Should Britain and the United States merge?


Machjo
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Love the Gatineau. The Gatineau is Canada.2. Canada 1 is the Prairie. Britain is a bewildering, class-rigid, marble-mouthing series of paradoxes - much like darkest Africa but without the good weather.

Niceprejudice. Each country has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
Spade
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Niceprejudice. Each country has its strengths and weaknesses.

Of course. People everywhere are the same. We are one species. National borders are there to contain tribes. We could join with any nation. Pick one. Britain is just one of many.

To be honest, Britain has nice rock circles.
 
petros
+1
#63
I like fish and chips.
 
Machjo
+1
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I like fish and chips.

Fish, yuk! Chips, yum!
 
Spade
#65
Also, love the way grown men say "bonnet" for the hood of a car.
And "lorry" is so masculine. A 'lorry driver" conjures up so many thoughts...
 
JLM
+1
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Also, love the way grown men say "bonnet" for the hood of a car.
And "lorry" is so masculine. A 'lorry driver" conjures up so many thoughts...

But "boot" for the trunk compensates for it!
 
SLM
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Also, love the way grown men say "bonnet" for the hood of a car.
And "lorry" is so masculine. A 'lorry driver" conjures up so many thoughts...

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

But "boot" for the trunk compensates for it!

Then there's lift and loo.

The one that makes me laugh though is fanny. Means something completely different over there.
 
petros
#68
In for a penny, in for a pound.
 
SLM
#69
Six pence, ha'penny. (not sure if I typed that correctly)
 
JLM
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Then there's lift and loo.

The one that makes me laugh though is fanny. Means something completely different over there.

And they say "Sessel" where we say Cecil!
 
ironsides
#71
Sounds like the Kanamits are coming
 
Cliffy
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And they say "Sessel" where we say Cecil!

If it wasn't for the fact that my grandparents were from Britain, I would not have understood Monty Python as well as I did, and would have missed out on one of the greatest philosophies of the century. It is the one thing that saved the Brits from my complete loathing.
 
MHz
+1
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Ha, another bonus!

I doubt either knows which is which.
To keep something in you have them bush the wire towards the post, to keep something out you have them push the wire against. Can you tell which is which in the photo?

Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Also, love the way grown men say "bonnet" for the hood of a car.
And "lorry" is so masculine. A 'lorry driver" conjures up so many thoughts...

I'll assume 'milkman' was not one of them.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

If it wasn't for the fact that my grandparents were from Britain, I would not have understood Monty Python as well as I did, and would have missed out on one of the greatest philosophies of the century. It is the one thing that saved the Brits from my complete loathing.

How can you mistake what clacking coconuts means as far as making others think you were on horseback or what the Black Knight meant when he said it was 'only a flesh wound'? A more sexual series was in the 'Úp Pompeii' one. In America, 'HeeHaw' was the equal.
 
Spade
+1
#74
Fearless Fosdick occasionally would be shot full of holes and delare "Just a flesh wound!" Comiks ain't funny papers no more!
 
MHz
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Fearless Fosdick occasionally would be shot full of holes and delare "Just a flesh wound!" Comiks ain't funny papers no more!

These days it is more likely to be a story of facing sodomy or jumping out of a plane. With an answer of 'a little bit at first' to the question, 'Did you jump?' that pretty much tells the rest of the story.
 
Cliffy
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

How can you mistake what clacking coconuts means as far as making others think you were on horseback or what the Black Knight meant when he said it was 'only a flesh wound'? A more sexual series was in the 'Úp Pompeii' one. In America, 'HeeHaw' was the equal.

OMG! Such blasphemy I have never heard! Hee Haw compared to Monty Python. You are damned to the Lake of Fire for sure.

Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

These days it is more likely to be a story of facing sodomy or jumping out of a plane. With an answer of 'a little bit at first' to the question, 'Did you jump?' that pretty much tells the rest of the story.

I would respond to this if I could only figure out what it means.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by VancouveriteView Post

I would say yes and include Australia and New Zealand, not to mention the Pacific Islands that have some sort of free trade agreement with Australia.

But I wouldn't limit it to countries that speak English, because this could arouse the Quebec nationalists - I wouldn't mind including Haiti, a French-speaking country, and, yes, that would cause problems, but that would also silence the separatists forever.

There should only be five Anglosphere countries, UK, USA, Can, Oz, NZ to start. Ireland may join if they wish later. Maybe not Scotland if they don't want to be in if they decide to separate from the UK in a referendum soon. The Anglosphere is for the Anglo-Saxon countries, who were colonised by Britain and English speaking people. Others at most will be associate members, or observers. It's essentially another European club to compete with the other European club called the European Union. Competition is good. Haiti would have no chance of joining, they have nothing to offer.

Merge is far too strong a term as it implies a political union. I'm not interested in a common citizenship or passport with any Anglosphere country. It extends the cultural union of what we already have and through language. NAFTA already makes it easier for professionals from Mexico and Canada to work, such an arrangement would work to our far greater benefit with Oz, NZ, UK. But not just for professionals, but ordinary people too living in the Anglosphere. We're not the security risks.
 
JLM
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

There should only be five Anglosphere countries, UK, USA, Can, Oz, NZ to start. Ireland may join if they wish later. Maybe not Scotland if they don't want to be in if they decide to separate from the UK in a referendum soon. The Anglosphere is for the Anglo-Saxon countries, who were colonised by Britain and English speaking people. Others at most will be associate members, or observers. It's essentially another European club to compete with the other European club called the European Union. Competition is good. Haiti would have no chance of joining, they have nothing to offer.

Merge is far too strong a term as it implies a political union. I'm not interested in a common citizenship or passport with any Anglosphere country. It extends the cultural union of what we already have and through language. NAFTA already makes it easier for professionals from Mexico and Canada to work, such an arrangement would work to our far greater benefit with Oz, NZ, UK. But not just for professionals, but ordinary people too living in the Anglosphere. We're not the security risks.

Are we moving in a direction of inclusion or exclusion?
 
Cliffy
#79
Since when is Canada an Anglo-saxon country? We are bilingual and multicultural. I don't want to have anything to do with barbarians like the US and the UK. Look how we got conned into bombing the crap out of Libya. Canada is being used as a front line of attack, like the Anglo Canadians used the Vandoos in WWII - canon fodder for the big boys. Screw that.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#80
Here's good article how Harper is resisting continental integration of institutions, initated by the USA through NAFTA, because they won't likely benefit Canada. The USA has a special relationship with Mexico in part due to a fairly long and tortured history. We have no special relationship with Mexico. Let the USA and Mexico work together for their own national interests. We are unimportant observers here and the sooner we admit it, the better off we'll be.

We do not consider Mexicans to be part of our "North America". Mexicans are not North Americans in our geopolitical vocabulary. Their politics and economic situation we just cannot relate to. Mexico is part of Latin America to us and that makes them separate from our location in Canada. We exclude them because we can't be pals with everybody, why fake it? I say let's cut the BS.



Christopher Sands: When It Comes to Trade, Harper Doesn't Like Three-Ways (external - login to view)



When It Comes to Trade, Harper Doesn't Like Three-Ways

Posted: 01/ 2/12 12:03 PM ET




by Chris Sands

#news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img {padding:0px;margin:0px}

British Prime Minister David Cameron's veto of a Franco-German deal (external - login to view) to address the European debt crisis cheered many British "Eurosceptics" sceptical of the whole project of European integration and jealous defenders of Britain's sovereignty and independence as the best safeguards for the rights of Britons. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been resisting U.S. projects to advance North American integration trilaterally, preferring bilateral talks without Mexican participation. Is Harper advancing a North American version of Euroscepticism like his British counterpart?




North American scepticism (or perhaps it should be "skepticism" following the American spelling) would imply doubt about the transfer of national sovereignty to new, continental authorities and institutions. Yet the architects of continental economic integration in North America have always been careful to maintain national sovereignty, and have built few new institutions (and where institutions have been established, such as the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation of the North American Commission on Labor Cooperation or even the North American Development Bank, they have been kept weak and accountable to the national governments). Proponents of further integration have not advanced plans for a common currency for North America. Critics of continental integration have invoked national sovereignty and democratic accountability, from the centre-right in the United States and from the centre-left in Canada and Mexico.

Canadian prime ministers Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper have not embraced the Canadian centre-left's sovereignty critique of continental integration that exercised their Liberal opposition John Turner and Michael Ignatieff. Mulroney and Harper embrace free markets and the reduction of border barriers to trade.

Harper is more nationalistic than Mulroney, but his scepticism takes a different form than his Canadian sovereigntist critics. It isn't deepening integration that Harper approaches with caution, but trilateralism. Looking at the history of U.S.-Canadian relations, Harper appears to believe that progress in reducing economic barriers for Canadians has been faster and more profound when done bilaterally with the United States. Maybe it is because U.S. negotiators trust Canadians more, or share more cultural similarities. Perhaps it is that Canada is not seen as a threat to U.S. security or competitiveness. Nostalgically, it may be due to a memory of the shared sacrifice the two countries endured during the wars of the 20th century, or more contemporaneously, in Afghanistan.

Another interpretation is that Harper associates free markets with the Anglosphere, the countries that share a British heritage. American scholar James C. Bennett has made the case that the fundamental rights of private property, contract, rule of law, and limited responsible government that emerged from the Magna Carta in 1215 are the essential basis for free markets and stable integration. Like the Canadian-born Conrad Black, Bennett is both a Eurosceptic and a NAFTA sceptic because the addition of non-Anglosphere countries inevitably reduces liberty and the potential for free markets.

Only Harper and his intimates know for certain what motivates his reluctance to accept the trilateral framework for negotiating further continental integration that the United States has favored under Democratic and Republican administrations since Reagan. It would be wrong to categorize this Canadian outlook as a North American version of Euroscepticism; its principles are quite different. And while Anglospherianism can't be ruled out, this explanation sets up an inevitable clash between the U.S. and Canadian visions of continental integration where Mexico is concerned.

Harper's posture falls short of a rigid Anglospherianism, I suspect. Rather, it is merely a form of "trioscepticism" that doubts that sufficient progress can be made among three, and trusts more in the track-record of bilateral talks as the last best hope for Canadian interests on the continent. As such, it can be overcome by evidence of trilateral progress, and American persistence.
 
ironsides
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Since when is Canada an Anglo-saxon country? We are bilingual and multicultural. I don't want to have anything to do with barbarians like the US and the UK. Look how we got conned into bombing the crap out of Libya. Canada is being used as a front line of attack, like the Anglo Canadians used the Vandoos in WWII - canon fodder for the big boys. Screw that.

Nobody used you did they, somehow you managed to avoid all the horrible things Canada did to it's people. I am
 
petros
+1
#82
May as well just merge coke and pepsi and call it Poksi. It would probably taste like **** and nobody would like it.
Last edited by petros; Jan 3rd, 2012 at 08:00 AM..
 
Blackleaf
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

There should only be five Anglosphere countries, UK, USA, Can, Oz, NZ to start. Ireland may join if they wish later. Maybe not Scotland if they don't want to be in if they decide to separate from the UK in a referendum soon.

Scotland isn't going to secede from the Union. They wouldn't want to miss out on all those English subsidies and they'll want English taxpayers to continue paying for their freebies, such as free medical prescriptions and free care for the elderly, which are denied to the English.

Not only that, but the so-called "Arc of Prosperity" which Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister and leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party wanted an independent Scotland to join, which he said consisted of a group of northern European countries such as the Republic of Ireland (which broke away from the UK in 1922) and Iceland, doesn't look quite so prosperous and appealing to the Scottish people anymore.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Jan 3rd, 2012 at 08:42 AM..
 
JLM
+1
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

May as well just merge coke and pepsi and call it Poksi. It would probably taste like **** and nobody would like it.

Never could figure out why anyone would drink either of that sh*t. Years ago there was Kik Cola, terrible sh*t too and watered down, but we used to buy it because it was sold in 12 oz. bottles whereas the cheap bastards at Coca Cola and Pepsi only put theirs up in 10 oz.
 
eh1eh
+1
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Scotland isn't going to secede from the Union. They wouldn't want to miss out on all those English subsidies and they'll want English taxpayers to continue paying for their freebies, such as free medical prescriptions and free care for the elderly, which are denied to the English.


Holy Crap!

That is just like Quebec.

Oh, BTW. The Olympics are coming

.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Scotland isn't going to secede from the Union. They wouldn't want to miss out on all those English subsidies and they'll want English taxpayers to continue paying for their freebies, such as free medical prescriptions and free care for the elderly, which are denied to the English.

Not only that, but the so-called "Arc of Prosperity" which Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister and leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party wanted an independent Scotland to join, which he said consisted of a group of northern European countries such as the Republic of Ireland (which broke away from the UK in 1922) and Iceland, doesn't look quite so prosperous and appealing to the Scottish people anymore.

They say the old ally of Scotland is France which believes in statism. So Scotland wouldn't be in it. No huge loss. Independence is great, but not when the $$$$$ cost is too high. Scotland never had the same grievences as Ireland.
 
Blackleaf
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

They say the old ally of Scotland is France which believes in statism. So Scotland wouldn't be in it. No huge loss. Independence is great, but not when the $$$$$ cost is too high. Scotland never had the same grievences as Ireland.

Scotland's biggest allies are England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
 
Spade
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1ehView Post

Holy Crap!

That is just like Quebec.

Oh, BTW. The Olympics are coming

.

Yep, the same Anglo prejudices
 
petros
+1
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Yep, the same Anglo prejudices

Dante's hell requires two more circles.
 
Spade
#90
And two more...
 
no new posts