Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
I don't know Australia well at all.
Your fellow countrymen do. By a wide margin its the most popular destination for British expats, with the US, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa all in the top 10. The 4 continental EU countries in the top 10 have fewer in total than Australia alone.
Is that cumulative or current? I'm not sure how helpful it is to work on the basis of people such as my aunt, who emigrated to Australia in 1963.
The most recent year has the USA at #1, Australia #2, with the top EU entrant Spain at #5:
As does Phillip Hammond. As does Chukka. As does Ian Blackford. We can see where the government of national unity could be formed from.
What they should do is lock the Tory and Labour front bench teams in their meeting room (called "Golgafrincham B Ark") and then convene parliament with everyone else to get a deal done
This Australia v Europe thing is pointless. We are not going to get fresh veg from Australia or build cars based on complex supply lines with, or exports to, Australia. Nor are we going to track many terrorists trying to get into or out of our country via Australia.
Proximity trumps all.
Only for goods, and even that is limited due to the expansion of shipping and containerization, but in services proximity is almost irrelevant. What matters there are things like law, language, communications, and transport. There's no reason in principle why an FTA for services should not span the globe.
Indeed and globalisation makes proximity less important year on year, as does the growth of the far East.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
Your own definition of "we" is flexible and you're happy to redefine it based on the decisions of others, so I'm not sure why you're so absolutist about the need for national vetos within the EU.
Nope. Utterly false. My definition of 'We' is always a recognition of the current status of the UK irrespective of what I might hope its future (or lack of one) might be. Currently 'we' as a nation do not have a veto over laws made to govern us. As long as there is no European demos then national vetoes are, to my mind, a necessity.
Presumably this time next week we'll be in a Con leadership election?
The moment she agrees to a one year extension and to the UK taking part in EU elections will be the moment she'll be expected to tender her resignation as Con leader and trigger a leadership election?
Expected? But she cannot be forced to resign, so it's not happening.
The MPs still don't want Boris. And the more sensible contenders want Brexit resolved one way or the other, or more of less so, before they take the job. So probably a deal with Corbyn and an earlier exit finishes her off the soonest
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
I have voted in every General Election since I was 21, the age at which one could in those days. That's every GE since 1959. In only one of them have I voted for a winning candidate, and in only 4 or 5 have I voted for a candidate of the party which subsequently formed the Government. Should I consider myself 'dictated to'?
Presumably this time next week we'll be in a Con leadership election?
The moment she agrees to a one year extension and to the UK taking part in EU elections will be the moment she'll be expected to tender her resignation as Con leader and trigger a leadership election?
But she cannot be forced to resign, so it's not happening.
She can if half the Cabinet say they'll resign if she doesn't quit (and look at the likes of Hancock, Hunt and Javid already on maneuvers... They'll not want her hanging around beyond agreeing an extension)
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
Yet the constant complaint about the EU is that it is "undemocratic". In democracies 27 Yeses and 1 No means Yes, not No.
As I just replied to William, the lack of a European demos means that the EU making laws that cannot be vetoed by the member states is undemocratic.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
Yet the constant complaint about the EU is that it is "undemocratic". In democracies 27 Yeses and 1 No means Yes, not No.
As I just replied to William, the lack of a European demos means that the EU making laws that cannot be vetoed by the member states is undemocratic.
The EU making laws that can be vetoed is undemocratic since it means a bad law passed by a bad outgoing government is irreversible. Democracy means not just that those who pass the law are elected, but that those who get subsequently elected can reverse it.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
They can impose laws on us against the wishes of our elected government. That clearly indicates you are wrong.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
They can impose laws on us against the wishes of our elected government. That clearly indicates you are wrong.
And we the public can't elect a government to reverse what our elected government passes against our wishes. See: Lisbon.
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
I don't know Australia well at all.
Your fellow countrymen do. By a wide margin its the most popular destination for British expats, with the US, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa all in the top 10. The 4 continental EU countries in the top 10 have fewer in total than Australia alone.
Is that cumulative or current? I'm not sure how helpful it is to work on the basis of people such as my aunt, who emigrated to Australia in 1963.
The most recent year has the USA at #1, Australia #2, with the top EU entrant Spain at #5:
She was an economist and I had the impression she was referencing data and research, although I did not ask her for her sources and it is of course possible she was making it up.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
I have voted in every General Election since I was 21, the age at which one could in those days. That's every GE since 1959. In only one of them have I voted for a winning candidate, and in only 4 or 5 have I voted for a candidate of the party which subsequently formed the Government. Should I consider myself 'dictated to'?
The question was not whether you are 'dictated to' but whether you are 'governed'. Do you consider yourself not governed by those governments?
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
I don't know Australia well at all.
Your fellow countrymen do. By a wide margin its the most popular destination for British expats, with the US, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa all in the top 10. The 4 continental EU countries in the top 10 have fewer in total than Australia alone.
Is that cumulative or current? I'm not sure how helpful it is to work on the basis of people such as my aunt, who emigrated to Australia in 1963.
The most recent year has the USA at #1, Australia #2, with the top EU entrant Spain at #5:
She was an economist and I had the impression she was referencing data and research, although I did not ask her for her sources and it is of course possible she was making it up.
Considering we have had multiple counter-examples and counter-data points provided here I think its clearly meaningless hearsay. The data is quite clear.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
Yet the constant complaint about the EU is that it is "undemocratic". In democracies 27 Yeses and 1 No means Yes, not No.
As I just replied to William, the lack of a European demos means that the EU making laws that cannot be vetoed by the member states is undemocratic.
Speak for yourself. Donald Tusk represents my views and interests far better than ether of our two largest domestic parties.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
Yet the constant complaint about the EU is that it is "undemocratic". In democracies 27 Yeses and 1 No means Yes, not No.
As I just replied to William, the lack of a European demos means that the EU making laws that cannot be vetoed by the member states is undemocratic.
Speak for yourself. Donald Tusk represents my views and interests far better than ether of our two largest domestic parties.
Good for you, vote for him then. How many of your fellow countrymen voted (even indirectly) for him or his party?
As does Phillip Hammond. As does Chukka. As does Ian Blackford. We can see where the government of national unity could be formed from.
What they should do is lock the Tory and Labour front bench teams in their meeting room (called "Golgafrincham B Ark") and then convene parliament with everyone else to get a deal done
The people you mention don't want a deal done. They want to revoke and want a smokescreen to allow them to claim it was not their fault.
This Australia v Europe thing is pointless. We are not going to get fresh veg from Australia or build cars based on complex supply lines with, or exports to, Australia. Nor are we going to track many terrorists trying to get into or out of our country via Australia.
Proximity trumps all.
Only for goods, and even that is limited due to the expansion of shipping and containerization, but in services proximity is almost irrelevant. What matters there are things like law, language, communications, and transport. There's no reason in principle why an FTA for services should not span the globe.
Indeed and globalisation makes proximity less important year on year, as does the growth of the far East.
I have run a gravity model for UK trade and I found that distance was as important for services as for goods trade. And EU membership was more important for services trade than for goods trade, while FTAs were less important for services than for goods, unsurprisingly as FTAs generally don't cover services to a significant extent.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
Yet the constant complaint about the EU is that it is "undemocratic". In democracies 27 Yeses and 1 No means Yes, not No.
As I just replied to William, the lack of a European demos means that the EU making laws that cannot be vetoed by the member states is undemocratic.
Speak for yourself. Donald Tusk represents my views and interests far better than ether of our two largest domestic parties.
But you are an extremist example and certainly not representative of the majority of the population if the polls are to be believed.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
I don't know Australia well at all.
Your fellow countrymen do. By a wide margin its the most popular destination for British expats, with the US, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa all in the top 10. The 4 continental EU countries in the top 10 have fewer in total than Australia alone.
Is that cumulative or current? I'm not sure how helpful it is to work on the basis of people such as my aunt, who emigrated to Australia in 1963.
The most recent year has the USA at #1, Australia #2, with the top EU entrant Spain at #5:
She was an economist and I had the impression she was referencing data and research, although I did not ask her for her sources and it is of course possible she was making it up.
Considering we have had multiple counter-examples and counter-data points provided here I think its clearly meaningless hearsay. The data is quite clear.
This Australia v Europe thing is pointless. We are not going to get fresh veg from Australia or build cars based on complex supply lines with, or exports to, Australia. Nor are we going to track many terrorists trying to get into or out of our country via Australia.
Proximity trumps all.
Only for goods, and even that is limited due to the expansion of shipping and containerization, but in services proximity is almost irrelevant. What matters there are things like law, language, communications, and transport. There's no reason in principle why an FTA for services should not span the globe.
Indeed and globalisation makes proximity less important year on year, as does the growth of the far East.
I have run a gravity model for UK trade and I found that distance was as important for services as for trade. And EU membership was more important for services trade than for goods trade, while FTAs were less important for services than for goods, unsurprisingly as FTAs generally don't cover services to a significant extent.
Distance matters for services too - not ideal to be 12 hrs time difference - limited opportunities to even speak on the phone.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
I have voted in every General Election since I was 21, the age at which one could in those days. That's every GE since 1959. In only one of them have I voted for a winning candidate, and in only 4 or 5 have I voted for a candidate of the party which subsequently formed the Government. Should I consider myself 'dictated to'?
The question was not whether you are 'dictated to' but whether you are 'governed'. Do you consider yourself not governed by those governments?
Yes; and in the same way I consider myself governed by the institutions of the EU, which are slowly (admittedly somewhat too slowly) being made more democratic. I would like to see the EU Parliament have a lot more power.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
In the long run maybe*, but right now I find it ludicrous that people say we have more in common with places like Bulgaria.
* In the long run I think global factors will be far more important the proximity within the EU.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Distance matters for services too - not ideal to be 12 hrs time difference - limited opportunities to even speak on the phone.
Even that's less of an issue for some work. There are companies I work for where I have never spoken to anyone involved. All communication is by email or on a messaging platform, and location and the time of day barely matter at all.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
We had a very much greater affinity with Western and Central Europe in the days before easy travel.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
I have voted in every General Election since I was 21, the age at which one could in those days. That's every GE since 1959. In only one of them have I voted for a winning candidate, and in only 4 or 5 have I voted for a candidate of the party which subsequently formed the Government. Should I consider myself 'dictated to'?
The question was not whether you are 'dictated to' but whether you are 'governed'. Do you consider yourself not governed by those governments?
Yes; and in the same way I consider myself governed by the institutions of the EU, which are slowly (admittedly somewhat too slowly) being made more democratic. I would like to see the EU Parliament have a lot more power.
In which case you are agreeing with the point I made to contradict Nigel who said we were not governed by the EU. The question of whether you are happy with that or not is a different matter and clearly one of personal preference.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
King Cole, in the 12th century, English and French knights had very similar cultural outlooks. Both held one another in high esteem, and deemed their peasants unworthy of membership in the chivalric club.
Also, people who value an individual (of whom they approve) in a flawed political system over a sound political establishment that sometimes has poor leadership has signally failed to learn the single most important lesson of the Second Punic War.
Good and bad leaders come and go, political structures are far longer lasting and far better indicators of success and failure over the long term.
But, oddly, those numbers are not borne out at all in the by-election
They aren't?
You would expect to see much bigger swings against the Conservatives and Labour in by-election conditions, if their combined support has fallen by 21%.
These aren't dissimilar to the poll numbers we were getting in the 2013-2015 period, when you we saw huge pro-UKIP swings in some by-elections.
That said, if this holds up, then I would expect to see parties outside the big two pull off some startling results in the local elections.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
Yet the constant complaint about the EU is that it is "undemocratic". In democracies 27 Yeses and 1 No means Yes, not No.
As I just replied to William, the lack of a European demos means that the EU making laws that cannot be vetoed by the member states is undemocratic.
Speak for yourself. Donald Tusk represents my views and interests far better than ether of our two largest domestic parties.
And other than at council level the only votes I have cast that were worth anything were in Euro elections, which have generally delivered me some representation. Every general election vote I have ever cast was wasted.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
No our current situation is like New Zealand deciding not to be a part of Australia. Or Canada or the USA. Or Japan of China. Or plenty of other neighbours.
But, oddly, those numbers are not borne out at all in the by-election
They aren't?
You would expect to see much bigger swings against the Conservatives and Labour in by-election conditions, if their combined support has fallen by 21%.
These aren't dissimilar to the poll numbers we were getting in the 2013-2015 period, when you we saw huge pro-UKIP swings in some by-elections.
People still in a GE mindset given the tightness of parliament? Pre-2015 the outcome of a by-election wouldn't make much difference given the coalition had a decent majority.
This Australia v Europe thing is pointless. We are not going to get fresh veg from Australia or build cars based on complex supply lines with, or exports to, Australia. Nor are we going to track many terrorists trying to get into or out of our country via Australia.
Proximity trumps all.
This is rather the point. We have a deal in place that allows near frictionless trade and commerce with a market of 500 million consumers on our doorstep. Seems quite eccentric to tear that up so that we can spend years negotiating something more clunky to replace it, and then more years trying to replace the deals that came with it. And all so that we can feel a little bit more 'sovereign' as we go about our daily business. Still, we are a nation of eccentrics, so they say.
But, oddly, those numbers are not borne out at all in the by-election
They aren't?
You would expect to see much bigger swings against the Conservatives and Labour in by-election conditions, if their combined support has fallen by 21%.
These aren't dissimilar to the poll numbers we were getting in the 2013-2015 period, when you we saw huge pro-UKIP swings in some by-elections.
That said, if this holds up, then I would expect to see parties outside the big two pull off some startling results in the local elections.
The ConHome thread on doorstep reaction to Tory canvassers is an entertaining read. A few areas have stopped doing it altogether
King Cole, in the 12th century, English and French knights had very similar cultural outlooks. Both held one another in high esteem, and deemed their peasants unworthy of membership in the chivalric club.
Once upon a time, the upper classes of England and France were French and spoke French so naturally, that created strong bonds between them. But, that's a very long time ago.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
I've watched MANY more European tv series than Australian/NZ/Canadian ones over the last few years (probably on a par with US series), the book I'm currently reading is an English translation from French, the last exhibition I made an effort to travel to was the work of a German and afaicr I've never seen a specifically Australian/NZ/Canadian play. I'd love to think I'm exceptional, but I'm not.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
I have voted in every General Election since I was 21, the age at which one could in those days. That's every GE since 1959. In only one of them have I voted for a winning candidate, and in only 4 or 5 have I voted for a candidate of the party which subsequently formed the Government. Should I consider myself 'dictated to'?
The question was not whether you are 'dictated to' but whether you are 'governed'. Do you consider yourself not governed by those governments?
Yes; and in the same way I consider myself governed by the institutions of the EU, which are slowly (admittedly somewhat too slowly) being made more democratic. I would like to see the EU Parliament have a lot more power.
Had the EU committed to reform of it's institutions to address the democratic deficit then I don't think we would have voted to leave. The period of history where there are democratic states is small and precious. They only survive where those who govern can be replaced by the people, and the people show restraint in what they expect from their governments. The EU does not allow us the people to change those who set laws at an EU level, and that is the problem.
There needs to be a clear principle of subsidiarity to nation states similar to the federal/states arrangement in the US (and in the UK per Devolution, with NI and Wales taken to the same level as Scotland). The commission needs to not be able to propose laws - that should pass to the European Parliament.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
To an extent. I certainly feel more at home in Anglophone Africa or Caribbean than in Francophone, but that isn't what people generally mean by Anglosphere.
Africa is the Asia of the next century, developments there are going to be tremendous.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
We had a very much greater affinity with Western and Central Europe in the days before easy travel.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
No our current situation is like New Zealand deciding not to be a part of Australia. Or Canada or the USA. Or Japan of China. Or plenty of other neighbours.
New Zealand is not part of Australia. Japan is not part of China. Canada is not part of the USA. Britain is, however, an intrinsic part of Europe and needs to have a say in the decisions that effect it.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
I cannot even begin to imagine how you thought citing a massive dust-up between this country and Rome 500 years ago that still hasn't been reconciled was somehow evidence of how well-linked we are to the European mainland.
Also our legal systems, as you well know, have diverged significantly since Napoleon (200 years ago) and the language issue is a whole lot more complicated than you're implying - and English in generally has less in common with most Western European languages than they do with each other.
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
Apart from the Australian Rules Football, the rampant Anglophobia, the huge Vietnamese and Italian populations - yeah very British.
Anglophobia ?! Lol.
Yes what a nonsense. An Englishman is more welcome in the average Australian bar than Scottish one. That is not to underplay that Australian culture is increasingly influenced by Eastern Asia, which is a black hole on the map for most people in the UK. But you could have a common travel area with Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) and it would have a less noticable impact on social cohesion than there was even with the 2004 EU accession countries.
You need to change your name to bovine excrement, you have obviously never been to Scotland, it is full of English people living bountiful lives in bonhomie with the natives, much more so than the other way round I suspect given the xenophobia and crime waves.
Those YouGov numbers feel about right. A plague on all your houses. Massive swings from Con and Lab to absolutely anyone else. Which will throw up a few interesting results here and there but will largely deliver Con and Lab MPs on greatly reduced vote shares
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the wos seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
Apart from the Australian Rules Football, the rampant Anglophobia, the huge Vietnamese and Italian populations - yeah very British.
Aussie Rules Football is big there yes, but so is Rugby and Cricket. If you go based on sport we play Cricket with more Commonwealth than EU nations. Anglophobia? Don't make me laugh. Yes they call us Poms or Pommie Bastards but its all in good fun. As for having huge minority populations . . . yeah that doesn't exist anywhere in Britain now does it?
Australian attitudes towards the English are overwhelmingly negative. It’s far more than banter - they viscerally hate us.
As you write, you don't know Australia well.
Australians don't do visceral hatred, for starters.
And your facts are contradicted by polling evidence:
Feelings towards other countries
Three Anglosphere countries top the feelings thermometer this year: New Zealand (86°), Canada (84°), and the United Kingdom (82°). The United States ranks lower, at 67°. Feelings towards the European Union warmed five points to 67°, while those towards Germany (71°) and France (70°) remained steady. Japan recorded a three-point rise to 74°, while feelings for South Korea (62°), the Philippines (61°), Taiwan (60°), and China (58°) are moderately warm. Feelings for Indonesia remain lukewarm at 54°, and neither warm nor cold for Myanmar (50°). In the Pacific, Papua New Guinea registers a warmish 63°, and East Timor a cooler 57°. Russia (47°), Saudi Arabia (40°), and North Korea (25°) all sit on the cold side of the thermometer.
Given how many people in Australia are British immigrants, or the children of British immigrants it would be surprising if there were "rampant Anglophobia" there.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
No deal 2019: 12% Revoke any time: 28% 2nd ref 2019: 33% (wobbled around a bit on rumours Lab/Con may allow HoC vote on it) EU elecs 2019: 81% MV passes 2019: 66%
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
I've watched MANY more European tv series than Australian/NZ/Canadian ones over the last few years (probably on a par with US series), the book I'm currently reading is an English translation from French, the last exhibition I made an effort to travel to was the work of a German and afaik I've never seen a specifically Australian/NZ/Canadian play. I'd love to think I'm exceptional, but I'm not.
Haha, the English version of a "mock-Jock". Never come across one before. Trying sooo hard to be English. It explains everything you have written on here. Let me let you into a secret. We are all just human beings, with a common ancestor. All people that live on these islands are immigrants if you trace it far enough back, with the exception of Jacob Rees Mogg who inexplicably grew out of a serving of overcooked primordial soup, mixed with one of his ancestors biscuits, that was brewed up at the Eton canteen in 1441.
How am I mock-English?
I was born in England, lived here 1982-1992 and then 2000-present. Spending some formative years overseas doesn't change your nationality.
Would you call a Scot who had spent 7 years abroad a mock-Jock?
Don't feed the troll. His posts are not banter, just nasty.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
We are not governed by Westminster either by your logic. Its odd logic.
The greatest problem with the EU is the ratchet and irreversible effect of it perverting our Parliamentary system. The EU drives a stake through the heart of the fundamental democratic principle of "no Parliament can bind its successors". A [potentially unpopular] PM/Parliament can put through a [potentially unpopular] legal change through the EU and then we have no way of reversing it.
Blair/Brown knew Lisbon was unpopular but they ratified it anyway, no successor could then undo that mess.
I want our laws governed by people we elect, who can reverse what their predecessors passed if it was wrong to pass it.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
In the long run maybe*, but right now I find it ludicrous that people say we have more in common with places like Bulgaria.
* In the long run I think global factors will be far more important the proximity within the EU.
The real question is not whether we have more in common with Australia than Bulgaria, but whether we have more in common with Germany than the US.
One thing that strikes me, having lived and worked in Italy, Greece, and now Germany, is that in these countries the idea of "European solidarity" is familiar and generally welcome (impressions of Greece somewhat handicapped by never properly learning the language). In Britain I can't remember many people talking about European solidarity. It's a shame. The EU is clearly more than just a trading club, it is also about European solidarity, which is a good thing, but nobody in the UK is prepared to say that. Often the rest of the EU are spoken of as enemies.
It's scary that Boris Johnson (who was an actual US dual citizen until they sent him a tax bill) can write about how terrible it is that young people have "split allegiances" because they wave EU flags, as if the EU was a hostile power. As if people can't have multiple identities. As if people can't identify as both Arsenal supporters and Londoners, or both chess players and vegetarians, or both Quakers and Scottish. As if the only acceptable "split allegiance" for a Brit is to the USA.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
I cannot even begin to imagine how you thought citing a massive dust-up between this country and Rome 500 years ago that still hasn't been reconciled was somehow evidence of how well-linked we are to the European mainland.
Also our legal systems, as you well know, have diverged significantly since Napoleon (200 years ago) and the language issue is a whole lot more complicated than you're implying - and English in generally has less in common with most Western European languages than they do with each other.
English has far more in common with the Scandinavian Languages, Dutch and German than they do with French, Spanish, Italian etc. For how many years out of the last 1000 has England NOT been in a union with other Western European countries or regions? I calculate about 150 (if you exclude Wales) from the end of the 100 Years War to the Union of the Crowns. Prior to that we were part of Danish, Norman and Angevin empires and after that the union of these Atlantic Islands.
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
I don't know Australia well at all.
Your fellow countrymen do. By a wide margin its the most popular destination for British expats, with the US, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa all in the top 10. The 4 continental EU countries in the top 10 have fewer in total than Australia alone.
Is that cumulative or current? I'm not sure how helpful it is to work on the basis of people such as my aunt, who emigrated to Australia in 1963.
The most recent year has the USA at #1, Australia #2, with the top EU entrant Spain at #5:
An Australian colleague told me that the British are the least successful immigrant group in Australia, because they arrive with a sense of entitlement and a belief that Australia is just like Britain but with better weather and are less willing to put in the hard graft than Asian immigrants as a result. Her parents were British immigrants, incidentally, so I have no reason to think her remarks were prompted by any malice.
Replace "British" for Pakistani and "Australia" with Bradford and you would get arrested.
What a steaming pile of generalisation.
You’d be more likely to be sectioned... Bradford has better weather than Pakistan!
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
English/British conflation klaxon.
Equally the world prior to the 19th century moved at the pace that people could walk / ride. Nowadays I can (and I’m about to) travel across europe in 3 hours and information moves instantly.
The world is a very different place and while some people may wish for things to be the way they were how things were then is not a justification for them remaining like that both now and in the future.
There will be no agreement on the WA before a GE. And it's quite likely that a GE will produce another indecisive result, which will mean there will still be no agreement on the WA. It's quite likely that the UK will remain in a transitional state on the way out of the EU but unable actually to leave for a prolonged period. (Norway is technically in a transitional state on the way in, and this has endured since the 1990s).
Yes, I was postulating the 2 extreme and opposite clear outcomes, but this one must be very possible too. In a sense it would be more fitting because it reflects the muddled national mood. We do not know where we want to move to, or what our budget will be, so let's keep the house on the market but keep the price high enough to discourage buyers. Estate agents' nightmare, EU's nightmare.
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
I don't know Australia well at all.
Your fellow countrymen do. By a wide margin its the most popular destination for British expats, with the US, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa all in the top 10. The 4 continental EU countries in the top 10 have fewer in total than Australia alone.
Is that cumulative or current? I'm not sure how helpful it is to work on the basis of people such as my aunt, who emigrated to Australia in 1963.
The most recent year has the USA at #1, Australia #2, with the top EU entrant Spain at #5:
An Australian colleague told me that the British are the least successful immigrant group in Australia, because they arrive with a sense of entitlement and a belief that Australia is just like Britain but with better weather and are less willing to put in the hard graft than Asian immigrants as a result. Her parents were British immigrants, incidentally, so I have no reason to think her remarks were prompted by any malice.
Replace "British" for Pakistani and "Australia" with Bradford and you would get arrested.
What a steaming pile of generalisation.
I don't think anyone migrates to Britain for the weather so I don't think the comparison holds. I am only reporting what she told me, but if you want to arrest her be my guest.
Would surprise you, not everyone wants to bake everyday.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
I've watched MANY more European tv series than Australian/NZ/Canadian ones over the last few years (probably on a par with US series), the book I'm currently reading is an English translation from French, the last exhibition I made an effort to travel to was the work of a German and afaik I've never seen a specifically Australian/NZ/Canadian play. I'd love to think I'm exceptional, but I'm not.
You aren't exceptional, but you are untypical.
Which ANZAC films, plays, books & tv series have you enjoyed in the last 3 months?
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Having in lived in the US and now in France I would say I feel culturally closer to France, but they both "win" in different ways. We share more of the American mindset (particularly adaptability, focus on experience over diplomas etc) , but our society as a whole is more French (not really into overt patriotism or influence of religion on politics, generally more socially Liberal and economically left, a shared and intertwined history and the experiences of being two nearly identical countries in terms of economy, population, influence etc)
You missed out burgers , fast food in general and huge girths
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
Apart from the Australian Rules Football, the rampant Anglophobia, the huge Vietnamese and Italian populations - yeah very British.
Anglophobia ?! Lol.
Yes what a nonsense. An Englishman is more welcome in the average Australian bar than Scottish one. That is not to underplay that Australian culture is increasingly influenced by Eastern Asia, which is a black hole on the map for most people in the UK. But you could have a common travel area with Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) and it would have a less noticable impact on social cohesion than there was even with the 2004 EU accession countries.
You need to change your name to bovine excrement, you have obviously never been to Scotland, it is full of English people living bountiful lives in bonhomie with the natives, much more so than the other way round I suspect given the xenophobia and crime waves.
I know from experience that much of Scotland is very welcoming and also that much of it is not quite as welcoming to the English. You take your chances.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
I cannot even begin to imagine how you thought citing a massive dust-up between this country and Rome 500 years ago that still hasn't been reconciled was somehow evidence of how well-linked we are to the European mainland.
Also our legal systems, as you well know, have diverged significantly since Napoleon (200 years ago) and the language issue is a whole lot more complicated than you're implying - and English in generally has less in common with most Western European languages than they do with each other.
English has far more in common with the Scandinavian Languages, Dutch and German than they do with French, Spanish, Italian etc. For how many years out of the last 1000 has England NOT been in a union with other Western European countries or regions? I calculate about 150 (if you exclude Wales) from the end of the 100 Years War to the Union of the Crowns. Prior to that we were part of Danish, Norman and Angevin empires and after that the union of these Atlantic Islands.
Um. What? I'm not advocating ending the Union of the Crowns, and I don't really understand what the Hundred Years' War has to do with the EU.
Also we spent large chunks of the last thousand years at war with one part of Europe or another. The temporary alliances we formed in the process to aid with that don't really help your argument, as far as I can see.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
Thanks to Bishop Odo, brother of William the Conqueror, our legal system continues to have its roots in Anglo-Saxon common law. At least in England. Our language uses Germanic, Scandinavian and Norman vocabulary but Brythonic structure. And 1534 was of course notable for a definitive break with Europe in terms of both politics and religion.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
No our current situation is like New Zealand deciding not to be a part of Australia. Or Canada or the USA. Or Japan of China. Or plenty of other neighbours.
New Zealand is not part of Australia. Japan is not part of China. Canada is not part of the USA. Britain is, however, an intrinsic part of Europe and needs to have a say in the decisions that effect it.
New Zealand is part of Oceania, Japan is a part of Asia, Canada is a part of North America and Britain is a part of Europe.
Soon we will be able to say Britain is not a part of the European Union. The European Union is no more Europe than America is North America.
The real question is not whether we have more in common with Australia than Bulgaria, but whether we have more in common with Germany than the US.
One thing that strikes me, having lived and worked in Italy, Greece, and now Germany, is that in these countries the idea of "European solidarity" is familiar and generally welcome (impressions of Greece somewhat handicapped by never properly learning the language). In Britain I can't remember many people talking about European solidarity. It's a shame. The EU is clearly more than just a trading club, it is also about European solidarity, which is a good thing, but nobody in the UK is prepared to say that. Often the rest of the EU are spoken of as enemies.
I think enemies is too strong, but I do think that generally people in Britain do not feel part of the EU club, in the way that people in France and Germany might. We have always been in the outside ring resisting further integration. I think we and the EU itself would be a lot better off if the UK-EU relationship was a looser trade focused one. That doesn't mean we wish the EU any ill, but lets stop kidding ourselves that we all want to head in the same direction.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
I've watched MANY more European tv series than Australian/NZ/Canadian ones over the last few years (probably on a par with US series), the book I'm currently reading is an English translation from French, the last exhibition I made an effort to travel to was the work of a German and afaik I've never seen a specifically Australian/NZ/Canadian play. I'd love to think I'm exceptional, but I'm not.
You aren't exceptional, but you are untypical.
Which ANZAC films, plays, books & tv series have you enjoyed in the last 3 months?
Over the past three months, the main one is Spartacus, which is a very long series, although I've also re-watched The Lord of the Rings, and the first part of The Hobbit.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
We are not governed by Westminster either by your logic. Its odd logic.
The greatest problem with the EU is the ratchet and irreversible effect of it perverting our Parliamentary system. The EU drives a stake through the heart of the fundamental democratic principle of "no Parliament can bind its successors". A [potentially unpopular] PM/Parliament can put through a [potentially unpopular] legal change through the EU and then we have no way of reversing it.
Blair/Brown knew Lisbon was unpopular but they ratified it anyway, no successor could then undo that mess.
I want our laws governed by people we elect, who can reverse what their predecessors passed if it was wrong to pass it.
Brown was an arse of the first order
Indeed and thanks to the EU we can't reverse his actions. Not without leaving the EU.
Whether we're ruled by Westminster, Holyrood, Brussels or Strasbourg we should elect our rulers as part of a demos and be able to replace them with rulers who can reverse what bad rulers like Brown enact.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
The angles and saxons were invited, several decades after Roman evacuation and the tide did not turn against the British until 150 to 200 years after the Romans left.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
What does any of that prove? The fact that at various points in our past we have been ruled by French or Scandinavians does not have a lot of bearing on who we see our closest ties being with in this day and age.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
Newport West isn't a particularly leave seat. It is incredibly average in many ways socially.
As does Phillip Hammond. As does Chukka. As does Ian Blackford. We can see where the government of national unity could be formed from.
What they should do is lock the Tory and Labour front bench teams in their meeting room (called "Golgafrincham B Ark") and then convene parliament with everyone else to get a deal done
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
Thanks to Bishop Odo, brother of William the Conqueror, our legal system continues to have its roots in Anglo-Saxon common law. At least in England. Our language uses Germanic, Scandinavian and Norman vocabulary but Brythonic structure. And 1534 was of course notable for a definitive break with Europe in terms of both politics and religion.
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
Newport West isn't a particularly leave seat. It is incredibly average in many ways socially.
Marginally more leave than nationally. 54% of enraged leavers to go after. Kippers did well below what they should if they want to stay in the game after the return of the Farage
Comments
What they should do is lock the Tory and Labour front bench teams in their meeting room (called "Golgafrincham B Ark") and then convene parliament with everyone else to get a deal done
Should I consider myself 'dictated to'?
Con 32
Lab 31
Ld 12
SNP+PC 6%
Ukip 7%
Brexit 5%
Green 4%
Other 3%
WOT NO TIG ?
If we'd been outside we wouldn't have the nonsense of Article 11 and Article 13 imposed on us.
The data are quite clear.
UKIP and Brexit Party have 12% between them...
Con 35.5% Lab 33.9%
Con 301
Lab 262
LD 25
UKIP 0
Grn 1
PC 3
SNP 40
NI 18
Tories 25 short of overall majority.
Only change is another Con to LD seat (Wells).
* In the long run I think global factors will be far more important the proximity within the EU.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
Good and bad leaders come and go, political structures are far longer lasting and far better indicators of success and failure over the long term.
Just look at Jugurtha.
These aren't dissimilar to the poll numbers we were getting in the 2013-2015 period, when you we saw huge pro-UKIP swings in some by-elections.
That said, if this holds up, then I would expect to see parties outside the big two pull off some startling results in the local elections.
Polls/ By-election
Lab -10 / -12.7
Con -12.5 / -8.0
LDM +4.4 / +2.4
UKIP +5.1 / +6.1
Green +2.3 / +2.8
Others broadly of the right/protest vote
Polls:
Brexit +5/Others + 3
REN: (+3.7)
ATWA: (+0.9)
SDP: (+0.9)
D&V: (+0.8)
FBR: (+0.7)
-------------
+7%
There needs to be a clear principle of subsidiarity to nation states similar to the federal/states arrangement in the US (and in the UK per Devolution, with NI and Wales taken to the same level as Scotland). The commission needs to not be able to propose laws - that should pass to the European Parliament.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Africa is the Asia of the next century, developments there are going to be tremendous.
Also our legal systems, as you well know, have diverged significantly since Napoleon (200 years ago) and the language issue is a whole lot more complicated than you're implying - and English in generally has less in common with most Western European languages than they do with each other.
No deal 2019: 12%
Revoke any time: 28%
2nd ref 2019: 33% (wobbled around a bit on rumours Lab/Con may allow HoC vote on it)
EU elecs 2019: 81%
MV passes 2019: 66%
Has any party in history decided to ignore the huge majority of its voters , 79% who said leaving is the wrong decision .
One thing that strikes me, having lived and worked in Italy, Greece, and now Germany, is that in these countries the idea of "European solidarity" is familiar and generally welcome (impressions of Greece somewhat handicapped by never properly learning the language). In Britain I can't remember many people talking about European solidarity. It's a shame. The EU is clearly more than just a trading club, it is also about European solidarity, which is a good thing, but nobody in the UK is prepared to say that. Often the rest of the EU are spoken of as enemies.
It's scary that Boris Johnson (who was an actual US dual citizen until they sent him a tax bill) can write about how terrible it is that young people have "split allegiances" because they wave EU flags, as if the EU was a hostile power. As if people can't have multiple identities. As if people can't identify as both Arsenal supporters and Londoners, or both chess players and vegetarians, or both Quakers and Scottish. As if the only acceptable "split allegiance" for a Brit is to the USA.
The world is a very different place and while some people may wish for things to be the way they were how things were then is not a justification for them remaining like that both now and in the future.
Also we spent large chunks of the last thousand years at war with one part of Europe or another. The temporary alliances we formed in the process to aid with that don't really help your argument, as far as I can see.
Soon we will be able to say Britain is not a part of the European Union. The European Union is no more Europe than America is North America.
Whether we're ruled by Westminster, Holyrood, Brussels or Strasbourg we should elect our rulers as part of a demos and be able to replace them with rulers who can reverse what bad rulers like Brown enact.