OK, don’t get me wrong. I make fun of you yanks as much (probably more) than most Brits but come on guys, we are practically blood brothers, 1789 and all that was just an 'ickle mistake (if you think about it that war was actually the British beating the Germans again, go on, think about it…). I don’t wanna be stuck with the French Germans and Italians (and the Spanish if someone wakes them up).
Does anyone else out there agree that Britain would be better of in union with the US than Europe?
Would you let us in?
Anyone in Europe sad to see us go?
Discuss.
Play gentle.
If you shorten that sig and fire Blair, I think we could find a way to let you in.
hmmm…
I bet some of us would even consider trading California to the EU for you guys. It would probably be a better fit.
Flag nor fail wrote:
Yeah, but what about 1814? You don’t see us waltzing into London and burning down your capitol, do you?
Isn’t that quote out of order?
NO NO NO NO NO!!! We don’t want you to be part of the US! Where would we go for decent beer and curry? Where would we run to when we wanted to get away from GWB?
You don’t want us either, unless you’re a lot loonier than I thought.
On the other hand, if you let us become part of the UK, you just might have a deal as far as I’m concerned…
But if we joined the U.K., we’d have to eat everything boiled! Bleah. And we’d have to start using all those funny words for things, like calling cookies “biscuits”, and PBS would no longer be able to claim that all those “Brit-coms” it broadcasts are jewels of culture.
Hope you don’t mind me going off on a tangent, but I’m rather curious about " 'ickle". What does that mean?
Ickle is ‘baby talk’ for little.
We’ll let you in only if you TP France first.
To try to drag a serious debate out of this, personally I think that Britain is far better off making trade ties with countries of similar size and economic power. It is better off making military ties with countries that are its own next door neighbours, for whom a modern-day attack on one really means an attack on the others too. Politically it is better off making ties with countries that have a long shared history and a tendency to view social problems and solutions in similar ways. And finally from a power perspective it is better off being a major player in a conglomeration of smaller countries than a nothing appendix to a superpower 3000 miles away.
So I vote US… no, jk… EU.
pan
Interesting question and one that’s been floated as a serious idea by some people, most recently in John Redwood’s new book on Britain and the USA (I haven’t read it, just the reviews).
Personally, I think we’re better off in the EU than the US, but I would like to suggest a thrid alternative:
-
The Commonwealth is much more geographically extensive and dispersed than the EU, so free trade within the area would provide secondary access to markets around the world
-
We already have strong historical and cultural links with the Commnonwealth and successive waves of immigration to the UK from Commonwealth countries have palyed a major role in defining our national identity. More immigration from India, Pakistan, the West Indies, etc. would, I believe, be beneficial to the UK. I’m not saying that immigration from Europe wouldn’t be, but the cultures of many other Commonwealth countries are already deeply rooted in Britain and I imagine that there are many more Britons with realtives in, say, Trinidad than in, say, Denmark.
-
Cricket.
-
English is pretty much the lingua franca of most of the Commonwealth, at least in for the purposes of government and business.
-
Most Commonwealth countries have a similar political and legal system.
-
The Comonwealth contains some of the world’s richest and some of the world’s poorest countries. A free trade/free movement agreement within the Commonwealth would be less of a rich countries’ club and would not have the negative effect on trade with the developing world than some of the EU international trade regulations have (I would cite CAP bananas as an example, but IMO the USA is wholly to blame for that).
Clearly, some institutional changes would be necessary. The Queen would probably have to stop being head of the Commonwealth in favour of a rotating Presidency, for example.
I don’t see the Commonwealth as an option because the basis of any alliance is trade. We do most of ours with the EU, then N.America. Ditto inward and outward investment. The business culture is very similar in the EU and US, English is the international business language and, very importantly, we are (currently) somewhere between the two on the economic cycle. Broadly, I think we have more in common - in terms of business and its culture - with both the EU and US than we do with most of the Commonwealth.
Re the UK’s position now: I think the unofficial policy for some time has been to play the role of boyfriend afraid of commitment. That way you can date two potential mates, keep them both interested and reap the benefits of showing interest in both partners.
I think the future for the UK is in Europe as a fully paid up member of the Euro Zone while at the same time remaining the bridgehead for US companies into Europe. London is awash with European HQ’s of US corporations and the global economy can only benefit the UK’s unique combination of time zone, geographical location, language and culture.
For me, it’s entirely possible that as the centre of Europe continues to gravitate toward Berlin and Frankfurt, a sub-group of countries within the EU (a less ‘unofficial’ one already seems to exist on a range of common ground issues) that includes the Scandies and the UK will emerge. Might not constitute much more than a block vote to counterweight the power of Germany and France at Brussels but I see this as evolving already.
FWIW, I believe it really all comes down to economics - a successful economy is what people vote for. As a larger economic block and our leading trade partner, Europe can not only deliver that but guarantee (in general terms) a level playing field while the US has no history of ‘collectivism’ internally (taxation for ‘socialised’ policies, etc.) or externally (like the EU or Commonwealth).
It would never work! The British people would not accept it- it would gather the same negative momentum that the EU is collecting at the minute- the British just don’t want to change- deeply, inately conservative.
At the minute people are worried about accepting the Euro, and changes to our judicial system.
If union with the US were seriously proposed, people would realize what massive changes this would incur- the fact that we share a language blinds people to the differences in our cultures.
The massive changes that would be required would be:
1/ Loss of the Monarchy
2/ Massive changes to the judicial system
3/ Massive changes to the business competition system
4/ Loss of the Pound Sterling
5/ Loss of the National Health Service
6/ Probable necessity to change to driving on the right
7/ Massive rise in income and other taxes or loss of services because of loss of taxes on alcohol, tobacco and gas.
8/ Major problems for British/Irish and others- the British ‘constitution’ recognizes dual nationality.
9/ Major problems for Ireland/Northern Ireland.
10/ Swearing allegiance to a flag etc. would just not be accepted- there is a very different idea of national loyalty in Britain to the USA.
In fact, having written the above, I have just realised how little will change even if we enter a European Super State compared with joining as the fiftieth plus state/states.
A lot of these things wouldn’t have to change. Why lose the judicial system? The basis system could still be left in place; it’s not that different. Why lose the NHS? If the UK wanted to keep funding that, hey, it’s a state responsibility. Why not keep driving on the left? State function. Why is there a problem for Ireland? They’re their own country; that’s their damned problem, and the Northern Ireland situation might even improve, and anyway many Americans have dual citizenship, so where’s the problem? And Americans don’t have to swear allegiance to a flag, ya know.
You could probably even finagle a way to keep the monarchy. It’s not like the Queen has real power.
Reply to RickJay:
Most of these things would have to change. Of those you list:
1/ The way the British judicial systems have developed has made them differ considerably from US jusicial practice. a/ Jury trial is not guaranteed,
b/ judiciary/legislature/executive are not separated in British laws
2/ Insurance companies could not allow the NHS to continue within an American setting- too challenging.
3/ Similarly the automotive industry would not tolerate a market to which it had no access.
4/ The Irish situation is very complicated. A considerable number of people in Britain have or claim dual nationality- this would not be possible under a US system. Technically, a considerable number of southern Irish have a claim to British (and consequently under this system) US citizenship; such a claim would be very unsettling to Ireland- in fact I think that Ireland would be forced to join as the fifty-xth state- anything else probably wouldn’t work.
5/ Oh yes you do have to swear allegiance- under naturalization procedures- the massive number of Brits who would be unwilling to do this or something similar(even if a minority) would mean a considerable number of refuseniks who would make such a system unworkable even if there were to be a majority for union. My understanding was that it was not possible to maintain dual citizenship with US citizenship- under naturalization procedures I thought you were required to renounce any other allegiance, and if anyone of US citizenship claimed other citizenship rights it negatively affected their claim to US citizenship. Anyway, just suppose that 20% of the population refused to swear allegiance to the USA and maintained their claim to UK citizenship- how would we get out of that?
6/ The armed forces are required to swear allegiance to the Queen. Additionally, should union occur, the Queen would need to be completely removed from any power in government- she has considerable reserve powers currently.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-American- just very aware that there are major differences between the US and UK that would make union most unlikely to work under any currently forseeable circumstances. European union is comparatively easy to comprehend.
C’mon, Grahame. You know as well as me that this comes down to the fundamental debate of who is funnier to dis. Now I like mocking the Yanks as much as the next guy -(the ‘Fat and Thick’ gags guarantee a laugh) - but anti European Jokes are so much better. For example, jus look at the sheer variety of racism that we can express across the EU.
- Drug jokes from Holland
- Sex Jokes from Sweden
- Italian Incompetence Jokes (Christian ‘EH’)
- French sissie Jokes
- German Towel jokes
The combinations are endless. We even take the piss out of ourselves in mainstream comedy shows. If we were to go into
a union with America OR Europe then this wonderful selection would be lost.
Don’t get me wrong, L_C. I’m not saying it’s actually feasible, but then again union with the USA isn’t either.
I think an advantage to joining the US versus EU is the US has a long history of federalism whereas EU is relatively inexperienced. However federalism is on the wane in the States so that might not be a good reason for long. Also since the UK is so populous it would be a big state which would get alot of attention during elections whereas in the EU it is just another small country.
The best arguements for the US option though would be the introduction of modern dentistry and introduction of cooking techniques besides boiling.
German ‘Towel’ Jokes?
Anyone care to enlighten me?
**
Actually, this isn’t that difficult. The U.S. already accommodates Louisiana, which follows a civil-code form of government. Assuming the UK (or, more likely, each of England, Scotland, Wales and N.I.) were a state, they’d be able to use their own legal systems and precedents. Our consititution requires only that states adopt a “republican” form of government, but there’s enormous flexibility as to what that means and great reluctance on the part of our courts to interfere.
**
Not if it already exists. Remember, most health insurance companies are making very little money, and NHS is in even worse shape despite subsidies in the billions. Not exactly the sort of customer base insurers fight to get. More practically, your north american cousins would probably support your efforts to retain NHS.
**
“No access?” Um, ever heard of Ford plants in Britain, or perhaps Vauxhall (G.M.)? 
And if making opposite-drive cars were that much of a problem, Japan wouldn’t have much of an auto industry, would it, since most of its output is sold in right-hand-drive countries.
**
This could be finessed. AFAIK (and I’m no expert) the deal with dual citizenship is that as far as the U.S. is concerned, a U.S. citizen is a citizen of one country only, and ignores any citizenship alleged of other countries. A three-year opt-in period would take care of the problem - any Irish (or other commonwealth) citizen who doesn’t exercise a right of U.S.-U.K. citizenship would lose it after the period’s expiration.
**
Fairly easily, since no “naturalization” would probably be required. We didn’t require it when absorbing Louisiana, California, Texas, Oregon, southern New Mexico, Alaska or Hawaii - those residents became U.S. citizens upon annexation, nunc pro tunc. Also note that at the end of the Civil War, it was proposed that as a condition to the reentry to the union of the former Confederate states, a mere 10% of their voting white male residents would be required to pledge allegiance. Even this minimal standard was abandoned.
**
Yup. No way around this one - not under the “republican form of government” provision I mentioned before.
We might let you keep “God Save Her Majesty,” provided you used our words - “My Country 'Tis of Thee.”
