View Single Post
  #17  
Old 05-13-2007, 01:33 AM
Sa'ar Chasm's Avatar
Sa'ar Chasm Sa'ar Chasm is offline
Our last, best hope for peace
Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sitting (in Ottawa)
Posts: 3,425
Default

Quote:
If they have the same head of state then they can't be separate countries. That's absurd.
There's precedent. Before George I became King of the United Kingdom, he was the Elector of Hanover. When he became King, the UK and Hanover entered into personal union, but remained separate entities, in that laws passed in one didn't affect the other. Similarly, England and Scotland were separate countries in personal union from the time James IV of Scotland became also James I of England up until the Act of Union in 1707.

Canada became a Dominion in 1867 - a collection of British colonies and territories were granted responsible government under the Crown. This meant that we had our own Parliament and were able to pass our own laws while still being part of the Empire. What at the time was a polite fiction became fact in the 30s with the Treaty of Westminster - the Dominions were indeed independant nations capable of conducting their own international affairs. The difference can be seen in WWI and WWII. In 1914, the Canadian PM considered the British declaration of war on Germany to be binding on Canada. In 1939, we made a point of arguing about it for a week before we declared war on our own.
__________________
The first run through of any experimental procedure is to identify any potential errors by making them.
Reply With Quote