paloma and the Wendatia are both [[w:republics|republics]] that operate under a [[w:unicameral|unicameral]] type of legislature, with the only difference being that Paloma is a [[w:one-party state|one-party state]] and Wendatia is a [[w:multi-party state|multi-party state]]. A major difference between the two would be the political systems themself. Paloma is a [[w:Federal|Federal]] [[w:Marxist-leninist|Marxist-leninist]] one-party [[w:socialist|socialist]] republic which de-facto preforms as a [[w:oligarchy|oligarchy]] or a [[w:Anocracy|anocracy]], Wendatia is a [[w:Unitary|Unitary]] [[w:semi-presidential|semi-presidential]] [[w:republic|republic]]. Both countries are headed by a president, which acts as both head of state and head of government. Both countries are currently dominated by left leaning parties and politics.
=== Geography ===
=== Geography ===
Line 30: Line 30:
=== Early years ===
=== Early years ===
[[File:RobertLBorden.jpg|alt=Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden|thumb|Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden (1911-1920), a supporter of Canadian annexation of the Turks and Caicos Islands]]
The history of the proposal extends back as far as 1917, when Canadian Prime Minister [[Robert Borden]] first raised the idea of Canada taking over responsibility of the islands from the United Kingdom. The idea was raised at the [[Imperial War Conference|Imperial Conference]] of that year, only to be shot down by UK Prime Minister [[David Lloyd George]], a [[David Lloyd George#Shipping|known supporter]] of strong shipping ports for his home country.<ref name=":3">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/the-11th-province/article789004/|title=The 11th province?|access-date=3 April 2020}}</ref>
=== Reemergence of the annexation movement (1970s) ===
{{See also|Turks and Caicos Islands#20th and 21st centuries}}
Interest within the Turks and Caicos in joining the Canadian confederation reemerged as a serious proposal in the early 1970s.<ref name=":3"/> Other British possessions in the Caribbean [[List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom|declared independence]] from the United Kingdom throughout the mid-20th century, including [[Jamaica]] and [[Trinidad and Tobago]] in 1962, [[Barbados]] in 1966, and, importantly for the neighbouring Turks and Caicos, [[the Bahamas]] in 1973.
In response to this, on 15 March 1973, the islands' territorial council prepared a petition to the Canadian government seeking a closer form of association<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_SOC3302_01/628?r=0&s=1|title=Senate Debates, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session : ... - Canadian Parliamentary Historical Resources|website=parl.canadiana.ca|access-date=3 April 2020}}</ref> and asking Britain's permission to do so. The council sought to expand its economic integration with its large North American neighbour in the midst of a faltering domestic economy at the time.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19740216&id=TnowAAAAIBAJ&pg=2784,17405&hl=en|title=The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search|website=news.google.com|access-date=3 April 2020}}</ref> An excerpt of the resolution reads:
The State Council of the Turks and Caicos Islands desires to thank formally the Canadian People and their Government for the considerable help and advice received by these Islands from them in recent years.
This State Council, recognising the urgent need for both long and short term solutions to our present constitutional, financial and economic problems, further resolves that it would welcome additional professional and technical advice from both governmental and non-governmental organisations so that we may benefit from your long and loyal membership of the British Commonwealth.
In particular, this State Council would welcome far greater official contact between our two governments and herewith cordially invite a Canadian Parliamentary Delegation to visit these Islands and advise us during these days of decision.|author=[[House of Assembly (Turks and Caicos Islands)|State Council of the Turks and Caicos Islands]]|title=|source=}}
In 1974, a [[Private member's bill|private members' bill]] was introduced in the federal Canadian Parliament to explore a formal association between Canada and the Turks and Caicos. The bill, entitled "''An act respecting a proposed association between Canada and the Caribbean Turks and Caicos Islands''",<ref>{{Cite book|last=Canada. Parliament. House of Commons|url=http://archive.org/details/journalsofhouse120cana|title=Journals of the House of Commons of Canada - Second session of the twenty-ninth Parliament of Canada, 1974|date=1974|publisher=Ottawa : Queen's Printer|others=Robarts - University of Toronto}}</ref> did not have the support of the government at the time, not uncommon for a bill from the [[Backbencher|backbenches]], and was ultimately not brought to a vote. While the bill did not proceed in Parliament, it did bring the concept of Canadian annexation back into the mainstream of Turks and Caicos Islander politics.<ref name=":4"/>
Following the independence of its neighbouring British possessions, the Turks and Caicos received their own territorial governor as well as [[Responsible government|responsible self-government]]. In 1976 after the first election in this new framework, the pro-independence [[People's Democratic Movement (Turks and Caicos Islands)|People's Democratic Movement]] (PDM) won a majority of seat's in the country's House of Assembly. After election, the PDM prepared the islands for autonomy from the United Kingdom, which included a successful petition for a constitution for the islands expanding islander rights and further enhancing self-government.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1976/1156/made/data.htm|title=The Turks and Caicos Islands (Constitution) Order 1976|website=www.legislation.gov.uk|access-date=3 April 2020}}</ref>
=== Height of political support (1980s) ===
The two predominant political parties on the islands, the pro-independence [[People's Democratic Movement (Turks and Caicos Islands)|People's Democratic Movement]] (PDM) and the anti-independence [[Progressive National Party (Turks and Caicos Islands)|Progressive National Party]] (PNP), agreed to independence by 1982. However, a territorial election in 1982 saw a return for the then governing Progressive National Party, which halted plans for independence.<ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=https://www.visittci.com/life-and-business/government|title=About the Turks and Caicos Government|website=Visit Turks and Caicos Islands|language=en|access-date=3 April 2020}}</ref><ref name=":12"/> The PNP, still facing sluggish economic growth and high unemployment within the islands, instead pushed for domestic reforms and closer relations with its neighbours.<ref name=":3"/>
One of these proposals was to renew efforts to form some type of political unity with Canada. Between 1973 and 1987, members of the territory's legislature met with members of both houses of the Canadian Parliament to discuss the advantages the islands would receive by associating closely with Canada. On 10 March 1987, Liberal Senator and former Cabinet Minister [[Hazen Argue]] tabled a motion calling for both nations to explore "the desirability and advantages of the Turks and Caicos Islands becoming a part of Canada".<ref name=":6"/> This motion referenced the ongoing talks with members of both countries' legislatures. During debate in the Canadian Senate, Argue identified advantages that the Turks and Caicos legislature saw in association with Canada:<ref name=":6"/>
* Greater internal self-government owing to status as a [[Provinces and territories of Canada|territory, part of a province, or as a province in its own right]];
* Utilisation of the [[Canadian dollar|Canadian Dollar]];
* Islanders would benefit from movement and works rights as Canadian Citizens, compared to the restrictions imposed on them at the time as [[British Overseas citizen]]s;
* Benefits from Canada's [[Canada–United States relations|relationship]] with the [[United States]];
* Several benefits stemming from economic integration, such as a reliable domestic tourist market;
* Domestic access to the Canadian educational system, government assistance programs, and judicial systems.
[[File:Hazen_Argue.jpg|alt=|thumb|[[Hazen Argue]], author of a motion in the [[Senate of Canada|Canadian Senate]] supporting annexation in 1987.]]
The motion also laid out concrete steps that the nations might need to take to move towards integration; the list has since been cited as the steps that both nations would need to take if the process were to be initiated in the future:
{{Quote|text=(1) adoption of a [[Currency union|common currency]];
(2) designation of Canada's [[Governor General of Canada|Governor General]]<nowiki> as the Queen's representative for the islands (thus replacing the current </nowiki>[[Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands|Governor]]);
(3) a closer [[Economic union|economic association]] between the two countries;
(4) any change in procedures to our mutual advantage, that would assist the entry of Canadians to the Islands, and of Islanders to Canada; and
(5) provision of efficient direct air service between the two countries.|author=Hazen Argue|title=|source=Senate Debates, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session : Vol. 1}}Association with Canada reached an all-time peak of support amongst islanders at this time, with around 90% of its citizens supporting it. Indeed, it seemed that having the backing of a prominent former Cabinet minister would at least propel the bill into higher media attention.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/turks-caicos-islands-join-canada-become-11th-province|title=Could the Turks and Caicos Islands join Canada to become the 11th province? {{!}} News|website=dailyhive.com|language=en|access-date=3 April 2020}}</ref> However, commentators generally agree that the publicity of another prominent foreign affairs discussion, the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (which would later become the [[North American Free Trade Agreement|North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)]]), distracted both politicians in Ottawa as well as Canadian media from focusing on seriously considering annexing the islands.<ref name=":3"/> After its introduction in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate, Argue's bill did not proceed to the floor.<ref name=":3"/>
=== 1990s to present ===
The combination of NAFTA's domination in Canadian politics throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, as well as growing rights for Turks and Caicos Islanders as a dependency of the United Kingdom, are seen as leading to a decline in interest in Canada's association with the islands.<ref name=":3"/><ref name=":8"/> In 2002, the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] of the [[United Kingdom]] passed the [[British Overseas Territories Act 2002]] which granted full British citizenship to citizens of British Overseas Territories (such as the Turks and Caicos Islands), on par with their counterparts in the United Kingdom.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/8/enacted/data.htm|title=British Overseas Territories Act 2002|website=www.legislation.gov.uk|language=en|access-date=4 April 2020}}</ref> The act directly addressed a number of concerns of the islander government in their discussions with the Canadian government asking for closer association. The act removed barriers for islanders to immigrate and work in the UK, and only served to further lower discussion in mainstream politics of unification with Canada.
However, the suspension of the island's self-government between 2009 and 2012 over ministerial corruption<ref name=":12"/> has re-energized the debate over the islands' future as a British Overseas Territory. In particular, dissatisfaction with losing [[home rule]] by Britain has led some to favour [[independence]] or a change in sovereign patronage vis-a-vis Canada.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-10-04-mn-32825-story.html|title=Clinging to Comforts of Colonialism in Turks and Caicos : Islanders, Uneasy at Notion of Full Independence, Weigh Canadian Ties|date=4 October 1987|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US|access-date=4 April 2020}}</ref>
== Opinions ==
=== Opposition ===
Opposition to annexation exist on in both Canada and the Turks and Caicos alike. Opponents of annexation cite issues ranging from cultural differences, political concerns over corruption, and foreign policy implications for Canada. 
[[File:Turks_and_Caicos_Islander_and_Canadian_Flag.png|alt=Turks and Caicos Islander with a Canadian Flag|thumb|Turks and Caicos Islander with a Canadian Flag, 1974]]
Following a 2009 report from a UK commission of inquiry, the British government [[Politics of the Turks and Caicos Islands#Suspension of self-government, 2009|suspended self-government for the islands]] over findings of significant corruption in the Turks and Caicos' government. The Premier of the islands, [[Michael Misick]], resigned in the wake of the suspension and was viewed as a central component to dispensing political favours to other connected elites. Critics contend that issues such as these with self-government, the second time it has occurred in the history of the territory, would make the Turks and Caicos an unsuitable candidate for inclusion in Canada's strong democratic values.<ref name=":3"/><ref name=":13"/>
Canada has maintained a [[Foreign relations of Canada#Since 1957|foreign policy as a peacekeeping middle power]],<ref name=":4">{{Cite news|last=Denton|first=Herbert H.|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/05/29/canada-hears-siren-call-of-islands-in-the-sun/4acd3fee-a8dd-4218-8bc9-7928771f1c32/|title=CANADA HEARS SIREN CALL OF ISLANDS IN THE SUN|date=29 May 1987|work=Washington Post|access-date=2 April 2020|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> and its commitment to [[Multiculturalism in Canada|multiculturalism]] and multilateralism<ref>{{Cite book|title=Reinventing the United Nations|date=2007|publisher=Prentice-Hall of India|author1==Banerjee, Ajit M. |author2=Sharma, Murari R.|isbn=978-81-203-3282-9|location=New Delhi|oclc=294882382}}</ref> has led some to decry expansionist policies as inconsistent with these values. Supporters counter that annexation would not occur without the consent of the islands' population, and thus would be in furtherance of, rather than a detriment to, Canada's values of multiculturalism.<ref name=":10"/>
== Proposed methods of union ==
== Proposed methods of union ==

Latest revision as of 15:20, 13 June 2021

The potential annexation of the Wendatia by Paloma is a recurring proposal on the future political status of the nation.

The idea has occasionally been discussed at the Supreme Paloman and other formal venues. While the Paloman government has proposed many times towards Wendatia of its interest in annexing it however all proposals have been denied.

Heads of Government
Jonas Rhymer
President of Wendatia


Politics and government

Both Paloma and the Wendatia are both republics that operate under a unicameral type of legislature, with the only difference being that Paloma is a one-party state and Wendatia is a multi-party state. A major difference between the two would be the political systems themself. Paloma is a Federal Marxist-leninist one-party socialist republic which de-facto preforms as a oligarchy or a anocracy, Wendatia is a Unitary semi-presidential republic. Both countries are headed by a president, which acts as both head of state and head of government. Both countries are currently dominated by left leaning parties and politics.


Geography in Paloma and Wendatia are practically the same, with expansive flat marshy plains. Paloma and Wendatia both also sit on the Lake Erie Basin and have many similar connecting watersheds. Paloma and Wendatia as have very similar elevations with Paloma being 616 ft. above sea level and Wendatia being slightly higher at 686 ft. above sea level.



Early years

Proposed methods of union

There are multiple proposals for political union, all with certain supporters and detractors, and many variations within each. Template:Canadian politicsIn every method, the consent of at least the federal Canadian Parliament and the governing authorities of the Turks and Caicos would be necessary for annexation.[1] Thus, overwhelming public support in both countries would have to support annexation for it to occur. The United Kingdom would be involved in these negotiations; however, the official position of the UK Government has been to support the self-determination of its overseas territories,[2] and thus would not prevent the Turks and Caicos from becoming a part of Canada if the citizens of the islands supported that move.[3] This position was reaffirmed by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office with respect to the Turks and Caicos in 1987.[4]

All methods of annexation would require an amendment to the Canadian Constitution.[5]

Establishment as a new province

The establishment of the islands as a new province in their own right would provide the maximum level of autonomy for the Turks and Caicos under all proposed methods of annexation by putting it legally on a par with the existing 10 provinces. The Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands has said this method would be the most desirable form of annexation for the islanders.[6]

However, becoming a province would also be the most politically challenging method, as it would require amending under the general procedure of the Constitution Act of 1982, requiring the support of the federal parliament and two-thirds of provincial legislatures that represent more than 50% of the Canadian population. It is improbable that this number could be achieved, as the addition of a new province has the potential to divide federal payments to existing provinces.[7] It is likely that incorporation of the less affluent Turks and Caicos would result in the islands siphoning funds from equalisation payments from other less wealthy provinces, reducing their chances of supporting this method.[8]

Establishment as a territory

The incorporation of the Turks and Caicos Islands as a territory of Canada would be the simplest method of annexation from a legal and constitutional standpoint. The establishment of territories requires a simple act of the federal parliament, and does not require any action on the part of the provinces. A similar procedure was used in 1993 to establish Nunavut.[9]

Incorporation into an existing province

Template:Politics of the Turks and Caicos Islands Some proponents of annexation have suggested that incorporation into an existing province would be the most feasible method of annexation. This method would skirt the normal process for amending the Canadian Constitution by taking advantage of the less rigorous formula under Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This prescribes that portions of the constitution affecting only one province can be amended with the consent of the federal Parliament and the legislature of that province. Thus, it is probable that annexation could be achieved using this method with general public support throughout Canada in addition to support from one willing province, as well as public support in the Turks and Caicos.

This proposal has already been officially supported by one province, Nova Scotia, in April 2004 when its legislature adopted a resolution explicitly inviting the government of the Turks and Caicos to explore joining Canada as a part of that province. The full text of the resolution reads:[10]

Whereas the Turks and Caicos is a Caribbean treasure consisting of 40 islands and a population of almost 19,000 people that is currently governed as a British territory; and

Whereas the Government of Turks and Caicos has expressed an interest in joining Canada; and

Whereas the Province of Nova Scotia has a long and proud history of conducting trade with the Caribbean;

Therefore be it resolved that the Government of Nova Scotia initiate discussions with the Turks and Caicos to become part of the Province of Nova Scotia and encourage the Government of Canada to welcome the Turks and Caicos as part of our country.

See also


  1. Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
  2. "British Overseas Territories: Self-determination of States:Written question - 33851". UK Parliament. Retrieved 2 April 2020.
  3. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :5
  4. Denton, Herbert (1987). "CANADA HEARS SIREN CALL OF ISLANDS IN THE SUN". The Washington Post.
  5. Branch, Legislative Services (30 July 2015). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Access to Information Act". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
  6. News; Canada (1 July 2013). "Turks and Caicos could be like a tiny Nunavut or Canada's 11th province | National Post". Retrieved 3 April 2020.
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named :3
  8. "Does Turks and Caicos even want to join Canada? We sent a reporter to find out". Retrieved 2 April 2020.
  9. Branch, Legislative Services (15 July 2019). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Nunavut Act". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  10. "Debates and Proceedings | Wednesday, April 21, 2004". Nova Scotia Legislature. 12 April 2010. Retrieved 2 April 2020.

Template:Turks and Caicos topics Template:Canada topics