CANZUK to CANZEWSI

The plan (http://grampsgrumps.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/the-canzuk-solution.html) is to solve a lot of problems at once:

• Keep Scotland in the fold by making a better fold;
• Get the UK out of the EU to allow both to move forward separately, because it is increasingly clear that they can't move forward together;
• Allow a group of nations that are culturally aligned to come together to build something that is more than the sum of its parts;
• It would be really nice to bring Ireland into the fold as well. Unification is the obvious carrot. That could be ugly, but so might other options that I've thought of.
• Address Australia's anxiety about being a minnow in a tough local area where we are not well liked.

Previously I picked the CANZUK acronym (and later found that others had done the same). However in my mind the idea is to replace the UK with this new federation, with the nations each having complete home rule for domestic matters. So I like the CANZEWSI acronym better. There might be a better arrangement of letters, but remember to keep "NZ" together.

It is a bit hard to see why Canada would join, but it will be a bit strange without them. Somehow I feel that emotionally they will want to join if the other 6(7) ask them. One carrot would be to put the capital there: maybe Halifax. Another might be support in establishing an Arctic presence and opening up the NW passage.

The widely spread Federation would have good reason to reestablish our ancestors' strong involvement with shipping. The world needs a revolution in shipping to significantly reduce the carbon emissions. Nuclear powered ships are the only plausible solution. The next generation of nuclear power generation will be ideal since it fails safe and is very hard to adapt for weapons. Nuclear powered vessels can produce the energy needed to act as ice breakers over extended periods of time.

The people who had the idea before me are The United Commonwealth Society. There are a couple of reasons why it is probably best not to link the plan to the British Commonwealth.

• It suggests that other poorer parts of the Commonwealth might be included at some stage. This will not go down well with voters and explicit denials won't get through to all of them.
• It will probably be best if the chosen name avoids identifying one location (i.e. Britain) over the other parts. Of course British heritage and English language are core unifying factors, but it is hard to get that in the name without annoying some folk unnecessarily.