Talk:Australasia

Question: does the city of Sydney also exist *there*? And if so, under what name? --IJzeren Jan 11:36, 13 Jun 2005 (PDT)

You'd be looking for Sednîr, I think. --Kgaughan 09:47, 22 October 2005 (PDT)

The Great Oriental War page mentioned a Sideni that was bombed by the Chinese. Should that be changed to Sednîr, or are those two separate cities? Nik 13:14, 1 March 2006 (PST)

Its the same, I just sometime mess up. --Marc Pasquin 07:05, 3 March 2006 (PST)

ANJAC

The "Austral" mentioned was not a typo but the (rarely used) adjective for the southern hemisphere. The reason was that I wanted to keep a name close to the one used *here* (ANZAC) but that at the time, aothearoa was not part of australasia (and beside it would have destroyed the acronym). It also allowed the presence in it of other nations which *here* were part of the british but not *there*.--Marc Pasquin 10:32, 22 October 2005 (PDT)

Okay. Sorry for being a bit overzealous on that one. --Kgaughan 11:44, 22 October 2005 (PDT)

No problem, I appreciate the rest.--Marc Pasquin 16:19, 22 October 2005 (PDT)

Name

Why is the name Australasia *there* rather than Australia? I'm assuming Australia must've been an older varient, since one of the member-states is called English-Australia. Is the term Australia used at all *there*? Nik 22:52, 27 January 2006 (PST)

Australia simply refer to the island (*here* australia minus tasmania and the other outlying island), Australasia refer to the commonwealth (and would have been used only after 1901). The 2 wouldn't be used interchangebly.--Marc Pasquin 17:51, 28 January 2006 (PST)

Oh, so Australasia is a nation which is made up of the island (?) of Australia and various other islands? Nik 20:36, 28 January 2006 (PST)

Marc has it right: Australia refers to the continent itself, Australasia refers to the federation -- Australia and its islands, the Indian Ocean territories, Antarctic territories, New Guinea and Papua, and lastly Aotearoa which doesn't think much of the federation. Elemtilas 22:26, 28 January 2006 (PST)

Speaking of Aotearoa, I'm surprised of all of the countries in IB, it still hasn't got much info about it, nor a specified caretaker who's decided to take it on. Do we even know what the status of Maori is? I'd assume it's the principal language and it's more widely spoken there than here. It's not like Aotearoa is some tiny atoll in the middle of the Pacific (Hell, even Nauru has more on it!) Doobieous 02:15, 29 January 2006 (PST)

We know a bit: we know that, like in the NAL, there was an Understanding between the Natives and the later settlers. Maori is the official language and the royal house is Native, though English is spoken as well. We know what their one pound notes look like. I'm sure the Treaty of Waitangi has similar wording and effect as the Solemn League and Covenant. Elemtilas 13:04, 29 January 2006 (PST)

I've often wondered why Andrew never took it under his wing... Elemtilas 13:05, 29 January 2006 (PST)

I would argue that I'm not objective about NZ because I dó consider it my Utopia. If anything I am tempted to form a committee with Southern Dave and Wesley and seeing what we can come up with between us. - AndrewSmith 19:15, 29 January 2006 (PST)

Error, sorry

Sorry about the recent edit. The news article I read on Conculture indicated that the referendum in question was to include a provision for turning Australasia into a republic with its own native monarchy, rather the situation its got now. As I said on Conculture, that made a lot of sense, especially for a modern Australasia. I see that was apparently wrong, so have removed the edit in question.

I'd rather not see a repeat of the sudden switcheroo that happened in New Francy. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense for countries like Australasia or the NAL. At least the French have a history of violent republicanism overturning an absolute monarchy, and I don't have a problem with that, and seeing as NF is Marc's sole domain, I don't have a problem with the change (though it took a bit of getting used to, as I suspect would be the case if a real life country suddenly altered its fundamental form of government!) Britian and its former colonies simply don't share that kind of mindset in general, as they have a long tradition of democracy happening from within a constitutional monarchy, and also long traditions of said former colonies obtaining home rule (first within the Empire and now within the Commonwealth), generally as constitutional monarchies in their own right, either with a native royal house or with one of the British royal houses.

I think any change in Australasia's form of government should take into account the assumption that in some way or another its basic form of government is democratic within a constitutional monarchy. This is probably the most common form that democratic countries have followed in IB, the "Three Frances" being conspicious and really quite radical departures. There is certainly plenty of lattitude for Australasians to be democratic and barely monarchical (like the NAL and SA) all the way down to democratic and solidly monarchical. I think any proposal to radically republicanise Australasia apart from its monarchy needs some serious discussion. I am not 100% set against such a move, but am strongly against such a move. Elemtilas 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)