In 1975 Britain voted by 2:1 to stay in the EEC. Nevertheless, as soon as 1983 Labour were campaigning on a policy of leaving it. I expect Conservative rightwing opponents of the EU to take defeat about as philosophically as Labour leftwing opponents of the EEC took defeat then.
One of the oddest aspects of right-wing opposition to the EU is the belief that Britain is an inherently ultra right-wing country which is only held back by alien socialist ideas from Brussels. They act as if our post-war history didn't happen, in much the same way as the extreme left act as if Thatcher were an aberration and not a political force whom the British people rewarded with three majorities.
So this is not about left vs right per se. It is about decision making resting with the elected Government at Westminster (or Hollyrood) not with the EU.
I wouldn't caricature your views that way and you raise a good point about VAT. My comment was more aimed at the likes of Daniel Hannan and his ahistorical guff about the 'anglosphere'.
What is ahistorical about the Anglosphere? There have been plenty of left-wing movements in other English-speaking countries.
It's ahistorical to claim that there is a special cultural affinity between the US and the UK which overrides our shared history as one of the great nations of Europe. It's undignified to try to co-opt the modern day US as an extension of our own history alone.
No it is not. We have far more in common with the US than we do with Europe. It takes a special kind of lack of knowledge to try and claim otherwise.
I think that will vary by background (crudely, 'class').
Very broadly;
Polly Toynbee et al holiday in Chiantishire and feel very European Sid Snot & family watch American soaps and holiday in Orlando
I don't think you can generalise about the whole British experience - different people will feel different things.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to try to claim otherwise.
Really? Even after the recent influx of Scandinavian TV series how many films and TV series and how much music from Europe do the UK population listen to compared to that from the US or even Australia?
And how many of those Polly Toynbees going to holiday in Italy actually bothered to learn the language or learn anything other than the the most basic facts about the culture. If anything our knowledge and connection with European culture has declined and not increased over the last century.
Some fascinating final paragraphs in that article in the Spectator on Burnham
'He was genuinely sickened and angered by the manner in which the Brownites plotted to unseat Blair in 2006. Eventually — and not so much because he was promoted, friends say, as because Gordon Brown backed his campaign for the victims of the Hillsborough stadium disaster — he came to exhibit a similarly fierce loyalty to the new occupant of Downing Street.
In 2010, Burnham experienced first-hand the conflict between personal and political loyalties. ‘Where was James?’ he asked plaintively after the contest, referring to Purnell’s backing for David Miliband. Did he really expect such loyalty in politics? Purnell might have asked A similar question in June 2009, when Burnham refused to join his bid to topple Brown by resigning from the Cabinet. Supporters of David Miliband, bruised by his narrow loss, blamed Burnham for refusing to say publicly that he would give his crucial second preference vote to their candidate.
In the aftermath of defeat, and having grown to dislike Ed Miliband, Burnham considered quitting the shadow cabinet altogether. That would not have been an altogether surprising course for this deeply emotional man who, friends say, often eschews political calculation. Instead, suggests A party insider, Burnham chose to digest the lessons of his defeat. He needed to toughen up and never again let himself be outmanoeuvred by the likes of Ed Miliband — who he felt had run a shameless campaign, careless of past positions and record.
After five years of making himself acceptable to the left of his party, Burnham has spent the first weeks of this contest tacking back to the centre — praising business and wealth-creation and hinting at support for Tory welfare cuts — and presenting himself as a ‘unity’ candidate: he’s tapped the support of Blair loyalist Charlie Falconer, RECRUITED centrist MPs like Rachel Reeves, Michael Dugher and Dan Jarvis, and won the backing of the hard-left MP Ian Lavery. It is a coalition so wide that it may well give him the leadership. If it does and he becomes leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, we can expect Andy Burnham to remain, at least in his own mind, an outsider.' http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9559092/the-humiliation-that-turned-andy-burnham-from-blairite-to-union-man/
Well you already have one Tory MP - if he is true to his word - saying he will resign his seat if IN win. I am not convinced there are many others who will be as principled as that but I do think that the idea everything will be happy and all forgiven after the referendum is a pipe dream.
Not sure that it is "principled": he was elected as an MP on the basis that it was a member of the EU. He's just said "it won't be any fun, so I don't want to play" - seems to me to be entirely self-serving rather than sticking up for the interests of his constituents
Nope. He was elected on the basis that he would serve his constituents and the country. If he feels - as I do - that an IN vote means that effective control over our country has passed to the EU on a permanent basis then I think he is absolutely right that there is no longer point him serving as an MP.
No: he's making a case that there is no point in having any MPs. So he should vote for the abolition of Parliament.
There's no case to quit and put his constituents through the hassle and cost of finding a replacement
I think we're getting a bit 'rose tinted spectacles' about Anglo-US relations. Lets not forget that right up to WWII the US & UK were competitors for global power and influence and one of the US's primary post-WWII aims was the dismemberment of the European Empires - which they succeeded in and ironically got embroiled in Vietnam.
Also the US did not declare war on Hitler - Hitler declared war on the US - Roosevelt was (quite appropriately) perfectly happy to fight to the last Brit or Russian.
In 1975 Britain voted by 2:1 to stay in the EEC. Nevertheless, as soon as 1983 Labour were campaigning on a policy of leaving it. I expect Conservative rightwing opponents of the EU to take defeat about as philosophically as Labour leftwing opponents of the EEC took defeat then.
One of the oddest aspects of right-wing opposition to the EU is the belief that Britain is an inherently ultra right-wing country which is only held back by alien socialist ideas from Brussels. They act as if our post-war history didn't happen, in much the same way as the extreme left act as if Thatcher were an aberration and not a political force whom the British people rewarded with three majorities.
So this is not about left vs right per se. It is about decision making resting with the elected Government at Westminster (or Hollyrood) not with the EU.
I wouldn't caricature your views that way and you raise a good point about VAT. My comment was more aimed at the likes of Daniel Hannan and his ahistorical guff about the 'anglosphere'.
What is ahistorical about the Anglosphere? There have been plenty of left-wing movements in other English-speaking countries.
It's ahistorical to claim that there is a special cultural affinity between the US and the UK which overrides our shared history as one of the great nations of Europe. It's undignified to try to co-opt the modern day US as an extension of our own history alone.
No it is not. We have far more in common with the US than we do with Europe. It takes a special kind of lack of knowledge to try and claim otherwise.
There is of course the small matter of us being a European country. 'Europe' is defined as much by the UK as by France or Germany.
A daft comment. We are talking about culture, law and society not geography.
In 1975 Britain voted by 2:1 to stay in the EEC. Nevertheless, as soon as 1983 Labour were campaigning on a policy of leaving it. I expect Conservative rightwing opponents of the EU to take defeat about as philosophically as Labour leftwing opponents of the EEC took defeat then.
One of the oddest aspects of right-wing opposition to the EU is the belief that Britain is an inherently ultra right-wing country which is only held back by alien socialist ideas from Brussels. They act as if our post-war history didn't happen, in much the same way as the extreme left act as if Thatcher were an aberration and not a political force whom the British people rewarded with three majorities.
So this is not about left vs right per se. It is about decision making resting with the elected Government at Westminster (or Hollyrood) not with the EU.
I wouldn't caricature your views that way and you raise a good point about VAT. My comment was more aimed at the likes of Daniel Hannan and his ahistorical guff about the 'anglosphere'.
What is ahistorical about the Anglosphere? There have been plenty of left-wing movements in other English-speaking countries.
It's ahistorical to claim that there is a special cultural affinity between the US and the UK which overrides our shared history as one of the great nations of Europe. It's undignified to try to co-opt the modern day US as an extension of our own history alone.
No it is not. We have far more in common with the US than we do with Europe. It takes a special kind of lack of knowledge to try and claim otherwise.
I think that will vary by background (crudely, 'class').
Very broadly;
Polly Toynbee et al holiday in Chiantishire and feel very European Sid Snot & family watch American soaps and holiday in Orlando
I don't think you can generalise about the whole British experience - different people will feel different things.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to try to claim otherwise.
If anything our knowledge and connection with European culture has declined and not increased over the last century.
You are taking a remarkably elitist view.
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe?
Well you already have one Tory MP - if he is true to his word - saying he will resign his seat if IN win. I am not convinced there are many others who will be as principled as that but I do think that the idea everything will be happy and all forgiven after the referendum is a pipe dream.
Not sure that it is "principled": he was elected as an MP on the basis that it was a member of the EU. He's just said "it won't be any fun, so I don't want to play" - seems to me to be entirely self-serving rather than sticking up for the interests of his constituents
Nope. He was elected on the basis that he would serve his constituents and the country. If he feels - as I do - that an IN vote means that effective control over our country has passed to the EU on a permanent basis then I think he is absolutely right that there is no longer point him serving as an MP.
No: he's making a case that there is no point in having any MPs. So he should vote for the abolition of Parliament.
There's no case to quit and put his constituents through the hassle and cost of finding a replacement
So there is a case for him to stay and take taxpayers money for doing a job he believes is worthless? I thought you were the one up in arms earlier today about a suggestion that UKIP should take taxpayers money it is apparently entitled to when their MP had (rightly) said they didn't need it?
The UK has far more in common with the Anglosphere. I really do not understand how someone could claim the UK has far less in common with Australia than it does Spain/Italy/Portugal. Many criticised Charles de Gaulle's comments, however, he has subsequently been proved correct.
I certainly agree if we're talking about cultural ties with Australia and New Zealand, however Australia has its own national destiny as a result of its geopolitical situation.
The 'Anglosphere' as a term is younger than the Maastricht Treaty which gave us the European Union which should tell you how much grounding in history it has.
The UK has far more in common with the Anglosphere. I really do not understand how someone could claim the UK has far less in common with Australia than it does Spain/Italy/Portugal. Many criticised Charles de Gaulle's comments, however, he has subsequently been proved correct.
I certainly agree if we're talking about cultural ties with Australia and New Zealand, however Australia has its own national destiny as a result of its geopolitical situation.
The 'Anglosphere' as a term is younger than the Maastricht Treaty which gave us the European Union which should tell you how much grounding in history it has.
The Indus Valley civilisation was only identified and named at the start of the 20th century. That doesn't change the fact that it existed as one of the great river valley civilisations for almost 3000 years. The Anglosphere may have been named in 1995 but that doesn't change the fact that it existed for much longer and exists now.
Dream on. If there were to be any meaning to anglosphere then all the lefties and pretty much everyone else has to sign up to being led along by the USA. Of course what all the angry nativists of UKIP mean by that phrase it all the white people living in Australia and NZ and possibly Canada. There is increasingly zero practical meaning to the phrase 'anglosphere', it is a feeble effort to dream up memories of empire, commonwealth and subservient mother countries, conveniently forgetting potato famines Easter uprisings and the drudgery of 'Neighbours'.
Dream on. If there were to be any meaning to anglosphere then all the lefties and pretty much everyone else has to sign up to being led along by the USA. Of course what all the angry nativists of UKIP mean by that phrase it all the white people living in Australia and NZ and possibly Canada. There is increasingly zero practical meaning to the phrase 'anglosphere', it is a feeble effort to dream up memories of empire, commonwealth and subservient mother countries, conveniently forgetting potato famines Easter uprisings and the drudgery of 'Neighbours'.
More bollocks from you Flightpath. Funny how you are the one that always bring race into this discussion when it is not even being considered by anyone else.
As I have said on here before I have far more affinity with an Indian than a Frenchman or a Norwegian. That is not to say I don't like the French and Norwegians; so much so that I made a point of learning their languages when I lived in their countries. I suspect you have formed most of your opinions about the rest of the world by looking at Google Earth and wikipedia.
You are a bigot who would apparently supports Cameron sending back non white highly trained and educated nurses just so we can have a few more untrained white Europeans over here.
You want to accuse us of racism we will answer in kind.
CarlottaVance Australia is the nation with the real 'special relationship' with the US, the only nation to have fought with the US in all its wars from WW1 to Iraq (including Vietnam, unlike the UK) and probably closer culturally to the US than any other nation too as well as sharing the common language, legal system and democratic principles we also have
In 1975 Britain voted by 2:1 to stay in the EEC. Nevertheless, as soon as 1983 Labour were campaigning on a policy of leaving it. I expect Conservative rightwing opponents of the EU to take defeat about as philosophically as Labour leftwing opponents of the EEC took defeat then.
One of the oddest aspects of right-wing opposition to the EU is the belief that Britain is an inherently ultra right-wing country which is only held back by alien socialist ideas from Brussels. They act as if our post-war history didn't happen, in much the same way as the extreme left act as if Thatcher were an aberration and not a political force whom the British people rewarded with three majorities.
So this is not about left vs right per se. It is about decision making resting with the elected Government at Westminster (or Hollyrood) not with the EU.
I wouldn't caricature your views that way and you raise a good point about VAT. My comment was more aimed at the likes of Daniel Hannan and his ahistorical guff about the 'anglosphere'.
What is ahistorical about the Anglosphere? There have been plenty of left-wing movements in other English-speaking countries.
It's ahistorical to claim that there is a special cultural affinity between the US and the UK which overrides our shared history as one of the great nations of Europe. It's undignified to try to co-opt the modern day US as an extension of our own history alone.
No it is not. We have far more in common with the US than we do with Europe. It takes a special kind of lack of knowledge to try and claim otherwise.
There is of course the small matter of us being a European country. 'Europe' is defined as much by the UK as by France or Germany.
A daft comment. We are talking about culture, law and society not geography.
British culture, law and society are an indivisible part of European culture, law and society.
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe?
How many have been there now?
Sorry but traveling to a place for two weeks to shout at the locals in English does not equate with common culture.
Hang on: we've shared two world wars with the Germans. And they've been full world wars too. Not like those Americans who were only around for a bit of them.
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe? How many have been there now?
That can be a double edged sword.
I love holidays in Europe, but I'm always glad to get home.
I've lived and worked in Europe - but was similarly glad to come home.
Europeans have a lot of similarities between each other, in terms of their societies, trade, legal structures, history which give them a head start in adapting themselves into a european demos. The UK has to change much more due to it's historical development (become less "British") and it's tough to get your head round that sometimes.
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe?
How many have been there now?
Sorry but traveling to a place for two weeks to shout at the locals in English does not equate with common culture.
You are seriously suggesting we have less in common with - for example - Germans - now than we did 100 years ago? Despite the fact we would go on to fight two wars with them?
CarlottaVance Australia is the nation with the real 'special relationship' with the US, the only nation to have fought with the US in all its wars from WW1 to Iraq (including Vietnam, unlike the UK) and probably closer culturally to the US than any other nation too as well as sharing the common language, legal system and democratic principles we also have
I think Australia is alot more culturally similiar to us than the US tbh
In 1975 Britain voted by 2:1 to stay in the EEC. Nevertheless, as soon as 1983 Labour were campaigning on a policy of leaving it. I expect Conservative rightwing opponents of the EU to take defeat about as philosophically as Labour leftwing opponents of the EEC took defeat then.
One of the oddest aspects of right-wing opposition to the EU is the belief that Britain is an inherently ultra right-wing country which is only held back by alien socialist ideas from Brussels. They act as if our post-war history didn't happen, in much the same way as the extreme left act as if Thatcher were an aberration and not a political force whom the British people rewarded with three majorities.
So this is not about left vs right per se. It is about decision making resting with the elected Government at Westminster (or Hollyrood) not with the EU.
I wouldn't caricature your views that way and you raise a good point about VAT. My comment was more aimed at the likes of Daniel Hannan and his ahistorical guff about the 'anglosphere'.
What is ahistorical about the Anglosphere? There have been plenty of left-wing movements in other English-speaking countries.
It's ahistorical to claim that there is a special cultural affinity between the US and the UK which overrides our shared history as one of the great nations of Europe. It's undignified to try to co-opt the modern day US as an extension of our own history alone.
No it is not. We have far more in common with the US than we do with Europe. It takes a special kind of lack of knowledge to try and claim otherwise.
There is of course the small matter of us being a European country. 'Europe' is defined as much by the UK as by France or Germany.
A daft comment. We are talking about culture, law and society not geography.
British culture, law and society are an indivisible part of European culture, law and society.
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries.
CarlottaVance Australia is the nation with the real 'special relationship' with the US, the only nation to have fought with the US in all its wars from WW1 to Iraq (including Vietnam, unlike the UK) and probably closer culturally to the US than any other nation too as well as sharing the common language, legal system and democratic principles we also have
And the same near-annihilation of the indigenous peoples too, to be fair.
Carlotta There is the small matter of cost and distance travelled, most Americans holiday in other US states or Canada or Mexico, it is hardly surprising most Brits holiday in Europe where you can get far better weather in the summer on the Med beaches as well as culture, great countryside, fascinating cities etc. The most popular nation for Brits to emigrate to is Australia (though New Zealand is closer culturally but much smaller in size and slightly less good weather and lower gdp per capita)
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries.
I can't speak for anyone else but I've lived and worked in many European countries (including outside the EU) as well as the US, speak several languages, and don't believe I'm speaking from a position of ignorance.
The point you keep wilfully missing is that Britain is part of Europe, ergo Britain with all its uniqueness is a defining part of what makes Europe as a whole what it is.
CarlottaVance Australia is the nation with the real 'special relationship' with the US, the only nation to have fought with the US in all its wars from WW1 to Iraq (including Vietnam, unlike the UK) and probably closer culturally to the US than any other nation too as well as sharing the common language, legal system and democratic principles we also have
Yes the 'Special Relationship' is a political fig leaf to cover up the absolute decline of British power in the last 70 years.
There clearly are very close relationships in military/intelligence - and with the other 'Five Eyes' countries - and in business - look at the number of flights daily from European capitals to the US and the UK is in a league of its own - but beyond that, not so much. Certainly not as much as proponents of an 'Anglosphere' would have us believe.....
I know plenty of Americans, Canadians and Australians. The idea that they see us a "slightly dotty elderly relatives" is complete nonsense, and just the sort of doing Britain down that pro-EU people like to push. You only need to look at opinion polls to see how highly they regard us. It is also clear that the British Prime Minister gets far better welcomes in Washington and Ottawa than he does in Paris or Brussels.
My remark is because those other anglohone countries (interesting to see that so far people have only mentioned the Dominions, and not Anglophone Africa Asia and the West Indies) are less backwardlooking in terms of history and plans for the future.
And like many others, I have a lot of affection for my elderly slightly dotty relatives and their reminiscences, but it does not mean that I have a lot in common.
Again, this is both untrue and doing Britain down. I find Americans love their history, particularly around the defining moments in the forming of their nation: the Revolution, the Civil War, World War 2. Something nostalgic like Forest Gump goes down very well over there. Of course, they're forward looking too, but so are the Brits. When I listen to even the Hannans and Carswells of the world, they focus on a very optimistic, positive vision of Britain signing trade deals with the BRIC economies.
I am not anti American, but would you call a film where a simpleton goes haphazardly through life missing the girl who refused to marry him and then as soon as he does finally marry her - she dies... would you call that nostalgic?
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe?
How many have been there now?
Sorry but traveling to a place for two weeks to shout at the locals in English does not equate with common culture.
You are seriously suggesting we have less in common with - for example - Germans - now than we did 100 years ago? Despite the fact we would go on to fight two wars with them?
Perhaps because of the wars. But in terms of cultural exchange we see far less of that with Europe compared to a century ago. Indeed at the turn of the 19th/20th century it was considered that something could only be considered culturally acceptable if it had European connections.
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe?
How many have been there now?
Sorry but traveling to a place for two weeks to shout at the locals in English does not equate with common culture.
Hang on: we've shared two world wars with the Germans. And they've been full world wars too. Not like those Americans who were only around for a bit of them.
CarlottaVance Australia is the nation with the real 'special relationship' with the US, the only nation to have fought with the US in all its wars from WW1 to Iraq (including Vietnam, unlike the UK) and probably closer culturally to the US than any other nation too as well as sharing the common language, legal system and democratic principles we also have
And the same near-annihilation of the indigenous peoples too, to be fair.
Great Churchill put down in the 1930s:
American Society Hostess: 'Mr Churchill - what are you going to do with your Indians?' Churchill: 'Leastways madam, not what you did with yours'
British culture, law and society are an indivisible part of European culture, law and society.
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries. @Richard_Tyndall
I had the pleasure of chairing a working group of the Western Group on legal matters for an international treaty negotiation (in the security field). 10 countries, 7 legal systems. The three shared legal systems were UK, Canada and Australia. I did not count the US as the same, given their penchant for extra-territorial jurisdiction on a far broader array of issues from the Commonwealth system.
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries.
I can't speak for anyone else but I've lived and worked in many European countries (including outside the EU) as well as the US, speak several languages, and don't believe I'm speaking from a position of ignorance.
The point you keep wilfully missing is that Britain is part of Europe, ergo Britain with all its uniqueness is a defining part of what makes Europe as a whole what it is.
But as I have continued to point out Britain is also - far more importantly - a part of the Anglosphere. It is with those countries that we share legal and cultural ties far stronger than those with Europe.
Edit Oh and you certainly seem to be ignorant of the differences in legal systems.
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe? How many have been there now?
That can be a double edged sword.
I love holidays in Europe, but I'm always glad to get home.
I've lived and worked in Europe - but was similarly glad to come home.
Europeans have a lot of similarities between each other, in terms of their societies, trade, legal structures, history which give them a head start in adapting themselves into a european demos. The UK has to change much more due to it's historical development (become less "British") and it's tough to get your head round that sometimes.
I think this is a fascinating topic, but it is one where people (of all hues) attempt to make the facts fit their existing predispositions.
So, there are lots of ways we are like the US, and unlike - say - Germany.
Example: adversarial legal system, FPTP type political system, English language, comedy, and much TV (although there is quite a lot of British TV watched in Germany: I've seen Red Dwarf dubbed into German).
But there are counter-examples too: as far as religion in public or private life goes, we are very unlike the Americans; as a corollary, we are horrified by the idea that a state school could teach creationism as equal (or superior) to evolution; we are much happier to have the state proscribe our access to guns; and we play the same sports as the Germans.
And there are ways we are like Australia or India, and unlike either continental Europe or the US.
Irrespective: there is a common core of British culture. Albeit one that differs between places in the country. And there are undoubtedly people - who are British to the nth degree by by birth - in some parts of Glasgow that feel culturally closer to those in Dublin than those in London.
CarlottaVance Australia is the nation with the real 'special relationship' with the US, the only nation to have fought with the US in all its wars from WW1 to Iraq (including Vietnam, unlike the UK) and probably closer culturally to the US than any other nation too as well as sharing the common language, legal system and democratic principles we also have
I think Australia is alot more culturally similiar to us than the US tbh
Other than cricket, there's not a lot of shared culture between Adelaide and Perth
CarlottaVance Australia is the nation with the real 'special relationship' with the US, the only nation to have fought with the US in all its wars from WW1 to Iraq (including Vietnam, unlike the UK) and probably closer culturally to the US than any other nation too as well as sharing the common language, legal system and democratic principles we also have
And the same near-annihilation of the indigenous peoples too, to be fair.
Great Churchill put down in the 1930s:
American Society Hostess: 'Mr Churchill - what are you going to do with your Indians?' Churchill: 'Leastways madam, not what you did with yours'
My favourite Churchill quote:
“If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”
Well you already have one Tory MP - if he is true to his word - saying he will resign his seat if IN win. I am not convinced there are many others who will be as principled as that but I do think that the idea everything will be happy and all forgiven after the referendum is a pipe dream.
Not sure that it is "principled": he was elected as an MP on the basis that it was a member of the EU. He's just said "it won't be any fun, so I don't want to play" - seems to me to be entirely self-serving rather than sticking up for the interests of his constituents
Nope. He was elected on the basis that he would serve his constituents and the country. If he feels - as I do - that an IN vote means that effective control over our country has passed to the EU on a permanent basis then I think he is absolutely right that there is no longer point him serving as an MP.
No: he's making a case that there is no point in having any MPs. So he should vote for the abolition of Parliament.
There's no case to quit and put his constituents through the hassle and cost of finding a replacement
So there is a case for him to stay and take taxpayers money for doing a job he believes is worthless? I thought you were the one up in arms earlier today about a suggestion that UKIP should take taxpayers money it is apparently entitled to when their MP had (rightly) said they didn't need it?
He's been elected for 5 years to serve his constituents on the basis of the current structure. He may believe that the post is powerless - and so he will be personally frustrated by "wasting" two and a half years of his life - but the post still exists and someone will be elected to perform it. If he thinks that executive scrutiny has no meaning - I disagree - then he can dedicate himself to working as a super-social-worker for his constituents.
To resign because he doesn't think he has any power is just personal pique.
(and I'm not even going address the comparison with Short money because that's just specious)
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe? How many have been there now?
That can be a double edged sword.
I love holidays in Europe, but I'm always glad to get home.
I've lived and worked in Europe - but was similarly glad to come home.
Europeans have a lot of similarities between each other, in terms of their societies, trade, legal structures, history which give them a head start in adapting themselves into a european demos. The UK has to change much more due to it's historical development (become less "British") and it's tough to get your head round that sometimes.
I think this is a fascinating topic, but it is one where people (of all hues) attempt to make the facts fit their existing predispositions.
So, there are lots of ways we are like the US, and unlike - say - Germany.
Example: adversarial legal system, FPTP type political system, English language, comedy, and much TV (although there is quite a lot of British TV watched in Germany: I've seen Red Dwarf dubbed into German).
But there are counter-examples too: as far as religion in public or private life goes, we are very unlike the Americans; as a corollary, we are horrified by the idea that a state school could teach creationism as equal (or superior) to evolution; we are much happier to have the state proscribe our access to guns; and we play the same sports as the Germans.
And there are ways we are like Australia or India, and unlike either continental Europe or the US.
Irrespective: there is a common core of British culture. Albeit one that differs between places in the country. And there are undoubtedly people - who are British to the nth degree by by birth - in some parts of Glasgow that feel culturally closer to those in Dublin than those in London.
There is a problem with your examples though Robert.
The similarities you mention - legal and political systems, language and culture (to paraphrase) are part of the very structure of the US and widely recognised and accepted across the whole country. (As an aside the US has the largest number of people playing cricket on a weekly basis of any country excepting India and Pakistan.)
The differences you highlight are limited generally to a religious faction who are viewed with horror by much of the rest of the country. So really not comparable.
Well you already have one Tory MP - if he is true to his word - saying he will resign his seat if IN win. I am not convinced there are many others who will be as principled as that but I do think that the idea everything will be happy and all forgiven after the referendum is a pipe dream.
Not sure that it is "principled": he was elected as an MP on the basis that it was a member of the EU. He's just said "it won't be any fun, so I don't want to play" - seems to me to be entirely self-serving rather than sticking up for the interests of his constituents
Nope. He was elected on the basis that he would serve his constituents and the country. If he feels - as I do - that an IN vote means that effective control over our country has passed to the EU on a permanent basis then I think he is absolutely right that there is no longer point him serving as an MP.
No: he's making a case that there is no point in having any MPs. So he should vote for the abolition of Parliament.
There's no case to quit and put his constituents through the hassle and cost of finding a replacement
So there is a case for him to stay and take taxpayers money for doing a job he believes is worthless? I thought you were the one up in arms earlier today about a suggestion that UKIP should take taxpayers money it is apparently entitled to when their MP had (rightly) said they didn't need it?
He's been elected for 5 years to serve his constituents on the basis of the current structure. He may believe that the post is powerless - and so he will be personally frustrated by "wasting" two and a half years of his life - but the post still exists and someone will be elected to perform it. If he thinks that executive scrutiny has no meaning - I disagree - then he can dedicate himself to working as a super-social-worker for his constituents.
To resign because he doesn't think he has any power is just personal pique.
(and I'm not even going address the comparison with Short money because that's just specious)
No it is not personal pique. It is a fundamental view of the decline of the power of parliament and a wish not to continue to be associated with that.
Carlotta The UK is the US' closest ally amongst the UN Security Council's permanent members, that does not mean it is the closest ally of the US overall
British culture, law and society are an indivisible part of European culture, law and society.
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries. @Richard_Tyndall
I had the pleasure of chairing a working group of the Western Group on legal matters for an international treaty negotiation (in the security field). 10 countries, 7 legal systems. The three shared legal systems were UK, Canada and Australia. I did not count the US as the same, given their penchant for extra-territorial jurisdiction on a far broader array of issues from the Commonwealth system.
Of course the US isnt really one legal system, its the fifty legal systems of the individual states, plus a federal legal system on top.
Of course the US isnt really one legal system, its the fifty legal systems of the individual states, plus a federal legal system on top.
Misleading. The basic principles of the legal systems of the states are all the same and share their principles not only with the federal system but with the UK as well.Those principles are very different to the various systems of Europe.
There is a problem with your examples though Robert.
The similarities you mention - legal and political systems, language and culture (to paraphrase) are part of the very structure of the US and widely recognised and accepted across the whole country. (As an aside the US has the largest number of people playing cricket on a weekly basis of any country excepting India and Pakistan.)
The differences you highlight are limited generally to a religious faction who are viewed with horror by much of the rest of the country. So really not comparable.
I think that's true and not true. The UK is a much, much more secular society than the US. Religion is a prerequisite for being elected in the US, and a hinderance (Blair being the exception) in the UK.
And: I'm amazed (and greatly heartened) by that cricket statistic.
There is a problem with your examples though Robert.
The similarities you mention - legal and political systems, language and culture (to paraphrase) are part of the very structure of the US and widely recognised and accepted across the whole country. (As an aside the US has the largest number of people playing cricket on a weekly basis of any country excepting India and Pakistan.)
The differences you highlight are limited generally to a religious faction who are viewed with horror by much of the rest of the country. So really not comparable.
I think that's true and not true. The UK is a much, much more secular society than the US. Religion is a prerequisite for being elected in the US, and a hinderance (Blair being the exception) in the UK.
And: I'm amazed (and greatly heartened) by that cricket statistic.
I only found it out last year when there was a news item about the amount of cricket being played in the US.
Of course the US isnt really one legal system, its the fifty legal systems of the individual states, plus a federal legal system on top.
Misleading. The basic principles of the legal systems of the states are all the same and share their principles not only with the federal system but with the UK as well.Those principles are very different to the various systems of Europe.
You're making a classification error. The legal systems of the UK fall into the category of 'the various systems of Europe'.
British culture, law and society are an indivisible part of European culture, law and society.
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries. @Richard_Tyndall
I had the pleasure of chairing a working group of the Western Group on legal matters for an international treaty negotiation (in the security field). 10 countries, 7 legal systems. The three shared legal systems were UK, Canada and Australia. I did not count the US as the same, given their penchant for extra-territorial jurisdiction on a far broader array of issues from the Commonwealth system.
Of course the US isnt really one legal system, its the fifty legal systems of the individual states, plus a federal legal system on top.
Yes, but within the US there is only one state with a truly different system, as opposed to differences in details.
There is a problem with your examples though Robert.
The similarities you mention - legal and political systems, language and culture (to paraphrase) are part of the very structure of the US and widely recognised and accepted across the whole country. (As an aside the US has the largest number of people playing cricket on a weekly basis of any country excepting India and Pakistan.)
The differences you highlight are limited generally to a religious faction who are viewed with horror by much of the rest of the country. So really not comparable.
I think that's true and not true. The UK is a much, much more secular society than the US. Religion is a prerequisite for being elected in the US, and a hinderance (Blair being the exception) in the UK.
And: I'm amazed (and greatly heartened) by that cricket statistic.
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally.
Not Me.As a pensioner i have to agree with you that pensioners live a very comfortable lifestyle I have to work hard at squandering the magnificent sum of of 143 pounds the Government gives me every week.
Obviously £143 is not the driver of comfort, its housing benefit, free tv license, winter fuel allowances, free bus passes and free prescriptions. Also importantly, if you are eligible for DLA when you enter retirement, you keep it, even if what was requiring the DLA is no longer there.
Your argument would be valid if pensioners didn't contribute to the Treasury throughout their younger working lives.
But they contributed to support pensioners back when they were working not to support themselves now they are OAPS.
Pensioner benefits are paid out of current taxation - there is no pot.
There is a problem with your examples though Robert.
The similarities you mention - legal and political systems, language and culture (to paraphrase) are part of the very structure of the US and widely recognised and accepted across the whole country. (As an aside the US has the largest number of people playing cricket on a weekly basis of any country excepting India and Pakistan.)
The differences you highlight are limited generally to a religious faction who are viewed with horror by much of the rest of the country. So really not comparable.
I think that's true and not true. The UK is a much, much more secular society than the US. Religion is a prerequisite for being elected in the US, and a hinderance (Blair being the exception) in the UK.
And: I'm amazed (and greatly heartened) by that cricket statistic.
The USA Cricket Association claims 32,000 members. Wikipedia mentions 30,000 playing cricket at least annually. I've got to believe that all the Test countries exceed that level of participation nationally.
Is there any point to any of this discussion? The USA is a continental wide country created out of mass immigration from all over Europe followed by continuous immigration from all over the world not to mention a massive presence of the descendent of African slaves. There is a huge Hispanic population and a big illegal Mexican immigrant problem. If you ook at the top sending countries to the USA you will not find much evidence of an anglosphere. Its national sports are American Football Baseball Basketball and Hockey- all of which we barely pay lip service to. Anglosphere? We have much in common with the USA politically, it remains the cornerstone of western defence. But in terms of culture whatever we have in common is all down to our own eager 'me too me too' attitude.
Well you already have one Tory MP - if he is true to his word - saying he will resign his seat if IN win. I am not convinced there are many others who will be as principled as that but I do think that the idea everything will be happy and all forgiven after the referendum is a pipe dream.
Not sure that it is "principled": he was elected as an MP snip
Nope. He was elected on the basis that he would serve his constituents and the country. If he feels - as I do - that an IN vote means that effective control over our country has passed to the EU on a permanent basis then I think he is absolutely right that there is no longer point him serving as an MP.
No: he's making a case that there is no point in having any MPs. So he should vote for the abolition of Parliament.
There's no case to quit and put his constituents through the hassle and cost of finding a replacement
So there is a case for him to stay and take taxpayers money for doing a job he believes is worthless? I thought you were the one up in arms earlier today about a suggestion that UKIP should take taxpayers money it is apparently entitled to when their MP had (rightly) said they didn't need it?
He's been elected for 5 years to serve his constituents on the basis of the current structure. He may believe that the post is powerless - and so he will be personally frustrated by "wasting" two and a half years of his life - but the post still exists and someone will be elected to perform it. If he thinks that executive scrutiny has no meaning - I disagree - then he can dedicate himself to working as a super-social-worker for his constituents.
To resign because he doesn't think he has any power is just personal pique.
(and I'm not even going address the comparison with Short money because that's just specious)
I agree, plus not only is it pique, its crass stupidity based on ignorance. Our PM of our government which is supposedly powerless thanks to Brussels has just stood up and said he intends to cut 12 billion from our welfare budget. The only voice I hear complaining on TV is the acting labour party leader. The nerve of these people threatening to argue over our spending and taxation...! (Cameron actually said he wanted to turn the UK from a low wage high tax high welfare country to a high wage low tax low welfare country. Still Labour find time to oppose this!)
Meantime rabid right wingers and kippers alike are busy complaining that we may NOT meet external treaty condition when it comes to our defence spending.
Comments
And how many of those Polly Toynbees going to holiday in Italy actually bothered to learn the language or learn anything other than the the most basic facts about the culture. If anything our knowledge and connection with European culture has declined and not increased over the last century.
Which country remained officially at war with Germany (from the First World War) until 1958?
'He was genuinely sickened and angered by the manner in which the Brownites plotted to unseat Blair in 2006. Eventually — and not so much because he was promoted, friends say, as because Gordon Brown backed his campaign for the victims of the Hillsborough stadium disaster — he came to exhibit a similarly fierce loyalty to the new occupant of Downing Street.
In 2010, Burnham experienced first-hand the conflict between personal and political loyalties. ‘Where was James?’ he asked plaintively after the contest, referring to Purnell’s backing for David Miliband. Did he really expect such loyalty in politics? Purnell might have asked A similar question in June 2009, when Burnham refused to join his bid to topple Brown by resigning from the Cabinet. Supporters of David Miliband, bruised by his narrow loss, blamed Burnham for refusing to say publicly that he would give his crucial second preference vote to their candidate.
In the aftermath of defeat, and having grown to dislike Ed Miliband, Burnham considered quitting the shadow cabinet altogether. That would not have been an altogether surprising course for this deeply emotional man who, friends say, often eschews political calculation. Instead, suggests A party insider, Burnham chose to digest the lessons of his defeat. He needed to toughen up and never again let himself be outmanoeuvred by the likes of Ed Miliband — who he felt had run a shameless campaign, careless of past positions and record.
After five years of making himself acceptable to the left of his party, Burnham has spent the first weeks of this contest tacking back to the centre — praising business and wealth-creation and hinting at support for Tory welfare cuts — and presenting himself as a ‘unity’ candidate: he’s tapped the support of Blair loyalist Charlie Falconer, RECRUITED centrist MPs like Rachel Reeves, Michael Dugher and Dan Jarvis, and won the backing of the hard-left MP Ian Lavery. It is a coalition so wide that it may well give him the leadership. If it does and he becomes leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, we can expect Andy Burnham to remain, at least in his own mind, an outsider.'
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9559092/the-humiliation-that-turned-andy-burnham-from-blairite-to-union-man/
There's no case to quit and put his constituents through the hassle and cost of finding a replacement
Also the US did not declare war on Hitler - Hitler declared war on the US - Roosevelt was (quite appropriately) perfectly happy to fight to the last Brit or Russian.
And of course, the US had War Plan Red:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Before the first world war, how many Britons had travelled to Europe?
How many have been there now?
Of course what all the angry nativists of UKIP mean by that phrase it all the white people living in Australia and NZ and possibly Canada. There is increasingly zero practical meaning to the phrase 'anglosphere', it is a feeble effort to dream up memories of empire, commonwealth and subservient mother countries, conveniently forgetting potato famines Easter uprisings and the drudgery of 'Neighbours'.
Britain: 36
Overseas:
Spain: 25
France: 18
US: 13
Italy: 12
Greece: 10
So excluding Britain from the Europe count:
Europe: 65
US: 13
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2923673/More-half-British-holidaymakers-visit-destination-year-two-thirds-say-unfulfilled-travel-dreams.html
As I have said on here before I have far more affinity with an Indian than a Frenchman or a Norwegian. That is not to say I don't like the French and Norwegians; so much so that I made a point of learning their languages when I lived in their countries. I suspect you have formed most of your opinions about the rest of the world by looking at Google Earth and wikipedia.
You are a bigot who would apparently supports Cameron sending back non white highly trained and educated nurses just so we can have a few more untrained white Europeans over here.
You want to accuse us of racism we will answer in kind.
I love holidays in Europe, but I'm always glad to get home.
I've lived and worked in Europe - but was similarly glad to come home.
Europeans have a lot of similarities between each other, in terms of their societies, trade, legal structures, history which give them a head start in adapting themselves into a european demos. The UK has to change much more due to it's historical development (become less "British") and it's tough to get your head round that sometimes.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries.
The point you keep wilfully missing is that Britain is part of Europe, ergo Britain with all its uniqueness is a defining part of what makes Europe as a whole what it is.
There clearly are very close relationships in military/intelligence - and with the other 'Five Eyes' countries - and in business - look at the number of flights daily from European capitals to the US and the UK is in a league of its own - but beyond that, not so much. Certainly not as much as proponents of an 'Anglosphere' would have us believe.....
American Society Hostess: 'Mr Churchill - what are you going to do with your Indians?'
Churchill: 'Leastways madam, not what you did with yours'
British culture, law and society are an indivisible part of European culture, law and society.
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries.
@Richard_Tyndall
I had the pleasure of chairing a working group of the Western Group on legal matters for an international treaty negotiation (in the security field). 10 countries, 7 legal systems. The three shared legal systems were UK, Canada and Australia. I did not count the US as the same, given their penchant for extra-territorial jurisdiction on a far broader array of issues from the Commonwealth system.
Edit Oh and you certainly seem to be ignorant of the differences in legal systems.
So, there are lots of ways we are like the US, and unlike - say - Germany.
Example: adversarial legal system, FPTP type political system, English language, comedy, and much TV (although there is quite a lot of British TV watched in Germany: I've seen Red Dwarf dubbed into German).
But there are counter-examples too: as far as religion in public or private life goes, we are very unlike the Americans; as a corollary, we are horrified by the idea that a state school could teach creationism as equal (or superior) to evolution; we are much happier to have the state proscribe our access to guns; and we play the same sports as the Germans.
And there are ways we are like Australia or India, and unlike either continental Europe or the US.
Irrespective: there is a common core of British culture. Albeit one that differs between places in the country. And there are undoubtedly people - who are British to the nth degree by by birth - in some parts of Glasgow that feel culturally closer to those in Dublin than those in London.
“If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”
To resign because he doesn't think he has any power is just personal pique.
(and I'm not even going address the comparison with Short money because that's just specious)
Pulpstar New Zealand is closer
The similarities you mention - legal and political systems, language and culture (to paraphrase) are part of the very structure of the US and widely recognised and accepted across the whole country. (As an aside the US has the largest number of people playing cricket on a weekly basis of any country excepting India and Pakistan.)
The differences you highlight are limited generally to a religious faction who are viewed with horror by much of the rest of the country. So really not comparable.
British culture, law and society are an indivisible part of European culture, law and society.
Wow. That is a remarkably ignorant comment. You do know that there are fundamental differences between English and European law don't you? Or maybe you don't. In which case you rally ought to learn something about it.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries.
@Richard_Tyndall
I had the pleasure of chairing a working group of the Western Group on legal matters for an international treaty negotiation (in the security field). 10 countries, 7 legal systems. The three shared legal systems were UK, Canada and Australia. I did not count the US as the same, given their penchant for extra-territorial jurisdiction on a far broader array of issues from the Commonwealth system.
Of course the US isnt really one legal system, its the fifty legal systems of the individual states, plus a federal legal system on top.
And: I'm amazed (and greatly heartened) by that cricket statistic.
I really do wonder how many people going on about common culture with Europe compared to the US have actually spent time living and working in these countries.
@Richard_Tyndall
I had the pleasure of chairing a working group of the Western Group on legal matters for an international treaty negotiation (in the security field). 10 countries, 7 legal systems. The three shared legal systems were UK, Canada and Australia. I did not count the US as the same, given their penchant for extra-territorial jurisdiction on a far broader array of issues from the Commonwealth system.
Of course the US isnt really one legal system, its the fifty legal systems of the individual states, plus a federal legal system on top.
Yes, but within the US there is only one state with a truly different system, as opposed to differences in details.
Pensioner benefits are paid out of current taxation - there is no pot.
Its national sports are American Football Baseball Basketball and Hockey- all of which we barely pay lip service to.
Anglosphere? We have much in common with the USA politically, it remains the cornerstone of western defence. But in terms of culture whatever we have in common is all down to our own eager 'me too me too' attitude.
Our PM of our government which is supposedly powerless thanks to Brussels has just stood up and said he intends to cut 12 billion from our welfare budget. The only voice I hear complaining on TV is the acting labour party leader. The nerve of these people threatening to argue over our spending and taxation...!
(Cameron actually said he wanted to turn the UK from a low wage high tax high welfare country to a high wage low tax low welfare country. Still Labour find time to oppose this!)
Meantime rabid right wingers and kippers alike are busy complaining that we may NOT meet external treaty condition when it comes to our defence spending.