Made in the EU

[farting bob]

Anyways, just something to think about. I could personally atest, that if Great Britain became a state... and Tony Blair ran for President .... Tony Blair would probably win.

Bah, what do you mean if GB became a state? We all know that the USA would simply become a county in GB. damn revolutionaries just had to have independence..

 

[zjl56]

Very interesting post Aleph. Maybe the U.S should at least get closer to Britian by trying to join the Commonwealth.

 

[Winner]

Bah, what do you mean if GB became a state? We all know that the USA would simply become a county in GB. damn revolutionaries just had to have independence..

Right. Joining your former colony as a state? You're better than that

 

[Aleph-Null]

Interesting idea but have you considered just how much American politics would swing to the left if you incorporated 58 Million Brits into the United States? I think you'd find us a tad too socialist for your liking

I have no problem with it, to me, it creates a lot of new seats in the House of Representatives and plenty of electoral votes. The question I think you should be asking, is do you want more Presidents from Texas wielding the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world... or would you rather have considerable British influence helping to moderate the world's most powerful democratic Union and helping to bridge the Atlantic divide.

Me, I'm a Texan. A republican at that, but I always seek to do what is best for the Union. The Union of our people remain, it has merely evolved to a new state, the people of GB were left behind, forced to continue to live under the rule of the tyrants.

As an EU member, the GB will grow even greater in distance from the Union. I would hope, that our people will one day re-unite and that fate has designed a greater purpose for GB as perhaps the most celebrated state in the Union. In the EU... it will just continue to mire itself into the same european rivalry that will has and has always been.

The US is largest and greatest propagator in the world of the English language and has shown itself the greatest servant of the cause of freedom.

Do as you choose. You have the freedom with our Constitution.

 

[Flak]

I think that the UK's natural home would be more with the US than with the EU. If the UK is going to incorporate with another entity, it would do better to become a US state where it could weild considerable, very considerable influence.

I wonder what would happen to the Monarchy if the Great Britian were to become a state?

If the long story of our island, and continuity of our institutions is to end, may it be with the same courage and defiance Britons have shown through generations past.

I think it's past time the British crank up the old spitfires and their modern equivalents and start the defense of England! Destroy any plane or ship that purports to bring trade into the country from the EU. Arrest any EU citizens on the spot if they are here on 'business'.

This is England's time of peril. The darkness from the South and the East surrounds you. But this is also a time for glory! You shall fight them in the stock exchanges, you shall fight them on the beaches of the resorts, you shall fight them wherever they might land. Long live the Queen!

 

[Aleph-Null]

Very interesting post Aleph. Maybe the U.S should at least get closer to Britian by trying to join the Commonwealth.

I would have to say that it would have to be the other way around. It is the Principles which founded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the Rights of Man, Magna Carta, etc..

which transcend the Monarch government that represents the truer aspirations and ideals of the Union. The monarch government will always be part of our "history" but it is just that... "history"

 

[The Last Conformist]

I must admit I hadn't expected a flurry of British paranoia in this thread ...

It's very possible I'm unobservant. The kind of things where I care where it's made has other kinds of indications of origin than little "Made in the EU" labels.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Right. Joining your former colony as a state? You're better than that

we are not "their" former colony. to place ownership of one over the other, is the very thing which violates the spirit of the Union which led to GB being cast out of the Union.

Understand, it was Great Britain which was thrown out of the Union. The principles of the Union transcend the geography. The Union is consistent of "We the People" and it is our British breathren who were consumed into a age of darkness by the tyranny of their monarchal government.

However, the UNION remains the most powerful and widespread force in the world.

 

[Hotpoint]

I have no problem with it, to me, it creates a lot of new seats in the House of Representatives and plenty of electoral votes. The question I think you should be asking, is do you want more Presidents from Texas wielding the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world... or would you rather have considerable British influence helping to moderate the world's most powerful democratic Union and helping to bridge the Atlantic divide.
.

The problem as I see it would be not be our influence on you but rather your influence upon us. The difference with Britain being a member of the EU and Britain being a State of the Union is that the former is politically much more in tune with UK politics on the left-right axis, we would tilt the United States somewhat to the left (the Republican Party would be buried) but conversely we would be hauled drastically to the right of centre.

Me, I'm a Texan. A republican at that, but I always seek to do what is best for the Union. The Union of our people remain, it has merely evolved to a new state, the people of GB were left behind, forced to continue to live under the rule of the tyrants.

We remained under the rule of an Elected Parliament not Tyrants. The British Monarchy has been little more than a figurehead since the 17th Century, I think you've bought into your national foundation myth a bit too much.

As an EU member, the GB will grow even greater in distance from the Union. I would hope, that our people will one day re-unite and that fate has designed a greater purpose for GB as perhaps the most celebrated state in the Union. In the EU... it will just continue to mire itself into the same european rivalry that will has and has always been.

The point of the EU is precisely to avoid European rivalry and replace it with cooperation.

Do as you choose. You have the freedom with our Constitution.

Actually your Constitution would likely limit our freedom given that we would not have the required votes to change it in our favour and would be stuck with Laws that were enacted before we joined.

 

[farting bob]

we are not "their" former colony. to place ownership of one over the other, is the very thing which violates the spirit of the Union which led to GB being cast out of the Union.

Understand, it was Great Britain which was thrown out of the Union. The principles of the Union transcend the geography. The Union is consistent of "We the People" and it is our British breathren who were consumed into a age of darkness by the tyranny of their monarchal government.

However, the UNION remains the most powerful and widespread force in the world.

True, the people werent owned by britian, but technically the land was (or was at least controlled by the english). I think its about time we started colonizing again. I shall set sail across the seven seas, in search for a new continant, which i will name 'farting bob land' once its discovered. It'll be a long voyage, so stock up on limes.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I wonder what would happen to the Monarchy if the Great Britian were to become a state?

Well, California had an emperor for a while.....

 

[Hotpoint]

we are not "their" former colony. to place ownership of one over the other, is the very thing which violates the spirit of the Union which led to GB being cast out of the Union.

Understand, it was Great Britain which was thrown out of the Union. The principles of the Union transcend the geography. The Union is consistent of "We the People" and it is our British breathren who were consumed into a age of darkness by the tyranny of their monarchal government.

However, the UNION remains the most powerful and widespread force in the world.

There was no Union in existance to be cast out from when the 13 Colonies and their French, Spanish and Dutch allies managed to defeat the British Empire.

And to reiterate the point I made in the post above we were not in an "age of darkness by the tyranny of their monarchal government". To give one example of just how progressive we were at the time, Slavery was banned in England in 1772 because of a ruling made by our free and independent Judiciary... how long did it take you lot over the Atlantic to catch up?

 

[Aleph-Null]

The problem as I see it would be not be our influence on you but rather your influence upon us. The difference with Britain being a member of the EU and Britain being a State of the Union is that the former is politically much more in tune with UK politics on the left-right axis, we would tilt the United States somewhat to the left (the Republican Party would be buried) but conversely we would be hauled drastically to the right of centre.

I don't see how that is any different from today. UK would retain the republican aspects of its government. You would retain your parliament, your governors, etc. The rest of your analysis. You go right, we go left, all equates to an equilibrium.

We remained under the rule of an Elected Parliament not Tyrants. The British Monarchy has been little more than a figurehead since the 17th Century

of course, granted. glorious revolution and all that social studies 101.

Actually your Constitution would likely limit our freedom given that we would not have the required votes to change it in our favour and would be stuck with Laws that were enacted before we joined.

You would simply need to follow the models of Texas, California, and New York. You need a strong identity with your State so as to campaign for your State's rights. The more patriotic and the more you identify with your own State the less interference you get from the Federal government. There are already Amendments in the Constitution that would be able to use to promote your own cause and to resist encroachments of the Federal government upon your State. I would personally enjoy seeing GB join on the side of those who fight on the side of State's Rights.


You would simply need to draft your State's Constitution and win acceptance of that Constitution in the House and Senate and, as with all States, erect a strong defense.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

There is a copy of the Constitution. You will be most interested in Amendment X. The Bill of Rights is designed for the Citizen or State to provide a "check" against the powers of the Federal Government. "The Federalist Papers" would also be a good read.

 

[Aleph-Null]

There was no Union in existance to be cast out from when the 13 Colonies and their French, Spanish and Dutch allies managed to defeat the British Empire.

The British Empire was defeated because it asked the Americans to turn against their own neighbors. The British, French, Spanish, and Dutch were all colonizing the Americas at the same time and many had lived side-by-side as neighbors for hundreds of years. When the Crowns of Europe began to pursue 'nationalistic' policies calling on their country men to kill off those from other countries they had come to know as neighbors, those people, led by the British colonialists who were guided by the principles of the Union, joined together to cast off their former Kings.

And yes, GB was cast out of the Union, but are still with US in spirit see attachment:

edit: attachment uploaded

 

[Hotpoint]

I don't see how that is any different from today. UK would retain the republican aspects of its government. You would retain your parliament, your governors, etc. The rest of your analysis. You go right, we go left, all equates to an equilibrium.

The point is we go a lot more right than you go left. We're the ones that have to change, or dare I say sacrifice, the most.

of course, granted. glorious revolution and all that social studies 101.

Then please never call us a Tyranny again

You would simply need to follow the models of Texas, California, and New York. You need a strong identity with your State so as to campaign for your State's rights. The more patriotic and the more you identify with your own State the less interference you get from the Federal government. There are already Amendments in the Constitution that would be able to use to promote your own cause and to resist encroachments of the Federal government upon your State. I would personally enjoy seeing GB join on the side of those who fight on the side of State's Rights.

You have a problem on two fronts there. Firstly we are far more centralist and collectivist by inclination so on many issues we'd be more Federalist than States-Rights and secondly the US Constitution supersedes those of individual states so on the other hand we'd still be stuck with things we didn't like coming from Washington DC.

 

[Aleph-Null]

The point is we go a lot more right than you go left. We're the ones that have to change, or dare I say sacrifice, the most.

I don't see how you have change anything at all except for abandoning recognition of the monarch as head of government. If you weren't her to be head of government, just run have prince charles run for president. Unless you don't think he up for the task of winning a presidential run. He probably wouldn't win, couldn't win, no citizen of the State of Great Britain could ever compete and win against a Texan.

Then please never call us a Tyranny again

Till the day I die, I will call government tyranny.

You have a problem on two fronts there. Firstly we are far more centralist and collectivist by inclination so on many issues we'd be more Federalist than States-Rights and secondly the US Constitution supersedes those of individual states so on the other hand we'd still be stuck with things we didn't like coming from Washington DC.

I find it humorous that you consider yourself more collectivist then an American tribe which calls itself "US"

 

[Hotpoint]

The British Empire was defeated because it asked the Americans to turn against their own neighbors. The British, French, Spanish, and Dutch were all colonizing the Americas at the same time and many had lived side-by-side as neighbors for hundreds of years. When the Crowns of Europe began to pursue 'nationalistic' policies calling on their country men to kill off those from other countries they had come to know as neighbors, those people, led by the British colonialists who were guided by the principles of the Union, joined together to cast off their former Kings.

And yes, GB was cast out of the Union, but are still with US in spirit see attachment:

The British were defeated simply because they couldn't match the combined forces of all the powers arranged against them (even though some 50,000 American Loyalist Volunteers took up arms to help keep the 13 Colonies British).

I reiterate the point that there was no Union to be cast out from. You broke with us not the reverse and your reasons for doing so were not as noble as you would like to believe.

 

[Hotpoint]

Till the day I die, I will call government tyranny.

Nice to know you come to the debate with an open mind

Government is not tyranny as long as it does not interfere with the individual more than it has to for the greater good of all individuals. The Libertarian notion that Government is akin to slavery is as much an example of irrational ideological baggage as you hear from the damn Marxists at the other end of the spectrum.

I find it humorous that you consider yourself more collectivist then an American tribe which calls itself "US"

We are more collectivist. Look at our institutions such as the National Health Service, or how relatively strong our Trade Union Movement is. We simply aren't as knee-jerk individualistic as you lot.

 

[Aleph-Null]

The British were defeated simply because they couldn't match the combined forces of all the powers arranged against them (even though some 50,000 American Loyalist Volunteers took up arms to help keep the 13 Colonies British).

I reiterate the point that there was no Union to be cast out from. You broke with us not the reverse and your reasons for doing so were not as noble as you would like to believe.

You seem to miss the point. The Union are more important than the rule of the Monarchy. It is because of that, that it were those individuals inspired most by those Principles of freedom and liberty, people like Jefferson, Washington, etc... that saved the Union. It is absolutely naive to think that the Monarchy could remain sovereign over the Americas while in competition with every foreign power which was immigrating to it. Had the Founding Fathers not joined in overthrowing the Monarchal government of the Union then the Americas would have remained a battlefield of darkness for centuries to come.

Instead, by bringing all nationalities to the service of the Union, the Founding Fathers were able to establish a nation which has lived in peace & tranquility for people of all races and national backgrounds. This was something they would have never been able to do, while in service to a tyrannical monarch.

George Washington turned down the offer to become King believing that no man on earth was worthy of such a position.

What I think you are allowing your pride to blind you from, is that we didn't just cast off the British king. We threw down every European king and it was the Union that led the charge.

He possessed faith in his people a faith that then king of Great Britain did not possess and his reward as such, as been to become one of the most pre-eminent and recognizable historical figures in the world today.

 

[stormbind]

Interesting. Those are exactly the arguments the Founders used when seperating from Great Britain. Perhaps you've never heard of Thomas Paine. Its pretty much required reading in US High Schools. The Rights of Man. it is exactly what the US is about. Try to understand, when learning about US Government, the first several chapters are about Great Britain's Glorious Revolution, the influence of the British view of Rights, etc. Anywho, you should Rights of Man by Thomas Paine. What you speak of is why we have The Amendment process.

I disagree strongly.

The Revolutionary War was about a desire for representation. Representation that would in turn limit the effects of Higher Law on society's laws. The amendment process is slow and destructive: it creates a situation where politicians can argue for years over what actions to take without coming to an amiable agreement.

The US written constitution and amendment process was an attempt to slow or prevent change in future governments. An effort that would defend the founding father's "rights" and deprive future generations the freedom to change them.

Read this and see what difference an unwritten constitution can make. The ability to change their society is the freedom British people inherit from birth, and it is what makes this island great. Each and every generation has edited our unwritten constitution in the same manner - though admittedly few issues will ever be as important as that covered by that given link.

I oppose all EU regulations, not because the rules are perceived as wrong, but because anything that reduces the freedom of future generations to make decisions for themselves is not freedom, and certainly not British.

Each generation deserves freedom. We have the power to give them freedom, and they should not have to fight for it through civil wars!