Your post read (to me) like English Americans don't identify with their heritage.
I think they do but not in an overt way because, like you say, it's meshed into the establishment of the USA.
What part of "...Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans"...." did you not understand? Where exactly, as you and @HYUFD appear to allege, have I suggested that people of English extraction deny it?
@HYUDF may want to note that his favoured source, Wikipedia, cites Lieberson, Stanley; Waters, Mary C. (1988). From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. Russell Sage Foundation as authority for the proposition that -
"Americans of English heritage are often seen, and identify, as simply "American" due to the many historic cultural ties between England and the U.S. and their influence on the country's population. Relative to ethnic groups of other European origins, this may be due to the early establishment of English settlements; as well as to non-English groups having emigrated in order to establish significant communities.
Since 1776, English-Americans have been less likely to proclaim their heritage, unlike African Americans, Irish Americans, Scottish Americans, Italian Americans or other ethnic groups. A leading specialist, Charlotte Erickson, found them to be ethnically "invisible," dismissing the occasional St. George Societies as ephemeral elite clubs that were not in touch with the larger ethnic community. In Canada, by contrast, the English organized far more ethnic activism, as the English competed sharply with the well-organized French and Irish elements. In the United States the Scottish immigrants were much better organized than the English in the 19th century, as are their descendants in the late 20th century."
We're going round in circles here.
Childishly, you just don't want to concede any flaws in the argument in your post.
I've even said I largely agree with you - except for one aspect.
You've decided to respond by being rude.
I'm not being rude. I'm a defending myself against allegations of making a point I didn't make.
A recent example (there are many) of a pooled testing trial.
Swab pooling for large-scale RT-qPCR screening of SARS-CoV-2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.03.20187732v1 Pool testing has been proposed as an alternative for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening. However, dilution factors proportional to the number of pooled samples have been a source of major concern regarding its diagnostic performance. Further, sample pooling can lead to increased laboratory workload and operational complexity. Therefore, pooling strategies that minimize sample dilution, loss of sensitivity, and laboratory overload are needed to allow reliable and large-scale screenings of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we describe a pooling procedure in which nasopharyngeal swabs are pooled together at the time of sample collection (swab pooling), decreasing laboratory manipulation and minimizing dilution of the viral RNA present in the samples. Paired analysis of pooled and individual samples from 613 patients revealed 94 positive individual tests. Having individual testing as a reference, no false-positives or false-negatives were observed for swab pooling. A Bayesian model estimated a sensitivity of 99% (Cr.I. 96.9% to 100%) and a specificity of 99.8% (Cr.I. 99.4% to 100%) for the swab pooling procedure. Data from additional 18,922 patients screened with swab pooling were included for further quantitative analysis. Mean Cq differences between individual and corresponding pool samples ranged from 0.1 Cq (Cr.I. -0.98 to 1.17) to 2.09 Cq (Cr.I. 1.24 to 2.94). Overall, 19,535 asymptomatic and presymptomatic patients were screened using 4,400 RT-qPCR assays, resulting in 246 positive patients (positivity rate 1.26%). This corresponds to an increase of 4.4 times in laboratory capacity and a reduction of 77% in required tests. Finally, these data demonstrate that swab pooling can significantly minimize sample dilution and sensitivity issues commonly seen in its traditional counterpart. Therefore, swab pooling represents a major alternative for reliable and large-scale screening of SARS-CoV-2 in low prevalence populations.
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning.
You can have EEA and a US and UK FTA whoever wins in November, if you have a hard Brexit though you will only possibly get a FTA with Trump still in power and probably the GOP back in control in Congress
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
It's in your interests to deny it's anyone but the UK.
The UK is the USA's closest ally with unparalleled cooperation in military planning, military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing and the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. Both self describe the relationship as the "special relationship".
The USA also has special relationships with South Korea, Israel and Ireland - and that's largely in its role as a "protector" rather than a close global ally.
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
And their second biggest net contributer I believe?
Indeed. The smart thing for the EU to do would have been to move away from their one-size-fits-all model and allowed different forms of membership. Forget "two speed Europe" (code for same destination: just some fast and some slow) then needed concentric rings of integration and to then treatise this permanently.
They decided that was an absolute no-no. Hence, Brexit.
The fundamental problem is they think differently to us and don't understand us. That became clear post Cameron's failed renegotiation and weighed heavily in me switching from Remain to Leave.
That is what has bedevilled talks for the past decade. They didn't take Cameron's renegotiation seriously because they didn't think we would leave. So we voted to leave. They didn't take May's "no deal is better than a bad deal" seriously because they thought we wouldn't No Deal. So we got a bad deal Parliament rejected outright. They're still now not taking us seriously, so are shocked and horrified when Boris stands up for Britain in the talks.
Until they start taking us seriously, progress isn't going to be possible. I think the only way to do that is to introduce a shock bigger than any so far into the system - walk away No Deal at the end of Transition. It may be difficult, it may cause issues with transit etc but just work on fixing them and coming to "a new normal" next year. Then get into fresh talks as sovereign equals.
No doubt some in government believe this. Cummings affects to believe it, at least as a negotiating ploy. Boris would probably be happy with BINO and the whole mess going away.
If we did walk away, there'd be harm on both sides but mainly on ours. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, and the EU would graze its knee, because UK/EU trade is a bigger share of our trade than it is of theirs.
And when we did go back to negotiate "as sovereign equals" we'd be unequal. Both for the reason above and because we are smaller than them.
As they used to say on demos: What do we want? When do we want it?
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
Yes, the UK is seen by more Americans than any other country as a "dependable ally" (31%) - and the UK is ranked second, behind the US, in Canada and Australia.
I agree with this, but a sense of commonality isn't the same as a sense of loyalty. A number of English Brexiters, even those approaching Brexit primarily in free-trading terms, are under the profound illusion that nations like Australia and the US feel some active emotional loyalty rather than just commonality with Britain, which will be an island for us in this new world of sailing clear of the E.U.
This is just disguised geopolitics though.
You can't on the one hand make the argument that active emotional loyalty exists with the EU and doesn't exist at all within Australia, NZ, Canada or the USA. There are huge cultural, linguistic and family ties with the latter - as well as similar traditions, institutions and interests.
The reason people do, of course, is because they're trying to shift people's emotional sentiments from the Anglosphere to continental Europe because they see it as an obstacle to European federalism.
There are ties, but I would say an uncomfortable fact for Brexiters that is that a greater emotional loyalty exists between English-speaking nations like Australia and New Zealand than to Britain. Conversely, and somewhat against the grain of current thinking, my experience of some people from English-speaking African nations is strangely different.
I would say the EU is more about active emotional loyalty to the project of peace after a war and chaos, combined with a continental sense of pan-European culture, both of which the UK has always had trouble with accepting for reasons of a different historical point of view.
Yes, it's funny how people's views on this corroborate so closely to their views on the European Union.
The row over whether the EU has threatened to 'blockade' NI is nonsense of course, but it does illustrate a real point, which is that there are essentially three options for the UK. In decreasing order of desirability:
1. A free trade agreement with the EU, giving us tariff-free trade and reducing trade frictions to a certain extent. This can be very comprehensive, or it can be quite limited, but either way it would certainly help and of course by definition mean that we were working amicably together. Of course it would require us to sign up to a lot of EU rules, but we've always known that.
2. An orderly, amicable transition to WTO terms. In this scenario we'd agree with them that we're not going to enter a trade deal, but we would work with them to reduce the chaos, for example by the UK applying to have its food standards regime recognised (which incidentally we haven't done yet). In this scenario we would obviously have to adhere to both the letter and spirit of the WA. We'd also still have to sign up to some EU rules, for example on data protection and GIs.
3. A disorderly, non-amicable crash out to WTO terms. This is the scenario of maximum economic and social damage, which no sentient government could possibly countenance. It would be absolutely disastrous for NI, and pretty disastrous for us. It is also quite likely.
The most worrying thing of all is that any of these options, even the first, needs months of preparation which has barely started. We don't have the 50,000 trained customs agents needed even for 1 or 2. We don't have the computer systems. Companies don't have the expertise. No one knows how supply chains can work. No importing or exporting business can plan properly because it doesn't know what regime will apply, or what tariffs. And all this kicks in in a few weeks' time.
The EU has been saying for years that they don't understand what the UK wants. They are right. It is still completely unclear, with the government still negotiating with itself as the clock ticks down.
Britain's time on the World Stage is over - and it has been Brexit that has done it.
Britain as a "world power" disappeared in the thick of WWII - and despite protestations of "Imperial nostalgia" gave up its empire faster and less bloodily than any of its European contemporaries.
It is however still a nuclear power, G7 member, member of the security council and a significant military power. Not bad for a small island off the coast of Western Europe.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
Australia is the US' closest ally, only nation to fight with the US in all its wars, including Vietnam which we avoided and Iraq 2 which France and Canada avoided
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great emotional loyalty to Britain, that will help in the event of sailing free on the buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the evil, and more foreign e.u. ? Generally, no.
Most people who speak about an Anglosphere refer to CANZUK for a reason.
Just a hint: the USA is not a CANZUK naton.
I struggle to think of a country more cheerfully and virulently anti-English than Australia. Scotland and Ireland are the only countries that come close.
Australia is England with sunnier weather, bigger homes and a greater love of sport.
73% of Australians would approve of a reciprocal CANZUK free trade and free movement agreement.
Australia is English people trying to be Americans. For me, New Zealand is far closer to the kind of UK I would like to see. The Kiwi outlook is much less abrasive than the Aussie one and far less self-important. The Atlantic states of Canada are kind of similar.
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
What is wrong with you people?
Firstly, don't address me as "you people" please - address me respectfully and the argument directly.
Secondly, I don't see the defeat of the EU as either an objective or desirable - I was replying provocatively to @SouthamObserver's first because I see that the EU's biggest loss has already occurred.
I don't see any need to "beat" them in subsequent negotiations - just to reach a fair deal.
“You people” i.e. Brexit frothers are obsessed with this war narrative that we somehow must defeat “the enemy” - the EU. It’s almost like a fantasy recreation of WW2. It’s a recurrent theme that is still ongoing. See: “blockade”.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who generally agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features, and have no problem with accepting this ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great active and emotional loyalty to Britain, which will help us in the event of sailing free and trade negotiations on the great buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the european union ? Generally, no.
I don't think that's true. Five Eyes shows there's lots of trust across the Anglosphere. So does UK-US collaboration on foreign policy and defence. And Canada-UK were starting to move closer on foreign policy coordination under Hague and the Harper Government even before Brexit.
It's on shared economic interests and movement of people (incl professionals) where focus is now moving and it's less clear how coterminous these are.
However, world geopolitics will bump all those countries closer together regardless in the future. We will all have to huddle together more closely to protect our interests and democracy.
Absolutely - the anglosphere exists in a neutral institutional sense, but not in an emotional sense. Leading Brexiters have played a key role in the last twenty years, in perpetuating the idea of a grateful loyalty and emotionally motivated support, waiting for us to replace that of unreliable Europeans after Brexit, which in general does not exist.
The Australians' perceptions of the wars is presumably rather different from the Brexiters'. Gallipoli (and Mesopotamia/Kut?), and Malaya/Singapore, as well as problems with communications across the Indian Ocean, led to a major realignment of Australia with the US during WW2.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great emotional loyalty to Britain, that will help in the event of sailing free on the buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the evil, and more foreign e.u. ? Generally, no.
Most people who speak about an Anglosphere refer to CANZUK for a reason.
Just a hint: the USA is not a CANZUK naton.
I struggle to think of a country more cheerfully and virulently anti-English than Australia. Scotland and Ireland are the only countries that come close.
Australia is England with sunnier weather, bigger homes and a greater love of sport.
73% of Australians would approve of a reciprocal CANZUK free trade and free movement agreement.
Australia is English people trying to be Americans. For me, New Zealand is far closer to the kind of UK I would like to see. The Kiwi outlook is much less abrasive than the Aussie one and far less self-important. The Atlantic states of Canada are kind of similar.
Indeed, New Zealand is closer to England than Australia which bar maybe Victoria is culturally closer to the US
Boeing are going to be more fecked than a stepmom on pornhub aren't they?
No idea what you are talking about but if Boeing is in trouble, I dare say it will be given some important research and development contracts for NASA or the Pentagon. Not to be confused with state aid, you understand.
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning
You are very wrong.
If Biden can get the UK and EU/Ireland to resolve their differences then he will claim credit as a great Statesman like Clinton did with the GFA and then a deal will be able to get through Congress.
If Trump wins then the Democrats will control the House and will win the midterms too. Trump isn't getting anything like that through the House then.
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
Ye gods, all this talk such as "the EU have been defeated" is so depressing. It's not a war. Most people, and governments, in the EU are immensely sad that the UK decided to leave, and a more noble interpretation is that they are trying to make the best of a bad job. It would have been much more straightforward without the Ireland/NI issue, and our departure could have been much smoother. But the history of the island of Ireland is hardly the EU's fault.
The EU totally failed to understand sentiment in the UK.
Advocates in the UK for the EU totally failed to understand Euroscepticism: when people here expressed concern we were losing British sovereignty and identity through ever closer union in the EU lots of Remainers here said, "Too right! The UK is out of date and nothing to be proud of anyway! I'm European!!" thus confirming their prejudices.
They still haven't learned this lesson, both preferring instead to blame tabloid newspapers, and the right-wing of the Conservative Party, rather than ask themselves the difficult questions they'd prefer not to.
While Brexiters put it much more simply: "we were always sovereign".
Your post read (to me) like English Americans don't identify with their heritage.
I think they do but not in an overt way because, like you say, it's meshed into the establishment of the USA.
What part of "...Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans"...." did you not understand? Where exactly, as you and @HYUFD appear to allege, have I suggested that people of English extraction deny it?
@HYUDF may want to note that his favoured source, Wikipedia, cites Lieberson, Stanley; Waters, Mary C. (1988). From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. Russell Sage Foundation as authority for the proposition that -
"Americans of English heritage are often seen, and identify, as simply "American" due to the many historic cultural ties between England and the U.S. and their influence on the country's population. Relative to ethnic groups of other European origins, this may be due to the early establishment of English settlements; as well as to non-English groups having emigrated in order to establish significant communities.
Since 1776, English-Americans have been less likely to proclaim their heritage, unlike African Americans, Irish Americans, Scottish Americans, Italian Americans or other ethnic groups. A leading specialist, Charlotte Erickson, found them to be ethnically "invisible," dismissing the occasional St. George Societies as ephemeral elite clubs that were not in touch with the larger ethnic community. In Canada, by contrast, the English organized far more ethnic activism, as the English competed sharply with the well-organized French and Irish elements. In the United States the Scottish immigrants were much better organized than the English in the 19th century, as are their descendants in the late 20th century."
We're going round in circles here.
Childishly, you just don't want to concede any flaws in the argument in your post.
I've even said I largely agree with you - except for one aspect.
You've decided to respond by being rude.
I'm not being rude. I'm a defending myself against allegations of making a point I didn't make.
There's no "allegations" - your point wasn't clear and was open to misinterpretation. I gave mine and qualified it slightly.
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning
You have a point. If nothing else the Dems see Boris as a mini-Trump so won't be doing him any favours. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced the GOP will be much more helpful - they too will have Irish-American constituencies to think about and will have an even more protectionist mindset (magnified, ironically, since the Trump revolution).
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great emotional loyalty to Britain, that will help in the event of sailing free on the buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the evil, and more foreign e.u. ? Generally, no.
Most people who speak about an Anglosphere refer to CANZUK for a reason.
Just a hint: the USA is not a CANZUK naton.
I struggle to think of a country more cheerfully and virulently anti-English than Australia. Scotland and Ireland are the only countries that come close.
Australia is England with sunnier weather, bigger homes and a greater love of sport.
73% of Australians would approve of a reciprocal CANZUK free trade and free movement agreement.
Australia is English people trying to be Americans. For me, New Zealand is far closer to the kind of UK I would like to see. The Kiwi outlook is much less abrasive than the Aussie one and far less self-important. The Atlantic states of Canada are kind of similar.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great emotional loyalty to Britain, that will help in the event of sailing free on the buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the evil, and more foreign e.u. ? Generally, no.
Most people who speak about an Anglosphere refer to CANZUK for a reason.
Just a hint: the USA is not a CANZUK naton.
I struggle to think of a country more cheerfully and virulently anti-English than Australia. Scotland and Ireland are the only countries that come close.
Australia is England with sunnier weather, bigger homes and a greater love of sport.
73% of Australians would approve of a reciprocal CANZUK free trade and free movement agreement.
Australia is English people trying to be Americans. For me, New Zealand is far closer to the kind of UK I would like to see. The Kiwi outlook is much less abrasive than the Aussie one and far less self-important. The Atlantic states of Canada are kind of similar.
Indeed, New Zealand is closer to England than Australia which bar maybe Victoria is culturally closer to the US
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
It's in your interests to deny it's anyone but the UK.
The UK is the USA's closest ally with unparalleled cooperation in military planning, military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing and the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. Both self describe the relationship as the "special relationship".
The USA also has special relationships with South Korea, Israel and Ireland - and that's largely in its role as a "protector" rather than a close global ally.
Americans only refer to the "special relationship" when they're trying to butter us up. In five years living in the US I never heard it referred to by politicians speaking to a domestic audience nor did any American acquaintance use it in conversation with me. They know it's a phrase that the British need to hear (like an insecure person in a dysfunctional relationship who needs to hear "I love you" on a regular basis). They're just not that into us, get over it.
Boeing are going to be more fecked than a stepmom on pornhub aren't they?
No idea what you are talking about but if Boeing is in trouble, I dare say it will be given some important research and development contracts for NASA or the Pentagon. Not to be confused with state aid, you understand.
Numerous design, management and regulatory failures during the development of the 737 Max preceded the “preventable death” of 346 people in two crashes of the popular Boeing jetliner, according to a damning congressional report released Wednesday.
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s 238-page report painted a Boeing that prioritized profits over safety and detailed “disturbing cultural issues” relating to employee surveys showing some experienced “undue pressure” as the manufacturer raced to finish the plane to compete with rival Airbus. The report said concerns about the aircraft weren’t sufficiently addressed to spur design changes.
Some lawmakers this year introduced legislation that aims to increase the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of the industry.
The report, in the works for about 18 months, comes as regulators are in the final stretch of work to recertify the planes. The 737 Max has been grounded worldwide since March 2019, following the second of the planes’ two fatal crashes.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
What is wrong with you people?
Firstly, don't address me as "you people" please - address me respectfully and the argument directly.
Secondly, I don't see the defeat of the EU as either an objective or desirable - I was replying provocatively to @SouthamObserver's first because I see that the EU's biggest loss has already occurred.
I don't see any need to "beat" them in subsequent negotiations - just to reach a fair deal.
“You people” i.e. Brexit frothers are obsessed with this war narrative that we somehow must defeat “the enemy” - the EU. It’s almost like a fantasy recreation of WW2. It’s a recurrent theme that is still ongoing. See: “blockade”.
Listen, dipshit and get this through your thick skull: I don't agree the EU needs to be defeated nor do I seek it as an objective.
My view is simply that its biggest "defeat" was losing the UK as a member, and it's on those root causes on which its attention should be focused.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great emotional loyalty to Britain, that will help in the event of sailing free on the buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the evil, and more foreign e.u. ? Generally, no.
Most people who speak about an Anglosphere refer to CANZUK for a reason.
Just a hint: the USA is not a CANZUK naton.
I struggle to think of a country more cheerfully and virulently anti-English than Australia. Scotland and Ireland are the only countries that come close.
Australia is England with sunnier weather, bigger homes and a greater love of sport.
73% of Australians would approve of a reciprocal CANZUK free trade and free movement agreement.
Australia is English people trying to be Americans. For me, New Zealand is far closer to the kind of UK I would like to see. The Kiwi outlook is much less abrasive than the Aussie one and far less self-important. The Atlantic states of Canada are kind of similar.
Indeed, New Zealand is closer to England than Australia which bar maybe Victoria is culturally closer to the US
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
It's in your interests to deny it's anyone but the UK.
The UK is the USA's closest ally with unparalleled cooperation in military planning, military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing and the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. Both self describe the relationship as the "special relationship".
The USA also has special relationships with South Korea, Israel and Ireland - and that's largely in its role as a "protector" rather than a close global ally.
Americans only refer to the "special relationship" when they're trying to butter us up. In five years living in the US I never heard it referred to by politicians speaking to a domestic audience nor did any American acquaintance use it in conversation with me. They know it's a phrase that the British need to hear (like an insecure person in a dysfunctional relationship who needs to hear "I love you" on a regular basis). They're just not that into us, get over it.
Quite right. I work for a US-owned company. Those Americans who don't think 'England' is somewhere on the east coast merely regard our accent as rather 'cute' and are glad they don't have our crap weather. That's about it.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
Yes, the UK is seen by more Americans than any other country as a "dependable ally" (31%) - and the UK is ranked second, behind the US, in Canada and Australia.
Am I interpreting this correctly? 30% of Kenyan`s see China as their most dependable ally?
Yep. China has been eating the West's lunch in much of Africa - all about resources. The Chinese go in, build impressive infrastructure and land the country with a load of debt which leaves them beholden to China:
The most pro/linked English Americans so far as I can work out are err those from Utah. If there's some sort of pro-Brexit column in US politics, we'll likely hear it from Mitt Romney. Have we ?
There's still a glitch in the smart new website: when you click for more comments at the bottom you get the expanded threads for each comment as used to happen for a while last year.
On Firefox I see no such option to click for more comments. It is hard to contribute sensibly if one cannot see what has already been posted.
Also, on Firefox the archive links to previous months' threads sprawl all over the bottom whereas in Chrome they are confined to the right hand side. It might be easier to have a single link to archives and then the months (or even individual threads) indexed on a new, separate page.
The new site is also very slow, taking several seconds to load the comments.
I use Firefox (on a Macbook). But having just checked I now see the "More comments" button is no longer there. Perhaps there's some experimentation going on in the background.
The first thing shown on this new pb is that "Comments are closed" which we know to ignore but can only discourage new users.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
I remember talking to some African American teenagers in our local swimming pool, they asked if my wife was "Spanish" (her family are Sri Lankan). I told them we were British, and they looked at me completely blankly. Desperate to think of something that might jog their memory, I said, you know, like the Queen? They literally had no idea what I was talking about. America is a big place (and has a poor education system) and the level of ignorance about the outside world, including us, is almost unfathomable.
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning.
You can have EEA and a US and UK FTA whoever wins in November, if you have a hard Brexit though you will only possibly get a FTA with Trump still in power and probably the GOP back in control in Congress
On this you are 100% right. There is no advantage to Biden and/or Pelosi getting an UK FTA through if the Irish government, and thus the EU, object. The Irish government and its policitcal parties (notably SF) , and through them the EU, have the ear of Irish America (and thus a significant proportion of the Democrat base) to the extent that no-one in the UK does. And why wouldn't the EU use that leverage to its advantage? Thats Realpolitik. The Irish objections may be overstated but they are trusted and listened to in that community far more than anyone in the Conservative Party is in any equivalent community in the US.
The most pro/linked English Americans so far as I can work out are err those from Utah. If there's some sort of pro-Brexit column in US politics, we'll likely hear it from Mitt Romney. Have we ?
Well Mitt Romney has been tipped to be Biden's Secretary of State...
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
What is wrong with you people?
Firstly, don't address me as "you people" please - address me respectfully and the argument directly.
Secondly, I don't see the defeat of the EU as either an objective or desirable - I was replying provocatively to @SouthamObserver's first because I see that the EU's biggest loss has already occurred.
I don't see any need to "beat" them in subsequent negotiations - just to reach a fair deal.
“You people” i.e. Brexit frothers are obsessed with this war narrative that we somehow must defeat “the enemy” - the EU. It’s almost like a fantasy recreation of WW2. It’s a recurrent theme that is still ongoing. See: “blockade”.
Listen, dipshit and get this through your thick skull: I don't agree the EU needs to be defeated nor do I seek it as an objective.
My view is simply that its biggest "defeat" was losing the UK as a member, and it's on those root causes on which its attention should be focused.
That’s all very well and good, but the war fantasy is undoubtably always present.
I thought a US trade agreement was a terrible idea that would force us all to eat chlorinated chicken and privatise the NHS. Now it's not happening it's a disaster.
Maybe people are just complaining whatever happens with Brexit.
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
What is wrong with you people?
Firstly, don't address me as "you people" please - address me respectfully and the argument directly.
Secondly, I don't see the defeat of the EU as either an objective or desirable - I was replying provocatively to @SouthamObserver's first because I see that the EU's biggest loss has already occurred.
I don't see any need to "beat" them in subsequent negotiations - just to reach a fair deal.
“You people” i.e. Brexit frothers are obsessed with this war narrative that we somehow must defeat “the enemy” - the EU. It’s almost like a fantasy recreation of WW2. It’s a recurrent theme that is still ongoing. See: “blockade”.
Listen, dipshit and get this through your thick skull: I don't agree the EU needs to be defeated nor do I seek it as an objective.
My view is simply that its biggest "defeat" was losing the UK as a member, and it's on those root causes on which its attention should be focused.
My original point was not about you. You have always wanted a deal. I actually agree that the EU was defeated in 2016. It didn't want us to vote to leave. Why it matters so much to the hardliners that another EU defeat is now essential in order for a proper Brexit to be delivered is beyond me. We've alreadt deployed our nuclesar option. We haven't got another one.
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning.
You can have EEA and a US and UK FTA whoever wins in November, if you have a hard Brexit though you will only possibly get a FTA with Trump still in power and probably the GOP back in control in Congress
On this you are 100% right. There is no advantage to Biden and/or Pelosi getting an UK FTA through if the Irish government, and thus the EU, object. The Irish government and its policitcal parties (notably SF) , and through them the EU, have the ear of Irish America (and thus a significant proportion of the Democrat base) to the extent that no-one in the UK does. And why wouldn't the EU use that leverage to its advantage? Thats Realpolitik. The Irish objections may be overstated but they are trusted and listened to in that community far more than anyone in the Conservative Party is in any equivalent community in the US.
Just struck me you could substitute Israel/Jewish for Irish and palestinian for the Tories in that above paragraph
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great emotional loyalty to Britain, that will help in the event of sailing free on the buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the evil, and more foreign e.u. ? Generally, no.
Most people who speak about an Anglosphere refer to CANZUK for a reason.
Just a hint: the USA is not a CANZUK naton.
And yet leading Brexiters have described the USA as a key part of the "anglosphere" post-Brexit since the early 2000's.
Some do. I think most Brexiteers rightly recognise CANZUK nations as being closer than the USA is.
New Zealand possibly; the others not so much. So far as I can see,
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
What is wrong with you people?
Firstly, don't address me as "you people" please - address me respectfully and the argument directly.
Secondly, I don't see the defeat of the EU as either an objective or desirable - I was replying provocatively to @SouthamObserver's first because I see that the EU's biggest loss has already occurred.
I don't see any need to "beat" them in subsequent negotiations - just to reach a fair deal.
“You people” i.e. Brexit frothers are obsessed with this war narrative that we somehow must defeat “the enemy” - the EU. It’s almost like a fantasy recreation of WW2. It’s a recurrent theme that is still ongoing. See: “blockade”.
Listen, dipshit and get this through your thick skull: I don't agree the EU needs to be defeated nor do I seek it as an objective.
My view is simply that its biggest "defeat" was losing the UK as a member, and it's on those root causes on which its attention should be focused.
My original point was not about you. You have always wanted a deal. I actually agree that the EU was defeated in 2016. It didn't want us to vote to leave. Why it matters so much to the hardliners that another EU defeat is now essential in order for a proper Brexit to be delivered is beyond me. We've alreadt deployed our nuclesar option. We haven't got another one.
Our nuclear option is the UK walking away with a clean break whole including NI. Having different food rules, customs rules etc across the whole UK including NI.
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
What is wrong with you people?
Firstly, don't address me as "you people" please - address me respectfully and the argument directly.
Secondly, I don't see the defeat of the EU as either an objective or desirable - I was replying provocatively to @SouthamObserver's first because I see that the EU's biggest loss has already occurred.
I don't see any need to "beat" them in subsequent negotiations - just to reach a fair deal.
“You people” i.e. Brexit frothers are obsessed with this war narrative that we somehow must defeat “the enemy” - the EU. It’s almost like a fantasy recreation of WW2. It’s a recurrent theme that is still ongoing. See: “blockade”.
Listen, dipshit and get this through your thick skull: I don't agree the EU needs to be defeated nor do I seek it as an objective.
My view is simply that its biggest "defeat" was losing the UK as a member, and it's on those root causes on which its attention should be focused.
My original point was not about you. You have always wanted a deal. I actually agree that the EU was defeated in 2016. It didn't want us to vote to leave. Why it matters so much to the hardliners that another EU defeat is now essential in order for a proper Brexit to be delivered is beyond me. We've alreadt deployed our nuclesar option. We haven't got another one.
Our nuclear option is the UK walking away with a clean break whole including NI. Having different food rules, customs rules etc across the whole UK including NI.
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning.
You can have EEA and a US and UK FTA whoever wins in November, if you have a hard Brexit though you will only possibly get a FTA with Trump still in power and probably the GOP back in control in Congress
On this you are 100% right. There is no advantage to Biden and/or Pelosi getting an UK FTA through if the Irish government, and thus the EU, object. The Irish government and its policitcal parties (notably SF) , and through them the EU, have the ear of Irish America (and thus a significant proportion of the Democrat base) to the extent that no-one in the UK does. And why wouldn't the EU use that leverage to its advantage? Thats Realpolitik. The Irish objections may be overstated but they are trusted and listened to in that community far more than anyone in the Conservative Party is in any equivalent community in the US.
Just struck me you could substitute Israel/Jewish for Irish and palestinian for the Tories in that above paragraph
Boris would have more chance of a FTA with Palestine than with the US under Biden and Pelosi certainly
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
I remember talking to some African American teenagers in our local swimming pool, they asked if my wife was "Spanish" (her family are Sri Lankan). I told them we were British, and they looked at me completely blankly. Desperate to think of something that might jog their memory, I said, you know, like the Queen? They literally had no idea what I was talking about. America is a big place (and has a poor education system) and the level of ignorance about the outside world, including us, is almost unfathomable.
Yep, that is pretty much my experience. It is very different in Canada, Australia and NZ. I suspect it's the same in white South Africa, too; though I have not been there so can only guess.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
It's this kind of background that is so helpful in describing why concepts of the 'Anglosphere' beloved by Daniel Hannan and others are so self-deluding. Are there a group of nations who generally agree they share legal, constitutional, language and other features, and have no problem with accepting this ? Yes. Do they, beyond this, feel a great active and emotional loyalty to Britain, which will help us in the event of sailing free and trade negotiations on the great buccaneering adventure of Brexit, away from clutches of the european union ? Generally, no.
I don't think that's true. Five Eyes shows there's lots of trust across the Anglosphere. So does UK-US collaboration on foreign policy and defence. And Canada-UK were starting to move closer on foreign policy coordination under Hague and the Harper Government even before Brexit.
It's on shared economic interests and movement of people (incl professionals) where focus is now moving and it's less clear how coterminous these are.
However, world geopolitics will bump all those countries closer together regardless in the future. We will all have to huddle together more closely to protect our interests and democracy.
Absolutely - the anglosphere exists in a neutral institutional sense, but not in an emotional sense. Leading Brexiters have played a key role in the last twenty years in perpetuating the idea of a loyal and emotionally motivated political and economic support, waiting for us to replace that of unreliable Europeans after Brexit, which in general does not exist.
It does exist in an emotional sense.
Not in supine loyalty to the mother country but in affection and fondness.
This is simply a fact.
I would say that is simply a subjective point of view, and so this discussion may end going round in circles.
There's still a glitch in the smart new website: when you click for more comments at the bottom you get the expanded threads for each comment as used to happen for a while last year.
On Firefox I see no such option to click for more comments. It is hard to contribute sensibly if one cannot see what has already been posted.
Also, on Firefox the archive links to previous months' threads sprawl all over the bottom whereas in Chrome they are confined to the right hand side. It might be easier to have a single link to archives and then the months (or even individual threads) indexed on a new, separate page.
The new site is also very slow, taking several seconds to load the comments.
I use Firefox (on a Macbook). But having just checked I now see the "More comments" button is no longer there. Perhaps there's some experimentation going on in the background.
The first thing shown on this new pb is that "Comments are closed" which we know to ignore but can only discourage new users.
Basically the UK has to have BINO or else the nation to screwed.
Which really should have been the situation from the start. Free from the political integration of the EU, but part of the common and single market.
EFTA or EEA membership should have been the compromise.
Yup, but that didn’t give the hard Brexiteers what they wanted, which is some kind of nostalgic nationalist rebellion against the modern world.
More than anything, what the hard Brexiteers want is a defeat for the EU. And that is why they can never be happy with any deal.
The EU have been defeated.
They've lost their third most important member and about 20% of their heft.
What is wrong with you people?
Firstly, don't address me as "you people" please - address me respectfully and the argument directly.
Secondly, I don't see the defeat of the EU as either an objective or desirable - I was replying provocatively to @SouthamObserver's first because I see that the EU's biggest loss has already occurred.
I don't see any need to "beat" them in subsequent negotiations - just to reach a fair deal.
“You people” i.e. Brexit frothers are obsessed with this war narrative that we somehow must defeat “the enemy” - the EU. It’s almost like a fantasy recreation of WW2. It’s a recurrent theme that is still ongoing. See: “blockade”.
Listen, dipshit and get this through your thick skull: I don't agree the EU needs to be defeated nor do I seek it as an objective.
My view is simply that its biggest "defeat" was losing the UK as a member, and it's on those root causes on which its attention should be focused.
My original point was not about you. You have always wanted a deal. I actually agree that the EU was defeated in 2016. It didn't want us to vote to leave. Why it matters so much to the hardliners that another EU defeat is now essential in order for a proper Brexit to be delivered is beyond me. We've alreadt deployed our nuclesar option. We haven't got another one.
Our nuclear option is the UK walking away with a clean break whole including NI. Having different food rules, customs rules etc across the whole UK including NI.
We're not there yet.
That's nuclear in the sense of dropping the bomb on ourselves.
The most pro/linked English Americans so far as I can work out are err those from Utah. If there's some sort of pro-Brexit column in US politics, we'll likely hear it from Mitt Romney. Have we ?
The most pro/linked English Americans so far as I can work out are err those from Utah. If there's some sort of pro-Brexit column in US politics, we'll likely hear it from Mitt Romney. Have we ?
Utah is an extremely interesting case, because it's very strongly linked to dissenting British protestantism. Even more interestingly, despite being a very religiously conservative state, Bernie Sanders is very popular there. That's ultimately because he links to a religiously-rooted, nineteenth-century tradition of emotional American populism, which really does have roots in the same British Dissenters. That really is an emotional tie.
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning
You are very wrong.
If Biden can get the UK and EU/Ireland to resolve their differences then he will claim credit as a great Statesman like Clinton did with the GFA and then a deal will be able to get through Congress.
If Trump wins then the Democrats will control the House and will win the midterms too. Trump isn't getting anything like that through the House then.
The best chance of a deal is with Biden.
Biden is Irish American and will always put Ireland and the EU ahead of the UK, the UK and EU are not going to resolve their differences on the border in the Irish Sea and we are heading for No Deal.
If Trump wins there is a chance the GOP will retake the House too, in 2016 the GOP won the House when Trump won and if the GOP hold the Senate there is then a chance of a Deal.
If Biden wins and the Dems hold the House and Pelosi is Speaker there is literally zero chance of a US and UK FTA once the internal markets bill passes
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
I remember talking to some African American teenagers in our local swimming pool, they asked if my wife was "Spanish" (her family are Sri Lankan). I told them we were British, and they looked at me completely blankly. Desperate to think of something that might jog their memory, I said, you know, like the Queen? They literally had no idea what I was talking about. America is a big place (and has a poor education system) and the level of ignorance about the outside world, including us, is almost unfathomable.
Once, touring Texas, I was asked where we were from....... since you dress like South Africans and you sound like Australians. Or it may have been the other way round. Sandals without socks!
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning
You are very wrong.
If Biden can get the UK and EU/Ireland to resolve their differences then he will claim credit as a great Statesman like Clinton did with the GFA and then a deal will be able to get through Congress.
If Trump wins then the Democrats will control the House and will win the midterms too. Trump isn't getting anything like that through the House then.
The best chance of a deal is with Biden.
Biden is Irish American and will always put Ireland and the EU ahead of the UK, the UK and EU are not going to resolve their differences on the border in the Irish Sea and we are heading for No Deal.
If Trump wins there is a chance the GOP will retake the House too, in 2016 the GOP won the House when Trump won and if the GOP hold the Senate there is then a chance of a Deal.
If Biden wins and the Dems hold the House and Pelosi is Speaker there is literally zero chance of a US and UK FTA once the internal markets bill passes
You are right. Pelosi is particularly toxic in this regard.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
Australia is the US' closest ally, only nation to fight with the US in all its wars, including Vietnam which we avoided and Iraq 2 which France and Canada avoided
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning
You are very wrong.
If Biden can get the UK and EU/Ireland to resolve their differences then he will claim credit as a great Statesman like Clinton did with the GFA and then a deal will be able to get through Congress.
If Trump wins then the Democrats will control the House and will win the midterms too. Trump isn't getting anything like that through the House then.
The best chance of a deal is with Biden.
Biden is Irish American and will always put Ireland and the EU ahead of the UK, the UK and EU are not going to resolve their differences on the border in the Irish Sea and we are heading for No Deal.
If Trump wins there is a chance the GOP will retake the House too, in 2016 the GOP won the House when Trump won and if the GOP hold the Senate there is then a chance of a Deal.
If Biden wins and the Dems hold the House and Pelosi is Speaker there is literally zero chance of a US and UK FTA once the internal markets bill passes
Your problem is that you can't ever seem to think two steps ahead.
After the IM Bill passes and Biden wins then what happens next? The Irish will desperately want a solution, a deal that can make all this go away. They thought they had one with the Protocol but they will want one still even next year.
If Biden can help get Boris, von der Leyen and Micheál Martin in a room together and help reach a new permanent accord to replace the Protocol then he will be a success. After that then, a US/UK deal getting through Congress will be plausible in a way it isn't today.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
I remember talking to some African American teenagers in our local swimming pool, they asked if my wife was "Spanish" (her family are Sri Lankan). I told them we were British, and they looked at me completely blankly. Desperate to think of something that might jog their memory, I said, you know, like the Queen? They literally had no idea what I was talking about. America is a big place (and has a poor education system) and the level of ignorance about the outside world, including us, is almost unfathomable.
Questions I have had on this theme: "Do they speak English in England?", "England: is that in or near France?" and "Where did you say you came from? New England?"
I expect that most people on PB, who have spent at least a few weeks in the USA will have had very similar questions.
In some ways the US, as a superpower, doesn't have any "closest ally". The UK might be one of the most important countries that the US has a close alliance with, but how much influence does the UK have on US foreign policy? Very little it seems to me.
The UK is currently foolishly doing its best to lose the influence it has with its European allies, although there is still some attempt at cooperation over things like Iran.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
Australia is the US' closest ally, only nation to fight with the US in all its wars, including Vietnam which we avoided and Iraq 2 which France and Canada avoided
All its wars ? Wasn't there one in 1812....
If my reading is accurate there wasn't a place called Australia then. You may be confused with New Holland.
I thought a US trade agreement was a terrible idea that would force us all to eat chlorinated chicken and privatise the NHS. Now it's not happening it's a disaster.
Maybe people are just complaining whatever happens with Brexit.
It's quite simple: No Deal with the US would be terrible A Bad Deal with the US "chlorinated chicken and privatise the NHS" would just be less bad, but still terrible. A Good Deal with the US would be one where we hold all the cards and they are bending over backwards to help.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
Australia is the US' closest ally, only nation to fight with the US in all its wars, including Vietnam which we avoided and Iraq 2 which France and Canada avoided
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
I remember talking to some African American teenagers in our local swimming pool, they asked if my wife was "Spanish" (her family are Sri Lankan). I told them we were British, and they looked at me completely blankly. Desperate to think of something that might jog their memory, I said, you know, like the Queen? They literally had no idea what I was talking about. America is a big place (and has a poor education system) and the level of ignorance about the outside world, including us, is almost unfathomable.
Questions I have had on this theme: "Do they speak English in England?", "England: is that in or near France?" and "Where did you say you came from? New England?"
I expect that most people on PB, who have spent at least a few weeks in the USA will have had very similar questions.
My experience in the US is that they refer to the UK as England and do not understand, unless challenged, that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent parts
Re your comments on US Trade Deal, I agree. Put simply, Biden doesn't like Brexit and would see no reason to help us out of the quagmire.
Brexit fans better hope Trump wins.
What's your take on the current state of polling? It seems to be going nowhere to me. Every now and again Trump gets a small string of decent results and you start to think something is happening, then you get a couple of good Biden ones (like Monmouth for Florida yesterday) and it's 'as you were'. There seem to be so few 'undecideds' that it's hard to see much movement over the remaining weeks which is disappointingly dull if nothing else.
"Brexit fans better hope Trump wins." Why, the House of Representatives will still be in Democrat hands and they're the ones that matter. Trump doesn't really care and he's pretty powerless over trade negotiations
Absolutely! Once again HYUFD showing his ignorance.
Best thing for a Brexit deal that can get through Congress is Biden winning.
You really need to get a clue on this, if Biden and Pelosi win there is zero chance of a US UK FTA, zero, nada, zilch.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning
You are very wrong.
If Biden can get the UK and EU/Ireland to resolve their differences then he will claim credit as a great Statesman like Clinton did with the GFA and then a deal will be able to get through Congress.
If Trump wins then the Democrats will control the House and will win the midterms too. Trump isn't getting anything like that through the House then.
The best chance of a deal is with Biden.
Biden is Irish American and will always put Ireland and the EU ahead of the UK, the UK and EU are not going to resolve their differences on the border in the Irish Sea and we are heading for No Deal.
If Trump wins there is a chance the GOP will retake the House too, in 2016 the GOP won the House when Trump won and if the GOP hold the Senate there is then a chance of a Deal.
If Biden wins and the Dems hold the House and Pelosi is Speaker there is literally zero chance of a US and UK FTA once the internal markets bill passes
Your problem is that you can't ever seem to think two steps ahead.
After the IM Bill passes and Biden wins then what happens next? The Irish will desperately want a solution, a deal that can make all this go away. They thought they had one with the Protocol but they will want one still even next year.
If Biden can help get Boris, von der Leyen and Micheál Martin in a room together and help reach a new permanent accord to replace the Protocol then he will be a success. After that then, a US/UK deal getting through Congress will be plausible in a way it isn't today.
If Biden wins then the US and UK FTA is dead, we are at No Deal and you are desperately hoping Ireland which is part of the EU is going to cave into the UK on everything, it won't, we go to No Deal and tariffs between GB and the Republic of Ireland and vice versa as well as the rest of the EU.
Von Der Leyen and Martin will not even go in the same room as Boris after that unless he restores the border in the Irish Sea or goes to EEA for the UK, he won't and Biden and Pelosi will then stand with the EU and Ireland against the UK
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
I remember talking to some African American teenagers in our local swimming pool, they asked if my wife was "Spanish" (her family are Sri Lankan). I told them we were British, and they looked at me completely blankly. Desperate to think of something that might jog their memory, I said, you know, like the Queen? They literally had no idea what I was talking about. America is a big place (and has a poor education system) and the level of ignorance about the outside world, including us, is almost unfathomable.
Questions I have had on this theme: "Do they speak English in England?", "England: is that in or near France?" and "Where did you say you came from? New England?"
I expect that most people on PB, who have spent at least a few weeks in the USA will have had very similar questions.
My experience in the US is that they refer to the UK as England and do not understand, unless challenged, that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent parts
To be fair that is the case in about 90% of the world. Brits do exactly the same by referring to the Netherlands as Holland.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
Australia is the US' closest ally, only nation to fight with the US in all its wars, including Vietnam which we avoided and Iraq 2 which France and Canada avoided
All its wars ? Wasn't there one in 1812....
Australia was not a nation until 1901, it has fought with the US in all its wars including Vietnam and Iraq 2 since then
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
I suppose it is to the credit of US foreign policy how many different countries think they are the USA's closest ally. France, Canada, Australia and the UK all entertain that delusion to differing extents. Canada probably has the best claim as they have a level of defence integration through NORAD that normal NATO members can only dream of.
Australia is the US' closest ally, only nation to fight with the US in all its wars, including Vietnam which we avoided and Iraq 2 which France and Canada avoided
All its wars ? Wasn't there one in 1812....
If my reading is accurate there wasn't a place called Australia then. You may be confused with New Holland.
There was a place called Australia, but there was no country called Australia, which was founded in 1901.
The English American lobby consists solely of Andrew Sullivan and John Oliver, and they cancel each other out. For whatever reason English American heritage isn't really a thing in the same way that Irish American is.
There is no such thing, as much as @HYUFD would like to pretend otherwise, as an "English American" voting bloc. Until the American Revolution most white Americans identified as "English" - in the leadup to the American Revolution they asserted their "natural rights of Englishmen". The majority of the Founding Fathers were of English extraction. By the time of the American Revolution, they decided not to identify as English anymore. England (the English/British state anyway) was the opressor.
The unified bloc that did continue to identify with England, the United Empire Loyalists, largely emigrated to what is now Ontario to create the nucleus of English-speaking Canada. Ontario residents will not be voting in the 2020 election. Back in the US, to identify as "English-American" could be, until well into the mid-19C, considered literally treasonous - the War of 1812 and a couple of close calls during the US Civil War proving that.
As a result English Americans form the bulk of those white respondents in census returns who identify as purely "American" even though they are not of Native American decent. English-Americans have never formed a cohesive voting bloc. The first four American Presidents were "English-Americans". When the 1812 War was declared, opposition to it was not determined on ethnic grounds. The president during the war of 1812, Madison, and its most enthusiastic proponent, Thomas Jefferson (a was a noted scholar and enthusiast of Old English and Anglo-Saxon history whose dad, Peter, named Jefferson's birthplace "Shadwell" after the East London district where he was christened) were "English Americans". By contrast, the US never fought an exestential war against Italy, Ireland or any country in Africa. Thus it is quite possible to be Italian-American, Irish-American and Afro-American and still be "American". It was hard to be Japanese or German-American after WW2, difficulties that still persist to this day. So there isn't really a "German-AMerican" bloc either.
I have some skin in this game. My wife's family strongly identifies Irish-American of Catholic decent (they converted to Congregationalism a generation or two ago due to witnessing some poor priestly behaviour but still consider themselves, as my Wife puts it, "culturally Irish Catholic") and I spend a lot of time there - pandemics permitting. My in-laws had generally been quite Anglophile, until Priti Patel's infamous comments. I have never, in all the many months I have spent in the States visiting family and friends, encountered an American Citizen that described themselves as English-American. Italian and Irish tricolours are commonplace on front lawns throughout the States. You will struggle, ever, to find a similarly placed Union Flag or Cross of St George. @HYUDF is simply wrong in his analysis here.
That's largely correct but it isn't true that Americans are ashamed of and disguise all of their English heritage.
They won't drink tea or fly a union flag but they will cheerfully trace back their ancestry to the Mayflower and their English ancestors where they have them.
And most Americans still have an affection for the UK and consider us their closest ally.
In my experience, most Americans know next to nothing about us. Those of North-Western European extraction tend to think positively of "England", though - unless they identify as Irish, in which case they don't. Hispanics and others give us absolutely no thought at all.
I remember talking to some African American teenagers in our local swimming pool, they asked if my wife was "Spanish" (her family are Sri Lankan). I told them we were British, and they looked at me completely blankly. Desperate to think of something that might jog their memory, I said, you know, like the Queen? They literally had no idea what I was talking about. America is a big place (and has a poor education system) and the level of ignorance about the outside world, including us, is almost unfathomable.
Questions I have had on this theme: "Do they speak English in England?", "England: is that in or near France?" and "Where did you say you came from? New England?"
I expect that most people on PB, who have spent at least a few weeks in the USA will have had very similar questions.
My experience in the US is that they refer to the UK as England and do not understand, unless challenged, that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are constituent parts
That's pretty standard in a lot of the world. Take this recent headline in the Frankfurter Rundschau:
Comments
Swab pooling for large-scale RT-qPCR screening of SARS-CoV-2
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.03.20187732v1
Pool testing has been proposed as an alternative for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening. However, dilution factors proportional to the number of pooled samples have been a source of major concern regarding its diagnostic performance. Further, sample pooling can lead to increased laboratory workload and operational complexity. Therefore, pooling strategies that minimize sample dilution, loss of sensitivity, and laboratory overload are needed to allow reliable and large-scale screenings of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we describe a pooling procedure in which nasopharyngeal swabs are pooled together at the time of sample collection (swab pooling), decreasing laboratory manipulation and minimizing dilution of the viral RNA present in the samples. Paired analysis of pooled and individual samples from 613 patients revealed 94 positive individual tests. Having individual testing as a reference, no false-positives or false-negatives were observed for swab pooling. A Bayesian model estimated a sensitivity of 99% (Cr.I. 96.9% to 100%) and a specificity of 99.8% (Cr.I. 99.4% to 100%) for the swab pooling procedure. Data from additional 18,922 patients screened with swab pooling were included for further quantitative analysis. Mean Cq differences between individual and corresponding pool samples ranged from 0.1 Cq (Cr.I. -0.98 to 1.17) to 2.09 Cq (Cr.I. 1.24 to 2.94). Overall, 19,535 asymptomatic and presymptomatic patients were screened using 4,400 RT-qPCR assays, resulting in 246 positive patients (positivity rate 1.26%). This corresponds to an increase of 4.4 times in laboratory capacity and a reduction of 77% in required tests. Finally, these data demonstrate that swab pooling can significantly minimize sample dilution and sensitivity issues commonly seen in its traditional counterpart. Therefore, swab pooling represents a major alternative for reliable and large-scale screening of SARS-CoV-2 in low prevalence populations.
Your only hope as a Brexiteer of getting a UK US FTA with the internal markets bill is Trump winning.
You can have EEA and a US and UK FTA whoever wins in November, if you have a hard Brexit though you will only possibly get a FTA with Trump still in power and probably the GOP back in control in Congress
The UK is the USA's closest ally with unparalleled cooperation in military planning, military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing and the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. Both self describe the relationship as the "special relationship".
The USA also has special relationships with South Korea, Israel and Ireland - and that's largely in its role as a "protector" rather than a close global ally.
If we did walk away, there'd be harm on both sides but mainly on ours. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, and the EU would graze its knee, because UK/EU trade is a bigger share of our trade than it is of theirs.
And when we did go back to negotiate "as sovereign equals" we'd be unequal. Both for the reason above and because we are smaller than them.
As they used to say on demos: What do we want? When do we want it?
It is however still a nuclear power, G7 member, member of the security council and a significant military power. Not bad for a small island off the coast of Western Europe.
If Biden can get the UK and EU/Ireland to resolve their differences then he will claim credit as a great Statesman like Clinton did with the GFA and then a deal will be able to get through Congress.
If Trump wins then the Democrats will control the House and will win the midterms too. Trump isn't getting anything like that through the House then.
The best chance of a deal is with Biden.
You couldn't handle that it seems but hey ho.
Utterly stupid.
It's a view ....
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s 238-page report painted a Boeing that prioritized profits over safety and detailed “disturbing cultural issues” relating to employee surveys showing some experienced “undue pressure” as the manufacturer raced to finish the plane to compete with rival Airbus. The report said concerns about the aircraft weren’t sufficiently addressed to spur design changes.
Some lawmakers this year introduced legislation that aims to increase the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of the industry.
The report, in the works for about 18 months, comes as regulators are in the final stretch of work to recertify the planes. The 737 Max has been grounded worldwide since March 2019, following the second of the planes’ two fatal crashes.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/boeing-slammed-in-house-report-over-737-max-failures-as-company-tries-to-return-the-plane-to-service.html
With a JCB.
You can watch it, through your fingers, live...
My view is simply that its biggest "defeat" was losing the UK as a member, and it's on those root causes on which its attention should be focused.
https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1306165140551798784
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1306163885150556160
"Let us expand our international influence by showing our contempt for treaties we came up with and willingly signed"
Have we ?
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1306163910064648192?s=20
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1306166507119022081?s=20
Maybe people are just complaining whatever happens with Brexit.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1306156001121501184
We're not there yet.
If Lord Keen has gone then I suspect you're right.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1306166943339163649
If Trump wins there is a chance the GOP will retake the House too, in 2016 the GOP won the House when Trump won and if the GOP hold the Senate there is then a chance of a Deal.
If Biden wins and the Dems hold the House and Pelosi is Speaker there is literally zero chance of a US and UK FTA once the internal markets bill passes
Or it may have been the other way round. Sandals without socks!
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1306171793397420032?s=20
The Republic, NI, Scotland, and most of England are now on the Guernsey "automatic quarantine for 14 days on arrival" list.
Wasn't there one in 1812....
After the IM Bill passes and Biden wins then what happens next? The Irish will desperately want a solution, a deal that can make all this go away. They thought they had one with the Protocol but they will want one still even next year.
If Biden can help get Boris, von der Leyen and Micheál Martin in a room together and help reach a new permanent accord to replace the Protocol then he will be a success. After that then, a US/UK deal getting through Congress will be plausible in a way it isn't today.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1306174051434614784
I expect that most people on PB, who have spent at least a few weeks in the USA will have had very similar questions.
The UK is currently foolishly doing its best to lose the influence it has with its European allies, although there is still some attempt at cooperation over things like Iran.
No Deal with the US would be terrible
A Bad Deal with the US "chlorinated chicken and privatise the NHS" would just be less bad, but still terrible.
A Good Deal with the US would be one where we hold all the cards and they are bending over backwards to help.
Von Der Leyen and Martin will not even go in the same room as Boris after that unless he restores the border in the Irish Sea or goes to EEA for the UK, he won't and Biden and Pelosi will then stand with the EU and Ireland against the UK
People telling us that USA deaths are a tenth of their peak and that there is no more Coronavirus anymore.
Guess who he is voting for?
https://www.fr.de/kultur/tv-kino/young-black-british-wann-bekommt-england-einen-schwarzen-premierminister-90042597.html
"when will England get a black prime minister?"
or search for "primo ministro inglese" you'll find lots of examples including in respectable news publications.
Can't expect Americans to care, if even our near neighbours can't be bothered to make the distinction.
It's a bit like when everyone called the Soviet Union "Russia"
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1306178809809469441?s=20
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1306178811202097154?s=20