• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What happens to other countries on Earth?

More east towards the Oakland hills and across the valley towards Antioch I would guess. Unless the spread is even greater, than we are talking Discovery Bay and Brentwood.
My theory is the entire Bay Area is Starfleet Headquarters and the Academy. My parents' house is probably Cadet housing. :lol:
 
In one of the Lost Years novels, the usual protesters in Berkeley cheered when Starfleet launched the saucer section of the USS Enterprise some months before the events of TMP. Captain Decker was a little surprised by this. Of course the San Francisco Yard was Hunter's Point in the novel, though I suppose it could be where Candlestick Park was now.
 
Kirk's apartment in Wrath of Khan was probably civilian housing. At least that was the impression I had, that Kirk didn't live on base.
 
In one of the Lost Years novels, the usual protesters in Berkeley cheered when Starfleet launched the saucer section of the USS Enterprise some months before the events of TMP. Captain Decker was a little surprised by this.
While fanboys protested it being built on the ground.
 
While fanboys protested it being built on the ground.

Well yes, but the older novels suggested that they took saucer down to Earth to refit, while the engineering hull stayed in orbit. I wonder if Starfleet builds in Mare Island or if they took over the area that was Candlestick Park, since Hunter's Point is overrun with houses now instead of old naval drydocks.
 
The Queen is the Commander in Chief, is the Head of the Armed Forces, and is the "ultimate authority" of the military. British military officers and enlisted personnel swear allegiance only to the Monarch (and not the Prime Minister or Parliament).

By exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, the Queen delegates the management of the British military to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defense.

As I understand it, the British Prime Minister is require by law to get the Queen's permission prior to the nation going to war.

I think you misunderstand British constitutional convention. What you are describing -- the Queen granting or denying "permission" -- would cause a constitutional crisis.

As I understand it, by law the United Kingdom can only declare war if the Queen-in-Council issues a declaration. But the Monarch does not by constitutional convention get to veto the Prime Minister's decision to go to war. The unwritten rule is that the Monarch must obey any "advice" the Prime Minister gives them, even up to or including going to war. The old saying is that if the Prime Minister advised the Monarch to sign their own death warrant, they would have to.

The Monarchy is allowed to exist so long as it does not make meaningful political decisions. The Queen is beloved precisely because she does not actually lead the country. She is the focal point for feelings, not for actual policy.

So, yes, by law the Queen-in-Council must issue a declaration of war. But by constitutional convention -- and mind you, in the U.K., constitutional convention has the status of unwritten law and disobedience to such convention would cause a constitutional crisis -- the Queen must obey the Prime Minister's advice to go to war, no matter what she may actually think.

I think she's still on the Canadian money too.

Elizabeth II is separately and simultaneously the Queen of Canada. She is also separately but simultaneously the Queen of Australia, the Queen of New Zealand, the Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of Barbados, the Queen of the Bahamas, the Queen of Grenada, the Queen of Papua New Guinea, the Queen of the Solomon Islands, the Queen of Tuvalu, the Queen of Saint Lucia, the Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Queen of Belize, the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, and the Queen of Saint Kitts and Nevis. These are all legally distinct thrones as a result of the Statute of Westminster.
 
I repeat, in a Next Gen episode, it was stated as being a unique and highly irregular situation, when the Federation was considering admitting a new member planet without a unified government. They were thinking about admitting part of a planet only, with a land boundary between the Fed member and the other nation on the planet. Otherwise, a unified government is a prerequisite. This settles the question.
 
I'm going to stop trying to understand what the discussion about Picard's accent is supposed to be about. I'll just say this: If a Frenchman speaks with a British accent, the only meaning that has is that he learned English very, very well. You're supposed to get the accent right. When you are taught French, I know, they hammer it into you that you must learn the accent. It's part of the language. So Picard just mastered English. No further significance than that.
 
if Starfleet builds in Mare Island or if they took over the area that was Candlestick Park
Owing to global warming and rising ocean levels, Candlestick Park is under San Fransisco bay.
n a Next Gen episode, it was stated as being a unique and highly irregular situation, when the Federation was considering admitting a new member planet without a unified government
There was never any requirement, nor discussion about a "unified government," in the episode you referred to to problem was the people weren't unified.

Well, three quarters were, one quarter wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Upgrades cost credits that the 23rd century working class cannot afford. Its like asking me to upgrade from a Corsa to a Porsche.
In Federation Socialist Paradise, all things are free. Credits are for dealing with unlightened Capitalist societies.
 
There was never any requirement, nor discussion about a "unified government," in the episode you referred to to problem was the people weren't unified.

Well, three quarters were, one quarter wasn't.

How else do people unify, except politically, with the same government? Or a hive mind?
 
How else do people unify, except politically ...
When Beverly spoke of the Kes being unified, it was clear she was referring to the people, not the government.

Simply placing a group of people under a single government would not (in of itself) result in these people being magically unified.

May sound circular, but people are unified when they are unified.

When they hold many common beliefs and philosophical concepts. When they can interact socially without fear and mistrust.

Beverly described the Kes people as unified and progressive (no mention of government). The Kes and Prytt people were not unified, the episode made this clear.
 
Last edited:
Beverly described the Kes people as unified and progressive (no mention of government). The Kes and Prytt people were not unified, the episode made this clear.

This is a distortion that takes Crusher's comments out of context. It's clear from the whole episode that "Kes" and the "Kes people" are interchangeably used to refer to the group of people as a national whole. The people of Kes were unified under a common government.
 
This is a distortion that takes Crusher's comments out of context.
Straight from the transcripts.
The people of Kes were unified under a common government.
I re-watched the episode prior to my last post.

There's no mention of what you claim.
refer to the group of people as a national whole.
There's no evidence of that the Kes are a nation.

And that the Prytt is the Prytt Alliance suggests the Prytt are multiple nation/states.
 
Picard talked about a planet unifying politically, one government in other words, as being an indication of whether it was mature enough to be a Federation member.
 
Picard spoke of previous Federation admissions as having "resolved certain social and political differences." No mention of one government.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top