When is the Anglo Empire going to reunite?

[Lancer]

Remember 1812!

Kidding...

US/UK Reunion

[Sandman]

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.

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.

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]

US-UK reunion.

[DinoDoc]

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]

The size and composition of constituencies vs states for starters.

[Sava]

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

[Demerzel]

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

[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.

[PLATO]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by UberKruX


someone picking on our little mentally retarded brother?

Are you taking about Canada?

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

Gl, and hf with THAT!

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]

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]

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]

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.