FPT You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.
What rot. You sought to taint the BBC's neutrality with wild accusations and minimal evidence. If you don't want derision heaped on you, don't conjure up absurd conspiracy theories.
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.
I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.
I think they are wholly unreliable. On average, I'd say that in political markets, people tend to bet on outcomes they want, rather than on what really will happen (of course, PB betters excepted). That is bad enough when the betters are voters. But when they are not even citizens of the country in which the election is to be held, and cannot have that gut feeling for elections that comes with living in the country, I'd strongly caution against placing much credence in them at all as predictors.
That's really what I was saying. Just because Americans speak a kind of English we think we understand them much more than we do.
Yes - America is as least as 'foreign' as France - something familiarity with the language and popular culture tend to mask......
Rubio may be leading the betting but with Carson still leading in Iowa and Trump on New Hampshire that certainly does not justify him being called favourite.
My mum thinks Jeb Bush's faltering campaign is karma for Florida 2000. It would be a relief that another Bush is unlikely to be the POTUS if the alternative wasn't Marc Rubio. But he's better than Ben Carson at the very least.
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Rubio may be leading the betting but with Carson still leading in Iowa and Trump on New Hampshire that certainly does not justify him being called favourite.
That Carson is leading in Iowa says everything about the GOP base at this moment in time. Carson is actually even more right-wing that Trump.
This stuff is just ridiculous. The EU doesn't have an ounce of credibility in asking for more money for the migrant crisis until all of this stuff is defunded first.
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Waterloo?
Quite. The last ally that we could think of would be the dastardly French.
Exactly. I would gladly vote to remain part of the EU where an Anglo-German bloc set the agenda. We will see from the repatriation whether that has a chance or not. If Germany is willing to listen and accommodate our concerns then the EU could evolve to work out for us. If they only give us some symbolic headline-makers, then we should leave.
Rubio may be leading the betting but with Carson still leading in Iowa and Trump on New Hampshire that certainly does not justify him being called favourite.
That Carson is leading in Iowa says everything about the GOP base at this moment in time. Carson is actually even more right-wing that Trump.
Trump isn't right wing and Carson is squishy. Ted Cruz would be a great president.
This stuff is just ridiculous. The EU doesn't have an ounce of credibility in asking for more money for the migrant crisis until all of this stuff is defunded first.
lol. Norway is the fifth richest in the world, and we aren't even in the top 20. Nice selective use of statistics there.
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.
I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.
I think they are wholly unreliable. On average, I'd say that in political markets, people tend to bet on outcomes they want, rather than on what really will happen (of course, PB betters excepted). That is bad enough when the betters are voters. But when they are not even citizens of the country in which the election is to be held, and cannot have that gut feeling for elections that comes with living in the country, I'd strongly caution against placing much credence in them at all as predictors.
That's really what I was saying. Just because Americans speak a kind of English we think we understand them much more than we do.
Yes - America is as least as 'foreign' as France - something familiarity with the language and popular culture tend to mask......
I would argue that the US is more foreign to the UK than most Western European countries. The US' fundamental political, religious, and social (perhaps not economic) axioms are far more alien to Brits than those of France, Germany or the other social welfare systems.
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Waterloo?
Quite. The last ally that we could think of would be the dastardly French.
Crimea?
an unholy alliance
WW1? WW2? :P
Until WW1 Prussia/Germany were one of the UKs strongest allies, certainly throughout the colonial period the Germans were our friends.
King of GB used to be an elector in the HRE as Hannover was under a personal union.
I wonder how things would have panned out had The Netherlands and Hannover not left their respective Personal Unions and become constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Waterloo?
Quite. The last ally that we could think of would be the dastardly French.
Crimea?
an unholy alliance
WW1? WW2? :P
Until WW1 Prussia/Germany were one of the UKs strongest allies, certainly throughout the colonial period the Germans were our friends.
King of GB used to be an elector in the HRE as Hannover was under a personal union.
I wonder how things would have panned out had The Netherlands and Hannover not left their respective Personal Unions and become constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
Or if Mary and Philip had had children. Could had ended up with an English (or at least reigning from England!) Holy Roman Emperor.
Mrs. Free, we spoke last night about cat food. Herself has just come home having done some shopping. Whilst helping to unpack (i.e. rummaging through the bags to see what goodies there are) I found a pack of frozen Crab Au Gratin. Naturally I made appreciative noises as a good husband should when his wife has bought him a treat. "Get off", she said, "Those aren't for you! They are for Thomas".
Good quality cat food is so expensive these days it is actually cheaper to feed the moggie on human food. A Waitrose roast chicken may not have the right mix of vitamins and minerals a cat needs but they only cost a fiver and when the moggie is over 18 years old does it matter.
I must say Mr Llama that your food shopping sounds quite delicious. I am most envious of Thomas. Can I not consider myself a cat (a cisgender one, if need be, whatever that is) and turn up for the occasional treats?
No - oh well, tagliatelle alla bolognese for me and Son No. 2 this evening.
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.
But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.
Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.
Fiorina's record at HP really does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Waterloo?
Quite. The last ally that we could think of would be the dastardly French.
Crimea?
an unholy alliance
WW1? WW2? :P
Until WW1 Prussia/Germany were one of the UKs strongest allies, certainly throughout the colonial period the Germans were our friends.
King of GB used to be an elector in the HRE as Hannover was under a personal union.
I wonder how things would have panned out had The Netherlands and Hannover not left their respective Personal Unions and become constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
Or if Mary and Philip had had children. Could had ended up with an English (or at least reigning from England!) Holy Roman Emperor.
I don't think the concept of the HRE was ever that strong, certainly not comparable to Personal Union and definitely not by the turn of the 18th century.
There would definitely have been a possible state formed of the British Isles, Flanders, Netherlands, Hannover (and for contiguous expedience Hamburg). Of course the stability of such a State of 6 or 8 (if you include Wales and Flanders separately) Nations, a dozen cultural groups and at least 5 Languages might not have seen it last very long.
It is funny to think that when you include Denmark and Iceland, the UK has had a recent conquest or rule over most of its neighbours in fairly recent history. Comparable only with the Russians and Napoleon.
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Waterloo?
Quite. The last ally that we could think of would be the dastardly French.
Crimea?
an unholy alliance
WW1? WW2? :P
Until WW1 Prussia/Germany were one of the UKs strongest allies, certainly throughout the colonial period the Germans were our friends.
King of GB used to be an elector in the HRE as Hannover was under a personal union.
I wonder how things would have panned out had The Netherlands and Hannover not left their respective Personal Unions and become constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
Or if Mary and Philip had had children. Could had ended up with an English (or at least reigning from England!) Holy Roman Emperor.
I don't think the concept of the HRE was ever that strong, certainly not comparable to Personal Union and definitely not by the turn of the 18th century.
There would definitely have been a possible state formed of the British Isles, Flanders, Netherlands, Hannover (and for contiguous expedience Hamburg). Of course the stability of such a State of 6 or 8 (if you include Wales and Flanders separately) Nations, a dozen cultural groups and at least 5 Languages might not have seen it last very long.
It is funny to think that when you include Denmark and Iceland, the UK has had a recent conquest or rule over most of its neighbours in fairly recent history. Comparable only with the Russians and Napoleon.
Fair point about the HRE. Still, interesting to think about.
To be fair, a lot of those were due to accident of birth than military conquest
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.
I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.
I think they are wholly unreliable. On average, I'd say that in political markets, people tend to bet on outcomes they want, rather than on what really will happen (of course, PB betters excepted). That is bad enough when the betters are voters. But when they are not even citizens of the country in which the election is to be held, and cannot have that gut feeling for elections that comes with living in the country, I'd strongly caution against placing much credence in them at all as predictors.
That's really what I was saying. Just because Americans speak a kind of English we think we understand them much more than we do.
Yes - America is as least as 'foreign' as France - something familiarity with the language and popular culture tend to mask......
I would argue that the US is more foreign to the UK than most Western European countries. The US' fundamental political, religious, and social (perhaps not economic) axioms are far more alien to Brits than those of France, Germany or the other social welfare systems.
They shouldn't be though given how US political culture derived from English history and political philosophy: John Locke, Milton, the Puritans, Paine. If it now seems foreign to us, it may be as much because we have lost touch with our own historical, political, philosophical and religious roots.
I studied US politics as one of my courses and loved it. My own family roots are European rather than English and I find that the English have very little real understanding of how differently the Italians and French and Germans think about the world and even about basic stuff like families and appearance in public. England is quite foreign, quite free in many ways - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - one reason why it is so attractive to the European young, apart from the obvious, like jobs.
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Waterloo?
Quite. The last ally that we could think of would be the dastardly French.
It has sometimes been said that European history could be summed up as the English and French fighting each other non-stop, with them occasionally ganging up together to fight the Germans.
Rubio may be leading the betting but with Carson still leading in Iowa and Trump on New Hampshire that certainly does not justify him being called favourite.
That Carson is leading in Iowa says everything about the GOP base at this moment in time. Carson is actually even more right-wing that Trump.
PPP today has a new Iowa poll out with Trump just ahead of Carson and Cruz moving into third place
Donald Trump: 22% Ben Carson: 21% Ted Cruz: 14% Marco Rubio: 10% Bobby Jindal: 6% Mike Huckabee: 6% Jeb Bush: 5% Carly Fiorina: 5% Chris Christie: 3% John Kasich: 2% Rand Paul: 2% Rick Santorum: 2% George Pataki: 0% Jim Gilmore: 0% Lindsey Graham: 0% Undecided: 1% http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_110215.pdf
Meanwhile a Survey USA poll has Trump and Carson beating Hillary in Florida but Hillary beating Bush and Rubio, it may be a rogue but we will see
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.
But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.
Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.
Fiorina's record at HP really does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
Quite. She was the driving force behind the disastrous merger between HP and Compaq which all but killed both companies. On the day the board and shareholders finally fired her the share price rose 10%!
To say that Wall St. and Silicon Valley dislike her is a gross understatement.
Given their Electoral college system I've never quite understood American polling's love affair with popular vote matchups. I'm fairly certain that Clinton will win the EC even with losing the popular vote.
This stuff is just ridiculous. The EU doesn't have an ounce of credibility in asking for more money for the migrant crisis until all of this stuff is defunded first.
lol. Norway is the fifth richest in the world, and we aren't even in the top 20. Nice selective use of statistics there.
Kippers should not read the latest tweets from @captaineuro
UKIP are apparently "useful idiots" and yet also a "dangerous cult". Your taxes at work, ladies and gentlemen.
They shouldn't be though given how US political culture derived from English history and political philosophy: John Locke, Milton, the Puritans, Paine. If it now seems foreign to us, it may be as much because we have lost touch with our own historical, political, philosophical and religious roots.
I studied US politics as one of my courses and loved it. My own family roots are European rather than English and I find that the English have very little real understanding of how differently the Italians and French and Germans think about the world and even about basic stuff like families and appearance in public. England is quite foreign, quite free in many ways - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - one reason why it is so attractive to the European young, apart from the obvious, like jobs.
I think this sort of thing is very individual and hard to generalise. I went to American schools (that's why I know so little of some British traditions) in Austria and Denmark, so I'm a personal melting pot, but on the whole I feel we're culturally and especially politically closer to Europe than we realise, and further than we think from the USA, where as Tim says the linguistic identity confuses us. But America is such a multiplicity of places - we are quite close to New England in many ways, but very far from, say, Texas - which is not to denigrate Texas, just to say it's really different from both us and from, say, New York.
Over the last few years I've spent time in 25 countries, and I think we in any case exaggerate the differences from urban dwellers the world over - the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Brazilians and others who I've met seemed recognisable types. I'm sure I was meeting the educated urban-dwellers and rural life is very different - but then Sussex is not very like London either.
They shouldn't be though given how US political culture derived from English history and political philosophy: John Locke, Milton, the Puritans, Paine. If it now seems foreign to us, it may be as much because we have lost touch with our own historical, political, philosophical and religious roots.
I studied US politics as one of my courses and loved it. My own family roots are European rather than English and I find that the English have very little real understanding of how differently the Italians and French and Germans think about the world and even about basic stuff like families and appearance in public. England is quite foreign, quite free in many ways - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - one reason why it is so attractive to the European young, apart from the obvious, like jobs.
I think this sort of thing is very individual and hard to generalise. I went to American schools (that's why I know so little of some British traditions) in Austria and Denmark, so I'm a personal melting pot, but on the whole I feel we're culturally and especially politically closer to Europe than we realise, and further than we think from the USA, where as Tim says the linguistic identity confuses us. But America is such a multiplicity of places - we are quite close to New England in many ways, but very far from, say, Texas - which is not to denigrate Texas, just to say it's really different from both us and from, say, New York.
Over the last few years I've spent time in 25 countries, and I think we in any case exaggerate the differences from urban dwellers the world over - the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Brazilians and others who I've met seemed recognisable types. I'm sure I was meeting the educated urban-dwellers and rural life is very different - but then Sussex is not very like London either.
I think it's just the American South that's different. This was a good article that argues the US would be more similar to Canada, Australia and the UK if it weren't for the South:
As it mentions towards the end, the US is becoming more like the rest of the Anglosphere. At the same time, I think the UK is moving away from Europe. When I go to places like Germany and Poland they seem like very stuffy, like the UK was in the 1970s. We're now a lot more modern in terms of consumer choice and personal expression.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
Given their Electoral college system I've never quite understood American polling's love affair with popular vote matchups. I'm fairly certain that Clinton will win the EC even with losing the popular vote.
That was a poll from Florida, a key swing state and the winner of the popular vote almost always wins the Electoral College unless the margin is less than 1%, as in 2000. Though Florida it must be said leans more GOP than Ohio, Romney lost it by less than he lost the 2012 vote nationally and Bush Snr won it in 1992
They shouldn't be though given how US political culture derived from English history and political philosophy: John Locke, Milton, the Puritans, Paine. If it now seems foreign to us, it may be as much because we have lost touch with our own historical, political, philosophical and religious roots.
I studied US politics as one of my courses and loved it. My own family roots are European rather than English and I find that the English have very little real understanding of how differently the Italians and French and Germans think about the world and even about basic stuff like families and appearance in public. England is quite foreign, quite free in many ways - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - one reason why it is so attractive to the European young, apart from the obvious, like jobs.
I think this sort of thing is very individual and hard to generalise. I went to American schools (that's why I know so little of some British traditions) in Austria and Denmark, so I'm a personal melting pot, but on the whole I feel we're culturally and especially politically closer to Europe than we realise, and further than we think from the USA, where as Tim says the linguistic identity confuses us. But America is such a multiplicity of places - we are quite close to New England in many ways, but very far from, say, Texas - which is not to denigrate Texas, just to say it's really different from both us and from, say, New York.
Over the last few years I've spent time in 25 countries, and I think we in any case exaggerate the differences from urban dwellers the world over - the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Brazilians and others who I've met seemed recognisable types. I'm sure I was meeting the educated urban-dwellers and rural life is very different - but then Sussex is not very like London either.
I think it's just the American South that's different. This was a good article that argues the US would be more similar to Canada, Australia and the UK if it weren't for the South:
As it mentions towards the end, the US is becoming more like the rest of the Anglosphere. At the same time, I think the UK is moving away from Europe. When I go to places like Germany and Poland they seem like very stuffy, like the UK was in the 1970s. We're now a lot more modern in terms of consumer choice and personal expression.
New England is probably most similar to the UK, New York to London, the MidWest and mountain west to Canada, the Pacific Upper West Coast to New Zealand, the South West to Australia and the Deep South to pre Mandela South Africa
New England is probably most similar to the UK, New York to London, the MidWest and mountain west to Canada, the Pacific Upper West Coast to New Zealand, the South West to Australia and the Deep South to pre Mandela South Africa
Oh come on. The deep south might be very conservative but it's nothing like apartheid! I actually think parts of the rustbelt are very similar to the UK's post-industrial heartland in places like Yorkshire and South Wales. Brighton is like a poor weather San Francisco.
New England is probably most similar to the UK, New York to London, the MidWest and mountain west to Canada, the Pacific Upper West Coast to New Zealand, the South West to Australia and the Deep South to pre Mandela South Africa
Oh come on. The deep south might be very conservative but it's nothing like apartheid! I actually think parts of the rustbelt are very similar to the UK's post-industrial heartland in places like Yorkshire and South Wales. Brighton is like a poor weather San Francisco.
In the 1950s and 1960s when segregation existed in much of the South was there much difference with apartheid South Africa? Indeed both still have a very conservative white population and a large black population, it is just in South Africa the black population now comprises the majority of voters. Parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio maybe, agree on Brighton and both are full of hippies
Given their Electoral college system I've never quite understood American polling's love affair with popular vote matchups. I'm fairly certain that Clinton will win the EC even with losing the popular vote.
That was a poll from Florida, a key swing state and the winner of the popular vote almost always wins the Electoral College unless the margin is less than 1%, as in 2000. Though Florida it must be said leans more GOP than Ohio, Romney lost it by less than he lost the 2012 vote nationally and Bush Snr won it in 1992
Ah I missed that was a state poll. Interesting figures.
I think overall we're almost exactly equidistant between the US and Europe in cultural terms, but it depends what aspect you focus on. On most individual issues we're closer to one or the other. On inheritance laws for example we're much closer to the US. On gun laws we're much closer to Europe.
Given their Electoral college system I've never quite understood American polling's love affair with popular vote matchups. I'm fairly certain that Clinton will win the EC even with losing the popular vote.
That was a poll from Florida, a key swing state and the winner of the popular vote almost always wins the Electoral College unless the margin is less than 1%, as in 2000. Though Florida it must be said leans more GOP than Ohio, Romney lost it by less than he lost the 2012 vote nationally and Bush Snr won it in 1992
Ah I missed that was a state poll. Interesting figures.
I think overall we're almost exactly equidistant between the US and Europe in cultural terms, but it depends what aspect you focus on. On most individual issues we're closer to one or the other. On inheritance laws for example we're much closer to the US. On gun laws we're much closer to Europe.
Depends which parts of Europe, Eastern Europe, Italy and Germany still have not legalised gay marriage yet, even now the US has
I think this sort of thing is very individual and hard to generalise. I went to American schools (that's why I know so little of some British traditions) in Austria and Denmark, so I'm a personal melting pot, but on the whole I feel we're culturally and especially politically closer to Europe than we realise, and further than we think from the USA, where as Tim says the linguistic identity confuses us. But America is such a multiplicity of places - we are quite close to New England in many ways, but very far from, say, Texas - which is not to denigrate Texas, just to say it's really different from both us and from, say, New York.
Over the last few years I've spent time in 25 countries, and I think we in any case exaggerate the differences from urban dwellers the world over - the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Brazilians and others who I've met seemed recognisable types. I'm sure I was meeting the educated urban-dwellers and rural life is very different - but then Sussex is not very like London either.
Yes - it is an individual perspective and it is interesting to hear your and MrTimT's perspectives. As someone whose mother tongue is not English, who spent most of my first two decades outside England, I don't feel as if I belong here - fully - and some aspects of English life are still very odd to me. It was an American ambassador to Britain who said that if you are Catholic you never fully belong in England and there is a grain of truth in that.
Britain - an idea of Britain, maybe - was much admired by my Italian family: an idea of freedom, much influenced by WW2 of course, a clean public service, a state which could be trusted, which did not interfere, was not malicious etc. Naive, maybe - but something I have to some extent inherited and which I still believe in. I hate, really hate Britain not living up to the best of what it can be, what it has been..
The US is different in very many ways but I do still feel that we have lost touch with some of our common historical roots. Some of what I admire about the US was British in origin and we ought to reclaim our own radical liberal free traditions. There is much to admire in Europe but political organisation is not really one of them. Too much of Continental European tradition is still "L'etat, c'est moi", certainly for my liking.
I'm not a Top Down person. More a Burkean, bottom up, the "little platoons"' the radicals, the unions, the Methodists, those who educated themselves and wanted to help those around them, an Orwell sort of person. It saddens me that Labour seems to have abandoned its own best decent traditions for ignorant Marxist worship of thugs claptrap.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
Your aspiration for what Britain can be sounds wonderful. The old classical liberal principles Britain was based on was undermined first by socialism in the post-war era, and then by EU-style bureaucratism. We have got rid of the first and hopefully we can reform the EU to stop the second.
For what its worth, it sounds like you have better appreciation for British heritage than many born here. The history you are describing should be taught to all new immigrants. We don't need to go as far as Norway's 600 hours, but we could certainly do better than the joke which is the Life in the UK booklet/test.
New England is probably most similar to the UK, New York to London, the MidWest and mountain west to Canada, the Pacific Upper West Coast to New Zealand, the South West to Australia and the Deep South to pre Mandela South Africa
Oh come on. The deep south might be very conservative but it's nothing like apartheid! I actually think parts of the rustbelt are very similar to the UK's post-industrial heartland in places like Yorkshire and South Wales. Brighton is like a poor weather San Francisco.
You have to be a bit careful when discussing it with the septics, but the afrikaner culture of South Africa is quite similar to the American founding myths.
Heroic early settlers fleeing oppression in Europe. A strong culture of small communities, self-reliance, industry, restless exploration and seizing land for settlement. The same centredness on church and gun. That is before you get into the wars with natives, gold rush towns, suspicion of fancy intellectualism.
(Of course the founding myths of both countries are full of holes too!)
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
Macmillan tried but De Gaulle vetoed our entry
Even Macmillan was too late. Britain had immense moral authority after WW2 - and should have used it to shape a Europe more in its own best traditions. We could have been leaders. But the opportunity was lost. For all sorts of reasons, not all of them bad, but which would require an essay rather than a post.
And now I really must be off. Pasta must be al dente. Not al mush.
Did Osborne drop the push for double QMV? It seems Lilico is reading between the lines to come to that conclusion. Certainly it would be disastrous if the Eurozone bloc vote has no formal checks - it means our votes in the institutions would be meaningless. But that's why I can't believe the government would drop it. Not only would it be a hammer blow to UK sovereignty and self-rule, it takes away the main argument for the Remain campaign: we would be reduced to pleading the Eurozone to treat us nicely.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
It would have been better had it been a union of Western states, including the Anglosphere offshoots too.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
Macmillan tried but De Gaulle vetoed our entry
Even Macmillan was too late. Britain had immense moral authority after WW2 - and should have used it to shape a Europe more in its own best traditions. We could have been leaders. But the opportunity was lost. For all sorts of reasons, not all of them bad, but which would require an essay rather than a post.
And now I really must be off. Pasta must be al dente. Not al mush.
Britain's dilly-dallying and reluctance over Europe is a large part of why the EU is as it is.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
Macmillan tried but De Gaulle vetoed our entry
Even Macmillan was too late. Britain had immense moral authority after WW2 - and should have used it to shape a Europe more in its own best traditions. We could have been leaders. But the opportunity was lost. For all sorts of reasons, not all of them bad, but which would require an essay rather than a post.
And now I really must be off. Pasta must be al dente. Not al mush.
We helped post war Germany etc but Dr Gaulle felt we were an island trading nation too tied to the Commonwealth who would be an American 'trojan horse'
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
It would have been better had it been a union of Western states, including the Anglosphere offshoots too.
Did Osborne drop the push for double QMV? It seems Lilico is reading between the lines to come to that conclusion. Certainly it would be disastrous if the Eurozone bloc vote has no formal checks - it means our votes in the institutions would be meaningless. But that's why I can't believe the government would drop it. Not only would it be a hammer blow to UK sovereignty and self-rule, it takes away the main argument for the Remain campaign: we would be reduced to pleading the Eurozone to treat us nicely.
The Euro-using countries will, I think, never create a constitutional incentive for countries to stay out of the euro, which is what double-QMV would be.
New England is probably most similar to the UK, New York to London, the MidWest and mountain west to Canada, the Pacific Upper West Coast to New Zealand, the South West to Australia and the Deep South to pre Mandela South Africa
Oh come on. The deep south might be very conservative but it's nothing like apartheid! I actually think parts of the rustbelt are very similar to the UK's post-industrial heartland in places like Yorkshire and South Wales. Brighton is like a poor weather San Francisco.
You have to be a bit careful when discussing it with the septics, but the afrikaner culture of South Africa is quite similar to the American founding myths.
Heroic early settlers fleeing oppression in Europe. A strong culture of small communities, self-reliance, industry, restless exploration and seizing land for settlement. The same centredness on church and gun. That is before you get into the wars with natives, gold rush towns, suspicion of fancy intellectualism.
(Of course the founding myths of both countries are full of holes too!)
The Manifest Destiny was much the same in the USA, Russia, Argentina, Australia,, and South Africa. If the South African whites had formed the majority, then the architects of apartheid would be seen in the same way as Washington and Jefferson.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
Macmillan tried but De Gaulle vetoed our entry
Even Macmillan was too late. Britain had immense moral authority after WW2 - and should have used it to shape a Europe more in its own best traditions. We could have been leaders. But the opportunity was lost. For all sorts of reasons, not all of them bad, but which would require an essay rather than a post.
And now I really must be off. Pasta must be al dente. Not al mush.
Britain's dilly-dallying and reluctance over Europe is a large part of why the EU is as it is.
I always hate alternative histories. Britain had to rebuild its society and infrastructure, and attend to a changed world which included loss in primacy in world affairs and the first stirrings of end of Empire. There is only so much CPU time available to leaders. Europe was just a lower priority, and rightly so in my mind.
New England is probably most similar to the UK, New York to London, the MidWest and mountain west to Canada, the Pacific Upper West Coast to New Zealand, the South West to Australia and the Deep South to pre Mandela South Africa
Oh come on. The deep south might be very conservative but it's nothing like apartheid! I actually think parts of the rustbelt are very similar to the UK's post-industrial heartland in places like Yorkshire and South Wales. Brighton is like a poor weather San Francisco.
You have to be a bit careful when discussing it with the septics, but the afrikaner culture of South Africa is quite similar to the American founding myths.
Heroic early settlers fleeing oppression in Europe. A strong culture of small communities, self-reliance, industry, restless exploration and seizing land for settlement. The same centredness on church and gun. That is before you get into the wars with natives, gold rush towns, suspicion of fancy intellectualism.
(Of course the founding myths of both countries are full of holes too!)
The Manifest Destiny was much the same in the USA, Russia, Argentina, Australia,, and South Africa. If the South African whites had formed the majority, then the architects of apartheid would be seen in the same way as Washington and Jefferson.
I think the big difference between the Voortrekkers and the "Go West young man" of the US wagon trains is that the Afrikaners were a pre-elightenment culture while even the hillbillies of the Appalachians had some leavening of enlightenment.
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.
But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.
Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.
Fiorina's record at HP really does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
It doesn't even stand up to the most cursory glance. She was a disaster at Lucent (who leapt before the cracks become apparent). She was a disaster at HP. She failed as a Senarorial candidate in California, losing even in the Republican heartlands of Southern California.
She would be a disaster as a candidate, and would be even worse as President.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
And if we'd never joined we'd be in a much, much better place. The fact is we did, and when we did.
Yes - it is an individual perspective and it is interesting to hear your and MrTimT's perspectives. As someone whose mother tongue is not English, who spent most of my first two decades outside England, I don't feel as if I belong here - fully - and some aspects of English life are still very odd to me. It was an American ambassador to Britain who said that if you are Catholic you never fully belong in England and there is a grain of truth in that.
Britain - an idea of Britain, maybe - was much admired by my Italian family: an idea of freedom, much influenced by WW2 of course, a clean public service, a state which could be trusted, which did not interfere, was not malicious etc. Naive, maybe - but something I have to some extent inherited and which I still believe in. I hate, really hate Britain not living up to the best of what it can be, what it has been..
The US is different in very many ways but I do still feel that we have lost touch with some of our common historical roots. Some of what I admire about the US was British in origin and we ought to reclaim our own radical liberal free traditions. There is much to admire in Europe but political organisation is not really one of them. Too much of Continental European tradition is still "L'etat, c'est moi", certainly for my liking.
I'm not a Top Down person. More a Burkean, bottom up, the "little platoons"' the radicals, the unions, the Methodists, those who educated themselves and wanted to help those around them, an Orwell sort of person. It saddens me that Labour seems to have abandoned its own best decent traditions for ignorant Marxist worship of thugs claptrap.
Anyway, the bolognese calls......
Bristol will make you Burkean. I remember looking at his statue many a time back in the day.
They shouldn't be though given how US political culture derived from English history and political philosophy: John Locke, Milton, the Puritans, Paine. If it now seems foreign to us, it may be as much because we have lost touch with our own historical, political, philosophical and religious roots.
I studied US politics as one of my courses and loved it. My own family roots are European rather than English and I find that the English have very little real understanding of how differently the Italians and French and Germans think about the world and even about basic stuff like families and appearance in public. England is quite foreign, quite free in many ways - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - one reason why it is so attractive to the European young, apart from the obvious, like jobs.
I think this sort of thing is very individual and hard to generalise. I went to American schools (that's why I know so little of some British traditions) in Austria and Denmark, so I'm a personal melting pot, but on the whole I feel we're culturally and especially politically closer to Europe than we realise, and further than we think from the USA, where as Tim says the linguistic identity confuses us. But America is such a multiplicity of places - we are quite close to New England in many ways, but very far from, say, Texas - which is not to denigrate Texas, just to say it's really different from both us and from, say, New York.
Over the last few years I've spent time in 25 countries, and I think we in any case exaggerate the differences from urban dwellers the world over - the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Brazilians and others who I've met seemed recognisable types. I'm sure I was meeting the educated urban-dwellers and rural life is very different - but then Sussex is not very like London either.
I think it's just the American South that's different. This was a good article that argues the US would be more similar to Canada, Australia and the UK if it weren't for the South:
As it mentions towards the end, the US is becoming more like the rest of the Anglosphere. At the same time, I think the UK is moving away from Europe. When I go to places like Germany and Poland they seem like very stuffy, like the UK was in the 1970s. We're now a lot more modern in terms of consumer choice and personal expression.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
New England is probably most similar to the UK, New York to London, the MidWest and mountain west to Canada, the Pacific Upper West Coast to New Zealand, the South West to Australia and the Deep South to pre Mandela South Africa
Oh come on. The deep south might be very conservative but it's nothing like apartheid! I actually think parts of the rustbelt are very similar to the UK's post-industrial heartland in places like Yorkshire and South Wales. Brighton is like a poor weather San Francisco.
You have to be a bit careful when discussing it with the septics, but the afrikaner culture of South Africa is quite similar to the American founding myths.
Heroic early settlers fleeing oppression in Europe. A strong culture of small communities, self-reliance, industry, restless exploration and seizing land for settlement. The same centredness on church and gun. That is before you get into the wars with natives, gold rush towns, suspicion of fancy intellectualism.
(Of course the founding myths of both countries are full of holes too!)
The Manifest Destiny was much the same in the USA, Russia, Argentina, Australia,, and South Africa. If the South African whites had formed the majority, then the architects of apartheid would be seen in the same way as Washington and Jefferson.
I think the big difference between the Voortrekkers and the "Go West young man" of the US wagon trains is that the Afrikaners were a pre-elightenment culture while even the hillbillies of the Appalachians had some leavening of enlightenment.
The difference between Apartheid and the Deep South was about 20-30 years.
we would be reduced to pleading the Eurozone to treat us nicely
By the time this 'renegotation' is finished Britain's demands will have been reduced to something like -
1. An assurance that Britain will be referred to as 'Great Britain' in all EU documents 2. Better quality napkins at EU summit meetings 3. Er..that's it
I'm beginning to think the referendum might actually only be the beginning.
If the UK gets concessions that necessitate treaty change (basically anything substantive) and the vote is to remain, the new treaty will have to be approved by all member states. I think in some member states that will necessitate a referendum (I'm thinking of Ireland in particular, though there may be others).
Out of 26 national parliaments/populaces, are they all going to roll over and let the changes go through? Or will some think they want what the UKs getting and vote no with the hope that they too will get concessions from Europe. if the ratification process stalls, will the EU pull the plug, leaving us to have a second referendum without the concessions? Or will rejections of treaty change lead to a domino effect across Europe as other member states start demanding their own renegotiations?
There's the chance for this to get really, really messy and not be resolved for years, causing significant economic and political uncertainty, and not just in the UK.
If you want an example of how European politics is so utterly beyond British understanding, you don't really need to look further than those Captain Euro comics. Who on Earth would think some stupid cartoon super hero mocking and patronising David Cameron into saying the word "federalism" would be a good advert for the European Union?
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
If the UK had joined at the start and really shaped it, both it and we would be in a much better place.
Macmillan tried but De Gaulle vetoed our entry
Even Macmillan was too late. Britain had immense moral authority after WW2 - and should have used it to shape a Europe more in its own best traditions. We could have been leaders. But the opportunity was lost. For all sorts of reasons, not all of them bad, but which would require an essay rather than a post.
And now I really must be off. Pasta must be al dente. Not al mush.
We helped post war Germany etc but Dr Gaulle felt we were an island trading nation too tied to the Commonwealth who would be an American 'trojan horse'
To be fair - there is a lot of truth in that!
Britain and Russia are the bookends of Europe. Neither of us feel we entirely belong, and there is both a suspicion and a degree of jelousy about the countries in the middle.
They shouldn't be though given how US political culture derived from English history and political philosophy: John Locke, Milton, the Puritans, Paine. If it now seems foreign to us, it may be as much because we have lost touch with our own historical, political, philosophical and religious roots.
I studied US politics as one of my courses and loved it. My own family roots are European rather than English and I find that the English have very little real understanding of how differently the Italians and French and Germans think about the world and even about basic stuff like families and appearance in public. England is quite foreign, quite free in many ways - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - one reason why it is so attractive to the European young, apart from the obvious, like jobs.
Cyclefree. Sorry, just seen this. My focus was on differences over the role of the individual vs the state in particular. I admit that there is the Anglo social model similarities between the US and UK, with its focus on individual rather than societal rights, and that on that parameter, the UK is more like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ than continental Europe. But the fundamentally different sense of the role of the state (not to mention the depth of real religiosity here) changes perspectives on almost everything, from social welfare programmes, universal health, taxation to even trade policy. Add in the American Dream and American Exceptionalism, (both of which the UK probably had at one point but seem to have lost), and you have an entirely different beast.
I'm beginning to think the referendum might actually only be the beginning.
If the UK gets concessions that necessitate treaty change (basically anything substantive) and the vote is to remain, the new treaty will have to be approved by all member states. I think in some member states that will necessitate a referendum (I'm thinking of Ireland in particular, though there may be others).
Out of 26 national parliaments/populaces, are they all going to roll over and let the changes go through? Or will some think they want what the UKs getting and vote no with the hope that they too will get concessions from Europe. if the ratification process stalls, will the EU pull the plug, leaving us to have a second referendum without the concessions? Or will rejections of treaty change lead to a domino effect across Europe as other member states start demanding their own renegotiations?
There's the chance for this to get really, really messy and not be resolved for years, causing significant economic and political uncertainty, and not just in the UK.
If treaty changes are required then I expect it will follow the path of the Danish Edinburgh agreement.
In 1992 Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty leading to the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement (giving opt-outs etc to Denmark). Denmark then voted through Maastricht on the basis of the Edinburgh Agreement in 1993.
The meat of the Edinburgh Agreement was then written into the next major treaty change, the Amsterdam Treaty which was signed in 1997 and came into force in 1999.
I would expect any changes the UK agrees that required Treaty change would be agreed in an agreement like the Edinburgh Agreement and then incorporated into the next major treaty rather than becoming a treaty in its own right.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
Some of the candidates would stand a chance here, Obama certainly would, as would Bill Clinton in the 90s and others. Even George W Bush was himself elected as a "compassionate conservative" in the same way that Cameron later was, with education reform his number one early priority. After 9/11 he changed focus and invaded Iraq but so too did Tony Blair and we re-elected him too!
But the idea that some would not be elected could be said about some of the Socialist candidates in France. Hollande was elected President of France but the notion of someone like him becoming PM is absurd. Yes I know I'm writing off Corbyn as absurd.
EDIT: In fact going back decades I can't think of any US President that would be unimaginable in the UK. Whereas I can for French Presidents.
I think it's just the American South that's different. This was a good article that argues the US would be more similar to Canada, Australia and the UK if it weren't for the South:
As it mentions towards the end, the US is becoming more like the rest of the Anglosphere. At the same time, I think the UK is moving away from Europe. When I go to places like Germany and Poland they seem like very stuffy, like the UK was in the 1970s. We're now a lot more modern in terms of consumer choice and personal expression.
It's not just the South, though. The Mountain West is very, very different from Europe. Or go to West Virginia and try to imagine it as Europe. You simply can't on any parameter. California is becoming more Pacific-looking and, at times, seems barely aware of Europe's existence. Yes, they are socially more liberal than the rest of the US, but I don't think that ends up making them more European.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
How many French or Italian candidates would have a chance here?
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
Some of the candidates would stand a chance here, Obama certainly would, as would Bill Clinton in the 90s and others. Even George W Bush was himself elected as a "compassionate conservative" in the same way that Cameron later was, with education reform his number one early priority. After 9/11 he changed focus and invaded Iraq but so too did Tony Blair and we re-elected him too!
But the idea that some would not be elected could be said about some of the Socialist candidates in France. Hollande was elected President of France but the notion of someone like him becoming PM is absurd. Yes I know I'm writing off Corbyn as absurd.
EDIT: In fact going back decades I can't think of any US President that would be unimaginable in the UK. Whereas I can for French Presidents.
Trump is the type of insurgent candidate who'd have no difficulty winning 20-30% of the vote in many European States.
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.
But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.
Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.
Fiorina's record at HP really does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
It doesn't even stand up to the most cursory glance. She was a disaster at Lucent (who leapt before the cracks become apparent). She was a disaster at HP. She failed as a Senarorial candidate in California, losing even in the Republican heartlands of Southern California.
She would be a disaster as a candidate, and would be even worse as President.
But then, the USA would be very different without the North East and West Coast. Rural and small town America overall is as solidly Red as the South.
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
We're definitely closer to the USA in my eyes than continental Europe, though closer still to Australia and Canada.
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time in the States, including 5 years of school. It is when I am there that I realise how European we are. Attitudes are very different there, as demonstrated by the Republican race. None of the candidates would have a chance here, which I think is where the conversation started.
How many French or Italian candidates would have a chance here?
Political cultures are just very different.
I could see Merkel as PM here. Tsipras is Corbyn and Hollande is not much different. Wilders would do a better job as leader of the kippers than Nigel.
But would Britain elect Trump? Or Carson or any of the Republicans (I accept that the Democratic candidates are not completely beyond the pale).
I do not think that Britain would have elected a Dubya, Reagan or Carter. Possibly Obama, Clinton or Bush Sr though.
Comments
When reading Osborne's speech on EU reform, I thought of PB. Because the last ally that PB would think of for Britain, would be Germany.
Ted Cruz would be a great president.
http://www.thelocal.se/20151030/in-the-long-run-our-system-will-collapse-in-sweden
Anglo-French Alliance 1716-1731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_alliance
He declined.
No - oh well, tagliatelle alla bolognese for me and Son No. 2 this evening.
He was more of an RPG man.
Anyway, I must be off.
There would definitely have been a possible state formed of the British Isles, Flanders, Netherlands, Hannover (and for contiguous expedience Hamburg). Of course the stability of such a State of 6 or 8 (if you include Wales and Flanders separately) Nations, a dozen cultural groups and at least 5 Languages might not have seen it last very long.
It is funny to think that when you include Denmark and Iceland, the UK has had a recent conquest or rule over most of its neighbours in fairly recent history. Comparable only with the Russians and Napoleon.
To be fair, a lot of those were due to accident of birth than military conquest
I studied US politics as one of my courses and loved it. My own family roots are European rather than English and I find that the English have very little real understanding of how differently the Italians and French and Germans think about the world and even about basic stuff like families and appearance in public. England is quite foreign, quite free in many ways - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - one reason why it is so attractive to the European young, apart from the obvious, like jobs.
Donald Trump: 22%
Ben Carson: 21%
Ted Cruz: 14%
Marco Rubio: 10%
Bobby Jindal: 6%
Mike Huckabee: 6%
Jeb Bush: 5%
Carly Fiorina: 5%
Chris Christie: 3%
John Kasich: 2%
Rand Paul: 2%
Rick Santorum: 2%
George Pataki: 0%
Jim Gilmore: 0%
Lindsey Graham: 0%
Undecided: 1%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_110215.pdf
Meanwhile a Survey USA poll has Trump and Carson beating Hillary in Florida but Hillary beating Bush and Rubio, it may be a rogue but we will see
Trump – 37%
Carson – 17%
Rubio – 16%
Cruz – 10%
Bush – 7%
Fiorina – 3%
Kasich – 3%
Huckabee – 1%
Other – 2%
Undecided – 3%
General Election Matchups
Trump – 47%
Clinton – 43%
Carson – 47%
Clinton – 44%
Clinton – 46%
Rubio – 45%
Clinton – 46%
Bush – 44%
Clinton – 48%
Fiorina – 42%
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/11/3/florida_decides_poll_2016_election.html#1
To say that Wall St. and Silicon Valley dislike her is a gross understatement.
UKIP are apparently "useful idiots" and yet also a "dangerous cult". Your taxes at work, ladies and gentlemen.
https://twitter.com/captaineuro/with_replies
Over the last few years I've spent time in 25 countries, and I think we in any case exaggerate the differences from urban dwellers the world over - the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Brazilians and others who I've met seemed recognisable types. I'm sure I was meeting the educated urban-dwellers and rural life is very different - but then Sussex is not very like London either.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-the-south-skews-america-119725
As it mentions towards the end, the US is becoming more like the rest of the Anglosphere. At the same time, I think the UK is moving away from Europe. When I go to places like Germany and Poland they seem like very stuffy, like the UK was in the 1970s. We're now a lot more modern in terms of consumer choice and personal expression.
http://www.christies.com/features/Mrs-Thatcher-A-sale-offering-unique-insights-into-the-trajectory-of-the-Iron-Lady-6727-3.aspx?pid=en_homepage_row1_slot2_1
350 items on sale which have previously been owned by Baroness Thatcher.
The EU has gone off the deep end in so many ways. It needs fundamental reform.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11973148/With-no-deal-over-voting-George-Osborne-has-dropped-the-ball-on-EU-reform.html
Britain - an idea of Britain, maybe - was much admired by my Italian family: an idea of freedom, much influenced by WW2 of course, a clean public service, a state which could be trusted, which did not interfere, was not malicious etc. Naive, maybe - but something I have to some extent inherited and which I still believe in. I hate, really hate Britain not living up to the best of what it can be, what it has been..
The US is different in very many ways but I do still feel that we have lost touch with some of our common historical roots. Some of what I admire about the US was British in origin and we ought to reclaim our own radical liberal free traditions. There is much to admire in Europe but political organisation is not really one of them. Too much of Continental European tradition is still "L'etat, c'est moi", certainly for my liking.
I'm not a Top Down person. More a Burkean, bottom up, the "little platoons"' the radicals, the unions, the Methodists, those who educated themselves and wanted to help those around them, an Orwell sort of person. It saddens me that Labour seems to have abandoned its own best decent traditions for ignorant Marxist worship of thugs claptrap.
Anyway, the bolognese calls......
Your aspiration for what Britain can be sounds wonderful. The old classical liberal principles Britain was based on was undermined first by socialism in the post-war era, and then by EU-style bureaucratism. We have got rid of the first and hopefully we can reform the EU to stop the second.
For what its worth, it sounds like you have better appreciation for British heritage than many born here. The history you are describing should be taught to all new immigrants. We don't need to go as far as Norway's 600 hours, but we could certainly do better than the joke which is the Life in the UK booklet/test.
Heroic early settlers fleeing oppression in Europe. A strong culture of small communities, self-reliance, industry, restless exploration and seizing land for settlement. The same centredness on church and gun. That is before you get into the wars with natives, gold rush towns, suspicion of fancy intellectualism.
(Of course the founding myths of both countries are full of holes too!)
And now I really must be off. Pasta must be al dente. Not al mush.
you can remember a United goal.
She would be a disaster as a candidate, and would be even worse as President.
http://www.britainunlimited.com/photos/burkebristol.jpg
England on its own is not much different from the USA, politically. England minus London and Core Cities is much like Red State USA.
Apartheid was very real in 1950s Southern USA.
By the time this 'renegotation' is finished Britain's demands will have been reduced to something like -
1. An assurance that Britain will be referred to as 'Great Britain' in all EU documents
2. Better quality napkins at EU summit meetings
3. Er..that's it
And Richard N will still call this a good deal
If the UK gets concessions that necessitate treaty change (basically anything substantive) and the vote is to remain, the new treaty will have to be approved by all member states. I think in some member states that will necessitate a referendum (I'm thinking of Ireland in particular, though there may be others).
Out of 26 national parliaments/populaces, are they all going to roll over and let the changes go through? Or will some think they want what the UKs getting and vote no with the hope that they too will get concessions from Europe. if the ratification process stalls, will the EU pull the plug, leaving us to have a second referendum without the concessions? Or will rejections of treaty change lead to a domino effect across Europe as other member states start demanding their own renegotiations?
There's the chance for this to get really, really messy and not be resolved for years, causing significant economic and political uncertainty, and not just in the UK.
Britain and Russia are the bookends of Europe. Neither of us feel we entirely belong, and there is both a suspicion and a degree of jelousy about the countries in the middle.
In 1992 Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty leading to the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement (giving opt-outs etc to Denmark). Denmark then voted through Maastricht on the basis of the Edinburgh Agreement in 1993.
The meat of the Edinburgh Agreement was then written into the next major treaty change, the Amsterdam Treaty which was signed in 1997 and came into force in 1999.
I would expect any changes the UK agrees that required Treaty change would be agreed in an agreement like the Edinburgh Agreement and then incorporated into the next major treaty rather than becoming a treaty in its own right.
But the idea that some would not be elected could be said about some of the Socialist candidates in France. Hollande was elected President of France but the notion of someone like him becoming PM is absurd. Yes I know I'm writing off Corbyn as absurd.
EDIT: In fact going back decades I can't think of any US President that would be unimaginable in the UK. Whereas I can for French Presidents.
Political cultures are just very different.
But would Britain elect Trump? Or Carson or any of the Republicans (I accept that the Democratic candidates are not completely beyond the pale).
I do not think that Britain would have elected a Dubya, Reagan or Carter. Possibly Obama, Clinton or Bush Sr though.