Talk:Pacific Union

Misinformation about New Zealand and the Australian Constitution

In the text, it says "The Constitution of Australia gives New Zealand the right to become a state of the Commonwealth of Australia at any time[citation needed], although there is little political support for an Australia/New Zealand union."

In point 6 (Definitions) of the Preamble of the Constitution of Australia, New Zealand is indeed mentioned as a State, with a qualification over whether they are a member of the Commonwealth (of Australia). However, since New Zealand didn't decide to join, it probably can't be defined as a State, and definitely not an Original State.

The legal force of the Preamble isn't likely to be strong, in any case.

There are no other explicit references to New Zealand in the Constitution that I can find.

This makes the text referring to New Zealand's right erroneous I think. Can someone fix the offending sentence, or remove it if it doesn't add to the content of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.95.22 (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I altered the sentence in question there to be more factually accurate, the constitution does allow for the admission of new states and it was thought early on that NZ especially, along with other British colonies, would join. Section 6 is what is referred to here, Section 121 is more relevant.

This whole paragraph still reads like 3 bullet points though with no real flow. nigell k 10:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag

Has the 1908 - 1912 Australasian Olympic Flag ever been put forward as a potential Pacific Union flag other than in this article?? It just seems a bizarre inclusion in the article to me. I'll leave it up a week or so to give anyone a chance to justify its use here. nigell k 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

East Timor?

There's no mention of East Timor in the article, which is fine, except the map in the infobox has coloured East Timor blue, which would imply it is a potential member wouldn't it? Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the map that has East Timor removed, I can't upload so I'll just dump it here. http://thepacificunion.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/7/4/4374060/4524097_orig.png It is from that original version so it needs to be republished with this stuff. The Australian Red Man (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

icensing

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.

	This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.	

You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. This licensing tag was added to this file as part of the GFDL licensing update.

Is or was this a proposed development?

I accidentally stumbled on this article and I am not finding it clear whether it "is" or "was" a proposal. Are there still conversations ongoing or prominent supporters backing it? As the latest news seems from 2003, which is now almost two decades ago. Morgengave (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It was just a long-term idea, there has never been anything concrete. There's definitely nothing going on now, Pacific regionalism has existing issues. CMD (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)