Eva === beware the Ides of March
How about Britain joining the USA? Bush isn't going to be President forever, you know.
At 300 million people and 50 states, each state averages about 6 million people. That means Britain would enter as states number 51 thru 60. Ireland can be states 61 and 62-better keep North and South separate.
You would hold about about 17% of the Electoral vote for the American President, assuming all British states voted together. In a nation where the largest landslides are 60% to 40%, that is quite a lot of political say Britain would have in the expanded America right from the first Presidential election!
Right now, all you Brits are falling all over yourselves about how you are in love with Europe. Like it or not, Europe is going to become the United States of Europe pretty soon. Do you want that?
You might have trouble understanding Americans, but do you really want to consign your children to a future where they must make the French see reason in order for your nation to survive?
Many of your new EU members will be from Soviet spinoff republics. Being of half-Ukrainian descent, I wish them all luck, I really do. But how much history do you Brits have with these people, compared with the US? These people are still trying to shrug off the Soviet yoke-it's going to be a long hard process, and who knows what ideas will be synthesized along the way?
You can keep your national health care system by making it a multi-state system separate from the rest of the US, paid for by state taxes. Other US citizens would not be eligible. The same would go for just about all your social programs. That is the beauty of Federalism.
Of course, no monarchy or aristocratic titles would be allowed, but you can make Buckingham Palace and all these aristocratic estates state parks. If you want to be nice, you can appoint the Royal Family and the aristocrats State Park Rangers and pay them $40,000 a year to keep the place neat and make sure that bears don't attack the visitors.
It has been said that in order for a nation to survive, it doesn't need a common religion or even a common language. It needs people who share a belief that they have done great things in the past together and desire to continue doing them in the future. How many great things has Britian done with the USA, and how many great things has she done together with France, Germany, Poland and Italy?
Think it over.
margo wrote:
But would we ever find an occupation for Phil The Greek?
Phil will be operating a diner in Astoria, Queens, NYC, (New Yorkers will get this joke). :wink:
Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, coke? No. Pepsi?
kelticwizard,
Nicely argued case.
KP
ps I'm one of the few Brits who doesn't mind the idea of a United States of Europe, in which the UK could have significant influence. I'll see if I can put together a few ideas on that.
kitchenpete wrote:
ps I'm one of the few Brits who doesn't mind the idea of a United States of Europe, in which the UK could have significant influence. I'll see if I can put together a few ideas on that.
I really love
those little Englanders
(BTW: We could talk about that tomorrow ... live :wink: )
Walter - what is your view, as a German and a European, on a United States of Europe?
In fact, what does everyone else think about that idea?
From the little knowledge I have on international politics & economics, I would be in favour of such a union, but I am receptive to any news facts which may change my mind.
Grand Duke
If you mean by "United States of Europe" something like the existing USA, I'm against that (like most all other European citizens).
I really like the idea as described on the EU website (in fact, I wrote nearly the same ages back at school
):
Quote:The European Union (EU) is not a federation like the United States. Nor is it simply an organisation for co-operation between governments, like the United Nations. It is, in fact, unique. The countries that make up the EU (its "member states") pool their sovereignty in order to gain a strength and world influence none of them could have on its own.
Pooling sovereignty means, in practice, that the member states delegate some of their decision-making powers to shared institutions they have created, so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.
EUROPA
Walter:
The words on the EU website are wonderful, but it won't stay that way for long.
You already have an EU Court that can override the highest courts in any individual EU land. You are in the process of raising an EU army.
Your sovereignty is already surrendered.
As time goes on and EU members increasingly look to the EU to make the big decisions that affect their lives, the individual EU nations will begin to be relegated to subordinate status-the "real action" will be in Brussels.
You are already down the road to a United States of Europe. It is just that everyone over there has decided not to talk about it until people get more used to the idea.
Sort of politely agreeing not to mention that there is a 7 ton elephant in the room.
Oops. I meant to say:
Sort of politely agreeing not to mention that there is a 6400 kilogram elephant in the room.
Mmmh.
We have tons as well - different for some decades to the Imperial, US, British, 'maritime' ...
EU court? The Court of Justice upholds the rule of European law, nothing more (but nothing less as well).
EU-army? We have German-Dutch corps, German-Danish corps, German-French-Corps since years.
As said above: I really like it.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Mmmh.
EU-army? We have German-Dutch corps, German-Danish corps, German-French-Corps since years.
As said above: I really like it.
Walter:
Then enjoy it while it lasts-it won't last long.
There is already movement to make the EU army under one command. It is the natural progression of a pan-European movement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$Q3QLJRQYVMVT5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/13/wschr113.xml
Walter Hinteler wrote:Mmmh.
EU court? The Court of Justice upholds the rule of European law, nothing more (but nothing less as well).
Walter:
And if there is a conflict between EU law and an individual law of an EU nation, which takes precedence?
If the answer is, "The EU law", then you have surrendered your sovereignty.
I would like to point out that when the US started out, there was supposed to be a balance between states and Federal government, similar to the guidelines of your EU website.
Then in 1803, the US Supreme Court, in
Marbury vs. Madison, decided that the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution, and that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. Any notions that the states were equals to the Federal government in most things were quenched at that point.
kelticwizard wrote:
And if there is a conflict between EU law and an individual law of an EU nation, which takes precedence?
If the answer is, "The EU law", then you have surrendered your sovereignty.
From the 'Britannica:
Quote:Sovereignity:
in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty, one of themost controversial ideas in political science and international law, is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government, ofindependence and democracy. Originally, as derived from the Latin term su pera nus through the French term souveraineté, sovereignty was meant to be the equivalent of supreme power. It has departed, however, quite often from this traditional meaning.
[...]
Some good reading about "EU and sovereignity" is to be found at this website, with a couple of links:
Political Integration and National Sovereignty
