When is the Anglo Empire going to reunite? - Page 5

Lancer · May 10, 2003, 04:55

Remember 1812!

Kidding...

US/UK Reunion

Sandman · May 10, 2003, 07:39

Quote:

WRT religion, last I checked, the Brits have a state religion, while the Americans do not. That would take some getting used to.

The state religion means nothing. What is notable is that the vast majority of British people never attend church, unlike America, and politicians never bring up God in their speeches.

Quote:

WRT to abortion, the British trust their doctors more than the Americans. Americans couldn't stand a tighter standard than the Brits.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this.

Quote:

Last I checked, they both use a first-past-the-post system.

Britain uses an undemocratic first-past-the-post system, consisting of one MP for each constituency of 60000 people. From what I gather, America uses a hideously undemocratic electoral college.

Starchild · May 10, 2003, 07:46

US-UK reunion.

DinoDoc · May 10, 2003, 07:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
From what I gather, America uses a hideously undemocratic electoral college.

How is that substantively different from the way Blair was chosen as PM?

Dauphin · May 10, 2003, 08:07

The size and composition of constituencies vs states for starters.

Sava · May 10, 2003, 08:21

I love it when Americans bash the French... as if our sh1t doesn't stink...

Demerzel · May 10, 2003, 09:44

I'm sure if America and the other countries beg we'll let them back into the United States of England

Dr Strangelove · May 10, 2003, 10:21

First the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand need to get rid of their silly parliamentary style governments. It should be obvious to everyone now that the only way to preserve democracy is to have a strong executive. No more silly votes of no confidence, and whoever said that legislative bodies should have a say so about international affairs, like wars and such? All that will have to go......along with the royals, then we can discuss annexation.

Oh, socialized medicine will have to go too.

PLATO · May 10, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Dear PLATO1003,

There is only one thing that my fellows-countrymen could not afford, coming from you, is your indifference; but they are not hurt at all by the fact that some Americans, like you, hate them, all the more that your reasons for hating us do not stand the test of rationality. Anything excessive is insignificant (tout ce qui est excessif est insignifiant), and your arguments fall always in this category.

By chance there are also many Americans who do not hate us, and we reciprocate warmly, and we will continue without effort to express those feelings, would it be only because so many of them are posting on this forum. Together, we will take care that the future will not look like the present time, so that you become tired of sending bad names for wrong motives.

We hope that you will realize that the crushing of an underdeveloped country of 23 millions, deprived of any air power, by a 300 millions industrial nation, is not an astounding achievement you could be proud of, and that the future could be more difficult and dangerous than you expect. We friendly suggest that you do not to continue to insult and despise nations disagreeing with you today, but that you could be happy to see on your side tomorrow : as said the fabulist, on a souvent besoin d’un plus petit que soi.

Dear DAVOUT,

You miss my point. I like the French people and France as a country. It is not a matter of hate...it is a matter of grave disapointment. No one disputes that Saddam was bad...No one has said that Iraq is not better off without him. My disapointment is in the fact that the French government chose to undermine the international efforts that were in place to try and deal with him. I'm not saying that the idea to continue inspections was inherently bad (although I strongly disagreed with it), what I am saying is that when it became apparent that the US was going to invade regardless, why did the French step up efforts to increase the rift between them and us. I am not suggesting that they should have just decided to go along with things...not at all. Their are many many channels of communication with the US government that they could have used to dissent and even to advise should they have chosen to. They, instead, chose to openly, loudly, and forcefully cause a trans-atlantic rift. This is my disapointment. I don't blame the French nation or the French people. This was a choice of the French government. Apparently a choice to create a counter balance to US power? Ridiculous for an allied nation to act this way. When you combine this action with Chirac's Iraqi ties, with French oil contracts they could stand to lose, and with illegal French weapons found in Iraq, then any American would become angry. Do I want France as an enemy? Hell no! We want them as friends. This is apparently not Chirac's choice. So be it. When he is gone or changes his tune, we will see.

Now I am sure many will thoughtlessly attack this post with the "You just want them to be American lackeys" drival, but the truth is that nothing could be farther from the truth. Good alliances flourish on different points of view, but when its crunch time they stick together. France passed the first part, and miserably failed the second. For this I am disapointed. The ball is now in their court and they now have a chance to restore some of the UNSC power and heal the rift with the new UNSC resolution on the table. Hopefully they will realize that America is watching and hoping.

PLATO · May 10, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I love it when Americans bash the French... as if our sh1t doesn't stink...

Ours does stink, but so does theirs! Pointing out theirs does not preclude them from being able to point out ours. I will happily listen, hopefully they will too.

Ned · May 10, 2003, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
First the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand need to get rid of their silly parliamentary style governments. It should be obvious to everyone now that the only way to preserve democracy is to have a strong executive. No more silly votes of no confidence, and whoever said that legislative bodies should have a say so about international affairs, like wars and such? All that will have to go......along with the royals, then we can discuss annexation.

Oh, socialized medicine will have to go too.

Actually, Dr. Strangelove, I think the Supreme Court would say the parliamentary system is a form of "Republican" governement.

Regardless, in a Federation, each member state can run its own affairs the way it wants. At the Federal level, of course, I would like to see the US constitution be the model.

At that level, I suggest that the UK be recognized as fours states for the purposes of electing Senators and allocating electoral college votes, etc.: England, Scotland, Wales and NI. (I bet the Irish would want to join as well.) The US would have its 50 states. Australia, Canada, NZ, their provinces.

England, probably, would then be the largest state in the Union, replacing California. That would justify calling the new entity the English Union, or EU for short.

mrboo123 · May 10, 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

someone picking on our little mentally retarded brother?

Are you taking about Canada?

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
We'd have to get rid of Quebec, or require them to speak English.

Gl, and hf with THAT!

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
First the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand need to get rid of their silly parliamentary style governments. It should be obvious to everyone now that the only way to preserve democracy is to have a strong executive. No more silly votes of no confidence, and whoever said that legislative bodies should have a say so about international affairs, like wars and such? All that will have to go......along with the royals, then we can discuss annexation.

Oh, socialized medicine will have to go too.

Yes to everything BUT the killing of Socialized medicine!

Dr Strangelove · May 10, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

At that level, I suggest that the UK be recognized as fours states for the purposes of electing Senators and allocating electoral college votes, etc.: England, Scotland, Wales and NI. (I bet the Irish would want to join as well.) The US would have its 50 states. Australia, Canada, NZ, their provinces.

England, probably, would then be the largest state in the Union, replacing California. That would justify calling the new entity the English Union, or EU for short.

Nah, I think England would have to be carved up a bit further. Doesn't England have provinces?

I'd favor calling the new union "The United States of the Anglo-speaking Nationalities", or "Us'ans" for short. The rest of the world would then be known as "Them'ns".

Ned · May 10, 2003, 14:45

Actually, both Fleischer and a State Department spokesman yesterday said nice things about France. They both said that the French were allies and that we were still cooperating the number of areas, such as the war on terror. It looks like the Bush administration is indicating that it wants to talk.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Actually, Dr. Strangelove, I think the Supreme Court would say the parliamentary system is a form of "Republican" governement...

ReallY? I thought they'd say whatever top dogs in the Republican Party told them to say.

I mean, 5 out of 9 installed by Reagan or Bush 1 & 2 - it's a no-brainer, surely?

I am only going by highly biased media reports, so the above stats are probably baloney. But I think the first staement is pretty accurate.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Nah, I think England would have to be carved up a bit further. Doesn't England have provinces?

The way that England is carved up is a statistician's nightmare and a sociologists dream. The historical origin of local government was the borough, invented I believe by Alfred the Great to help defend against the Danes.

After the Normans, the Shires or county system can in (feudalism needing bigger bits of turf to carve up).

Then, Industrial Revolution happens and the cities explode - so there's (eventual) representation of the labourers in the cities as well as the landed rich (started maybe after Napoleonics Wars, continuing into Victoria).

What we are left with is a system of local government borders that changes with every election, and sometimes more often. Whole counties have disappeared, others have been invented (cities chopped off from their parent counties).

Not to mention the thorny question of the non-English bits of Britain - Wales and Scotland.

It's a mess. Don't even think about tidying it up.

Dr Strangelove · May 10, 2003, 15:16

How about combining the Saxon parts (Sussex, Wessex, etc.) of the country into one state. That would be pretty much the southeastern part of the country. Then combine the old Angle parts, which would be the central east into another state, and the north into a third state, then the west into a fourth state?

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 15:24

a) Wessex hasn't existed since the Normans landed in 1066.

2) The old Anglo parts are basically everything outside of Scotland and Wales. The Central bits was called Mercia and was the battleground between the Danish and the Saxons - hence the use of Danish words like "mither" and a lot of town names that are Danish.

3) The West bit is called Wales, and has never been a cultural part of England. They have their own language (Gaelic variation). Ok, politically they've been a part of England for hundreds of years - the heir to the throne is the Prince of Wales.

4) You still haven't mentioned Scotland. Your not scared of them, are you?

EDIT: Sorry, yes you did. The problem with having Scotland as a separate region is the population is only 1/10 of the rest of the coutnry. Would be a bit generous to invest them with 1/4 of the power.

I said it was a mess. The American military term for rhymes with "oobar". You know what I mean.

Dr Strangelove · May 10, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
4) You still haven't mentioned Scotland. Your not scared of them, are you?

No, I consider Scotland to be a seperate nation. It goes without saying that they would have their own state.

Sandman · May 10, 2003, 15:30

Quote:

Sandman, many of these are "local" issues. I am sure each state can have its own form of government and taxation, etc. I think England still has a state religion only because it has a Monarchy. Get rid of that, and the Brits would be quite happy with the US first amendment.

State religion is an utter irrelevance. It has literally no effect on the running of the country. Most Americans attend church regularly. Most Brits don't. A British politician who brought up God would be laughed out of office.

Gun control is not a local issue, it's part of the U.S. constitution. The "right" to bear arms is completely unacceptable for the average Brit. You'll have to change it.

And get a decent electoral system.

Quote:

As to the new "Federation" government, we'd have to run elections for that post, wouldn't we? I can see it all now, Bill Clinton will be the first Federation president!

Another reason why the "Federation" is a bad idea.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 15:36

If you got rid of the Monarchy, you would be swarmed by angry hand bag waving old ladies.

Not to mention a lot of old vets for fought for "Monarch and country".

I'm no fan of the monarchy - but getting rid of them would mean another civil war. It's not worth it.

Ned · May 10, 2003, 15:39

Sandman, On the 2nd Amendment - I agree, it does not need to be in the constitution.

We would also have to discuss the death penalty. Maybe a grandfather clause to allow states that still have the penalty to keep it. Otherwise, the death penalty would be banned.

I think a reunion is very doable.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Sandman, On the 2nd Amendment - I agree, it does not need to be in the constitution.

I think a reunion is very doable.

AMAZED! An American brave enough to take on the gun lobby!

The reunion may look possible from that side of the Atlantic. From this side, it's a complete non-starter. There;s no popular will to aspire to the USA's current status

We've been there, done that, and for the vast majority of the population it was bad news being a superpower.

Your welcome to it, Ned.

Ned · May 10, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
If you got rid of the Monarchy, you would be swarmed by angry hand bag waving old ladies.

Not to mention a lot of old vets for fought for "Monarch and country".

I'm no fan of the monarchy - but getting rid of them would mean another civil war. It's not worth it.

I don't think that you have to get rid of them. But, I do not believe that they should have any role whatsoever in a national government. This is another area we could "grandfather in" the monarchy for the canstate of England only. But, still we would have to guarantee the people of England freedom of religion. The monarch being the head of the Church of England would have to end.

Ned · May 10, 2003, 15:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

We've been there, done that, and for the vast majority of the population it was bad news being a superpower.

Your welcome to it, Ned.

Cruddy, is this fear of again being a superpower the source of the opposition by many in England to joining the European Union?

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 16:01

It's a problem, Ned. An attack on the monarch can still get you strung up, your guts extracted and being sliced into 4 or so pieces. You see, we do have a constitution - it's invisible though. Ok, the official term is "unwritten", but it amounts to the same thing. This consitution is essentially the deal done between parliament and the royals to ensure a) the survival of the monarchy and b) it's complete lack of real power for war mongering. All the monarch can do is open Parliament - they can't close it anymore.

Messing with an invisible consitution can't be done. Either you have a monarchy - or you don't.

There's a lof of minor niggles as well, but they are the British untouchables. The only way to end this situation is by a power takeover; like I said, civil war.

It's a very stagnant system. It was designed to be, to ensure continuity at a time when we'd had enough of military dictator's (Cromwell) and "religious nutter" politics.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 16:05

I wouldn't say fear - revullsion is a closer word.

My dad, for instance, grew up in the slums of Liverpool during WW2. There's no way he'd ever want to be part of a super empire again - not when we've got "free at point of delivery" healthcare, pension rates, housing laws, and a whole raft of measures that ensure his nightmare childhood isn't repeated.

I'm not saying the UK is perfect, or even Great. But it's fairly peaceful, we have fought for our rights, and we're not about to dump them in the toilet in the name of prosperity.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 16:11

Oops! Misread your post. No, the opposition to the EU thing is historical distrust of Europe.

We've been messing them around for so long, and we're scared they'll do the same to us.

Full financial union with Europe is a big deal here politically. As a guy who's seen bits of Europe at close range, I don't have a problem with it. But I'm in the minority.

Clear Skies · May 10, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003 I'll stop when they stop.

French stands on issues are becoming increasingly untenable. They are after raw power in Europe and no longer care about right and wrong.

France Bashing = Calling a spade a spade. They make it to easy.

And I'll be betting rather heavily that anyone US-bashing will have you and several hundred other posters down on them like a ton of rectangular building things...

Lord Merciless · May 10, 2003, 16:55

In order to get rid of monarchy, we first have to wait until E2 kicks the bucket. Taking on a monarchy under dumbo Charles will be a lot easier.

The current death penalty system is already regulated on a state-level in the US. At least 1/3 of US states don't have the death penalty.