Although, even with Earth no longer a Federation member, it seems all the important higher ups in Starfleet and the Federation are still human. Even in season 4 it appears the Federation President is at least part human.
What if Earth doesn't rejoin the Federation?
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
We have no idea who the President is.
I mean, it MIGHT be Kovich (and I hope it is), but that has not been confirmed.
On a much lighter note: IMDB says that the actress who played Captain Ndoye was planning on quitting acting, but she had such a good time filming "People of Earth" that it reignited her passion for the craft and she decided to stay in the game.
Is that cool, or what?
Last edited:
I thought the Cardassian-human woman seen in the season 4 trailer was revealed to be the Federation President?
^ I wouldn't know, I haven't seen the trailers. 
Earth is depicted as being the center of the Federation, with humans as the predominant species making up Starfleet. People complain about how unrealistic that is.
Earth is depicted as being a minor backwater planet which decided to leave the Federation. People complain about how Earth would/should never have done that.
See what I mean?
We can find anything to be irritated about, can't we?
Conidering the fact that those are usually two different kinds of people (myself belonging more to the first group), I don't get the confusion. It's like saying "people complain there is too much ship porn, and also there is too little!"Earth is depicted as being the center of the Federation, with humans as the predominant species making up Starfleet. People complain about how unrealistic that is.
Earth is depicted as being a minor backwater planet which decided to leave the Federation. People complain about how Earth would/should never have done that.
See what I mean?
We can find anything to be irritated about, can't we?
Different people complain about different things.
Of course, in this case you could ask: Why is Earth leaving an organization that is so Earth-dominated anyways? So, I guess, it would be perfectly consistent to complain about both.
Last edited:
Welcome to fandom where irritation is made up and the points don't matter.Earth is depicted as being the center of the Federation, with humans as the predominant species making up Starfleet. People complain about how unrealistic that is.
Earth is depicted as being a minor backwater planet which decided to leave the Federation. People complain about how Earth would/should never have done that.
I guess that's my point. Some segment somewhere is going to bitch about something, regardless of what happens, what is emphasized, or what direction is taken.
It's a key argument in my stance that the writers / creators should just write whatever they want, and not try to "please the fans."
I'm irritated by your logical and true statement.
(
And.....well....your irritation irritates ME.
The wider question is how will they go about rebuilding the Federation? They have this `Dilithium nursary`, but assuming it is just that planet they found Sukhal on, can that really power a galaxy? Surely there is now a combined effect to use warp where necessary whilst also mass producing the Spore Drive and reactivating the other experiments such as the one the Vulcans were trying out
I hesitate to inject facts into that dig at the UK, but you are aware that
1-the UK wasnt even involved in the creation of the EU (or specifically, its predecessor the EC) but joined a few decades after it was founded therefore cannot be accused of somehow kneecapping an organisation of its own making.
2-The EU was a by product of, not a factor in, post war international unity. The western post war order that made possible the EU was upheld by NATO, of which the UK was and still is, the second largest contributor.
3-`Dark moments`? Voting to leave an international organisation and therefore have the laws that affect you made by the people you elect is only dark if you, in Maryland, would be happy if your laws were made in Canada or Mexico by people over whom you have no vote and who you have no possibility of removing from office if they fail to represent your interests.
If not, it is the natural state of any society to want those who make its laws to be accountable to them, and implies nothing `dark`.
I hesitate to inject facts into that dig at the UK, but you are aware that
1-the UK wasnt even involved in the creation of the EU (or specifically, its predecessor the EC) but joined a few decades after it was founded therefore cannot be accused of somehow kneecapping an organisation of its own making.
2-The EU was a by product of, not a factor in, post war international unity. The western post war order that made possible the EU was upheld by NATO, of which the UK was and still is, the second largest contributor.
3-`Dark moments`? Voting to leave an international organisation and therefore have the laws that affect you made by the people you elect is only dark if you, in Maryland, would be happy if your laws were made in Canada or Mexico by people over whom you have no vote and who you have no possibility of removing from office if they fail to represent your interests.
If not, it is the natural state of any society to want those who make its laws to be accountable to them, and implies nothing `dark`.
Last edited:
Let's not turn this in to a Brexit threat but point 3 is more or less bullshit...no, just straight bullshit.
There are regular elections for MEPs and the EU parliament sets minimum regulations for which all member countries should adhere. So the EU parliament, which includes UK representatives (thus negating the point about outside parties dictating rules and them being unelected), sets these standards and (may want to sit down for this) the UK actually has then through its own government set more stringent standards for in most cases.
The only way that one cannot remove those people from power is by not involving oneself with the voting process - at which point more fool you and no sympathy is given.
In the interest of fairness, point 1 and 2 are pretty spot on although the UK joining the EEC (precusor to EU) was not quite decades - applied to join in '61 but CdG of France veto'd it. Once he relinquished power in '69 we applied again and were accepted in '72. Almost 20 years but not as significant an amount of time as implied
You are right that this shouldnt become a Brexit thread. But...
Oh dear.
I fear that by relying on the EU parliament to disprove my point, you have inadvertently proven my point about the democractic deficit. Surely you are aware that the EU parliament, which as you say is elected, cannot initiate or even block legislation? Only the EU commission, which is unelected, can initiate legislation, and whilst it is obliged to consult the parliament, it is under no obligation to listen to it.
To prove this point, i quote directly from the EU itself
That being the case, the EU parliament being, of the EU parliaments own admission, a powerless rubber stamp, would you care to reassess your `bullshit` argument?
So it states in the same link that certain elements are equally positioned anyway.
Parliament proposes legislation for approval - simply two layer system
Council is not obliged to take on the opinion but does generally
The EU Council is made up of the heads of states/governments of the members. Governments do tend to be elected now, don't they?
Overall that does not equate to your analogy of Canada and Mexico making decisions for a US State.
Also my point re: base level legislation still holds up.
The loss of sovereignty argument is the bullshit part. But who am I to argue with someone who, presumably, was really in to that big red bus promising promising fictional £350m for the NHS or those adverts about "hordes of immigrants"
Parliament proposes legislation for approval - simply two layer system
Council is not obliged to take on the opinion but does generally
The EU Council is made up of the heads of states/governments of the members. Governments do tend to be elected now, don't they?
Overall that does not equate to your analogy of Canada and Mexico making decisions for a US State.
Also my point re: base level legislation still holds up.
The loss of sovereignty argument is the bullshit part. But who am I to argue with someone who, presumably, was really in to that big red bus promising promising fictional £350m for the NHS or those adverts about "hordes of immigrants"
..............................................
And if Earth does not rejoin the UFP, the UFP will happily carry on without it.
Last edited:
I would arguably deserve a modding for that final comment as it as a bite and whilst not outright saying it, certainly implied certain things.
Presumably then you take the Lexit argument?
I still fundamentally disagree (and this is why I implied the racial element to your thinking) with the analogy - if it is simply about unelected people then surely the effect of one Dominic Cummings on the UK last year is more applicable?
Not forgetting that the UK held one hell of a veto power over a number of areas and a 13% vote share on the council
https://fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/
Again, the EU sets a base level of regulation - most UK laws are well in excess of those.
Also - it is disingenuous to sell it as the UK is beholden to the whims of a bunch of foreign powers. The EEC, now the EU, as voted to be joined in the 75 ref works as a collective for the benefit of the whole. Why are Germany or France not looking to bail so that the evil foreign powers can't control them anymore?
So the commissioner for one particular area is Polish, great. Who gives a shit? This is a collective work and the commissioner for agriculture does not unilaterally decide everything on agriculture, they will create potential policy. These are hugely different things.
This also ignores the huge benefits of FoM, scientific collaboration, Erasmus (scheme for students to study abroad) and much more.
If you focus your argument on "Country x controls decisions of country y" when it isn't the case there will be an assumption of a racial element to your logic. I apologise if that is not the case but it comes across as isolationist.
Can we please shelve the Brexit discussion and get back to talking about the fictional future Earth from Discovery?
Apologies - will call it a day.
It is a shame as it would work as a really interesting present day parallel however, as can be seen, it is somewhat polarised and does not lead to good quality debate/discussion.
Re: UE and its secession from the Fed - fear is a bloody powerful motivator and with the pressure that would fall on Earth as the "lead" race within the Federation (may not actually be the case but certainly the way Trek has presented it over the years Earth is number one, with Vulcan, Andoria and Tellar as 2a, 2b, and 2c in terms of importance) to drag the galaxy through the aftermath of the burn it is understandable that they would go, "We can't keep shouldering this, we need to focus on protecting ourselves" which, sadly, has driven them further and further down the isolationist path until they can't even stop to see who the guys from Titan were!
In the Berman era, we would have seen Earth puff out its chest, wheel out their finest, and take charge, co-ordinate everything and make the world alright.
What one would prefer to see, if Earth were still to become a bit insular, would be more of a, "I don't want to lead anymore but let me work with the rest of you as best I can whilst taking a step back to deal with shit back home". Hopefully that is the direction UE will take now.
It is a shame as it would work as a really interesting present day parallel however, as can be seen, it is somewhat polarised and does not lead to good quality debate/discussion.
Re: UE and its secession from the Fed - fear is a bloody powerful motivator and with the pressure that would fall on Earth as the "lead" race within the Federation (may not actually be the case but certainly the way Trek has presented it over the years Earth is number one, with Vulcan, Andoria and Tellar as 2a, 2b, and 2c in terms of importance) to drag the galaxy through the aftermath of the burn it is understandable that they would go, "We can't keep shouldering this, we need to focus on protecting ourselves" which, sadly, has driven them further and further down the isolationist path until they can't even stop to see who the guys from Titan were!
In the Berman era, we would have seen Earth puff out its chest, wheel out their finest, and take charge, co-ordinate everything and make the world alright.
What one would prefer to see, if Earth were still to become a bit insular, would be more of a, "I don't want to lead anymore but let me work with the rest of you as best I can whilst taking a step back to deal with shit back home". Hopefully that is the direction UE will take now.
Similar threads
