An important message from Her Majasty Queen Elizebeth

[Aldramelech]

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.
There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.

13. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians (World dominators) first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

14. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

15. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

16. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!

[eldargal]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

God Save The Queen.

[Necron2.0]

What? No "Aluminium?"

If the Queen thinks she's got the stones to deal with the feuds between the Texans, the Oklahomans, the Alaskans, the Coloradans, the New Mexicans, the X's, the Y's and the Z's ... go for it. Our founding fathers were being sarcastic when they dubbed us the "United States." Europeans think Americans are uninformed about Europe because we're lazy and ignorant. Well, maybe. But mostly it is because none of you are "the wankers in my back yard."

Of course, and then there's the rampant silliness of California, the overt German-ness of the northern mid-west, Chicago, the insidious French-ness of the Southern Mississippi area, the mafia-like tendencies of the north-eastern seaboard, Chicago, the rabid anarchistic dogma of the north-western coast, and the "WTF do we do with you guys" of all the various Indian ... <*erm*> ... I mean "native-American" reservations dotted here and there. Did I mention Chicago?

And the icing on the cake is this constant, steady and overlooked invasion by armed foreign nationals across our southern boarders.

So, if the Queen has a taste for epic level frustration, by all means, come to America. ;)

[Hive Mind]

This wasn't funny the first time I read it over three years ago.

Sure, the U.S sucks balls but Britain, minus the BBC (which is pretty much the only good thing about it), sucks way harder. Better to be a dumb-*** leader than to be a dumb-*** leader's minion.

Signed,

A. Brit

[eldargal]

You make a good point. It was the 'loss' of the American colonies that freed up resources enabling Great Britain to become the greatest post-gunpowder Empire the world has ever seen and one of the greatest Empires of all time (after Alexanders Empire, the Roman Empire and followed by the Mongol Empire if you are feeling generous). Rather ironic, really.

Speaking of German, and ironic, did you know that the early Congress invited Prince Friedrich of Prussia to become King of America? They changed their mind and revoked the invitation before he replied, however.:rolleyes:



What? No "Aluminium?"

If the Queen thinks she's got the stones to deal with the feuds between the Texans, the Oklahomans, the Alaskans, the Coloradans, the New Mexicans, the X's, the Y's and the Z's ... go for it. Our founding fathers were being sarcastic when they dubbed us the "United States." Europeans think Americans are uninformed about Europe because we're lazy and ignorant. Well, maybe. But mostly it is because none of you are "the wankers in my back yard."

Of course, and then there's the rampant silliness of California, the overt German-ness of the northern mid-west, Chicago, the insidious French-ness of the Southern Mississippi area, the mafia-like tendencies of the north-eastern seaboard, Chicago, the rabid anarchistic dogma of the north-western coast, and the "WTF do we do with you guys" of all the various Indian ... <*erm*> ... I mean "native-American" reservations dotted here and there. Did I mention Chicago?

And the icing on the cake is this constant, steady and overlooked invasion by armed foreign nationals across our southern boarders.

So, if the Queen has a taste for epic level frustration, by all means, come to America. ;)

[Psychosplodge]

I'm sure this has been around more than three years, in fact I think Tony Blair was PM in the first version I saw....

[Brass Scorpion]

An important message from Her Majasty Queen Elizebeth I'm fairly certain Elizabeth has an "a" in it. And majesty has an "e" in it.

[Lord Azaghul]

1) wasn't terribly offending
2) Definitely wasn't amused either.

From my outsiders (or US citizens perspective)

I'd much rather be a US citizen the a British one: I still have personal rights
But I think I'd rather be a Canadian then either: They have rights and healthcare!

[DarkLink]

At least you brits still have your dignified arrogance down pat (two can play at your little game). I would think that after two hundred and thirty years that you would figure out that's one of the reasons we told you to bugger off in the first place, though. I would also think that you would know that trying to rule the world is a lot tougher than it looks, seeing as you lost your little empire a long time ago. To be frank, we've been quite a bit more successful at it than you, seeing as we're the world's only remaining superpower. You guys had to compete with france, and you still messed it up until we came along and saved you.

Edit:
Oh, almost forgot:
http://www.dailydawdle.com/2011/07/america-fck-yeah-lincoln-riding-grizzly.html

[Psychosplodge]

Our little empire was probably the biggest the world has ever seen, and the war of independence as you like to call it was all about rich americans getting richer, the common man was no better off, but he got to die for his freedom to be no better off...
Also wtf has lincoln on a bear got to do with owt? considering he's the best part of a hundred years after your petty rebellion?

[DarkLink]

Our little empire was probably the biggest the world has ever seen

Second largest, actually. The Ottoman empire was bigger. And today it isn't about lands owned, but influence over foreign countries, making it effectively impossible to measure the size and extend of, say, the USSR's influence in the 60's or America's influence now. Besides, my point was you had your empire, and you messed it all up. You don't get to talk trash after that;).


and the war of independence as you like to call it was all about rich americans getting richer

As opposed to rich brits getting richer? At least we pretend to have a morally sound basis for our system of government. While modern democracy in developed countries has yet to achieve broad social equality (though I will point out that even amongst the poor, standards of living are impressively high), any monarchy is inherently based on forced, irrevocable social and economic inequality.


Also wtf has lincoln on a bear got to do with owt? considering he's the best part of a hundred years after your petty rebellion?

Do I really have to explain it, or are you really taking this thread that seriously? If you don't get why a funny picture is in a thread involving two semi-rival countries talking trash about each other, then you're taking this way, way to seriously.

Just for clarification, the only truly serious statement I've made so far is that any and all monarchies are inherently immoral. If I were to meet your queen right now, I would treat her no differently than any other random old rich lady that I might have happened to meet, and she had better not expect otherwise. Respect is something to be earned, not inherited.

[eldargal]

Quite wrong, Mr DarkLink, the British Empire contained around a quarter of the worlds landmass and a fifth of the worlds population at its peak (which lasted over a century). Vastly more than any of the other post-gunpowder empires, and considerably more than the Ottoman Empire which only had around four percent of the worlds population and under 10% of its landmass.

The Pax Britannia also lasted 99 years, 1815-1914, whereas the Pax Americana lasted ten, 1991-2001. The US is also no longer the only superpower, since 2005 or so we live in a Great Power system once more where no one or two powers have more power than all the others put together. Not to mention that Britain was still the dominant power until 1940 or so, even after the cripping losses of the Great War. When it comes to influence, Britains in the nineteenth century was even more pervasive than Americas today or even fifty years ago. One of the reasons the American elite have fostered a dislike of France amongst the peasantry in recent decades is due to the fact France refused to kowtow to the USA during the Cold War period.

As for influence, Britain started from a base of direct control over 20% of the worlds population, then factor in influence and it was most definitely greater than that of the USA. Britain had client states accross the globe and even the other great powers clamoured for its approval.

The USA was about republicanism initially, not democracy. Britain has been a democracy since Britain was formed in 1707. The voter base was larger in the early USA but still limited to propertied white males. If you take democracy in the modern sense of universal suffrage then neither of our systems were democratic until the '20s.

The irony of your comment about monarchies is that the USA system is an elected monarchy and your President has vastly more power than any British Monarch has had since George III. In fact if you look at the top twenty or so countries in the world ranked by the least corruption and most political freedoms, consitutional monarchies top the list and dominate despite being few in number.:)

I'm not sure what on earth you are trying to say about competing with France, France has the most illustrious military history of every nation and dominated the Old World for over three centuries. They are also solely responsible for you winning youri ndependence from Britain, had the French fleet not blockaded the British in the Americas and threatened invasion of Britain at home the little rebellion would have failed miserably. Not to mention the money, arms, training etc France provided. The same situation in 1812-14, if Napoleon hadn't been ravaging Europe Britain could easily have won the War of 1812.:p

I'm British and have every right to hold the French up to ridicule, but even I think it is disgraceful at how obnoxious Americans behave towards the country which twice ensured their own freedom. If you want to take that attitude, I'm sure the French would appreciate that statue back they gave you to symbolise a century of friendship and respect. Cost them quite a bit, I hear.:rolleyes:

Don't think I'm downplaying the importance or power of America in the 20th century, though. God knows how much more damage communism would have done had America not taken such a strong stance against it (putting it mildly). Even if you did get a bit carried away at times (*cough* Viet Nam *uncough*).:) This isn't about whose state or form of governance is best, I wouldn't expect Americans to prefer constitutional Monarchy, but rather a historical perspective on the Empires.

[DarkLink]

Hey, don't blame me for what the first result on google said about the largest empire in history:p. Told you I wasn't being very serious.

The issue with monarchies isn't one of practicality, it's about the moral system upon which they're based. The fundamental ideal that certain individuals are better than others based on nothing more than their lineage is untenable. Leadership philosophies such as nobless oblige and the like are quite admirable within a political context and can be absent from a system where politicians care more about reelection than duty, but from a moral standpoint I cannot condone support of a monarchy as a general political philosophy.

[eldargal]

I can understand your view, though I don't agree.:) The Sovereign is not superior to her subjects, she is merely their representative in lifelong service to them. In return they get the ultimate golden cage, considerable comfort (not as luxurious as people think, though) for themselves and their family. Don't underestimate the benefits of having a head of state who has almost literally been bred with a sense of duty to her subjects. The respect given to a sovereign isn't given out of some feudal sense of inferiority, rather respect for the physical embodiment of the state, and is really isn't that different to the way Americans treat the president (so long as they voted for them.:rolleyes: We don't have that problem of course, so less division right there).

The whole thing about Sovereigns being superior went out with Divine Right in the 17th century in Britain.:) Perversely this apparent undemocratic element makes the system more democratic as the Sovereign is the source of all authority and power within the state but cannot wield it herself. To quote Winston Churchill, the Cronw is notable not for the power it wields but the power it denies others.

I personally find the idea that authority rests in a popularity contest to be repulsive and ammoral (not immoral), not to mention naive and ineffectual.

Of course, the irony of this is if Kron Prinz Friedrich hadn't been such a slow corrospondent you would have been a monarchy anyway.:p

I'm not trying to change your mind, or anyone elses mind, as I said previously I wouldn't expect Americans to appreciate Monarchy as it isn't part of your cultural tradition.

[Verilance]

as Eldergal points out I would much rather have a Monarch who while technically holds power but by tradition cannot wield it, than a President who must justify his or her position by interfering in the peoples' business.

[Denzark]

Its a bit early for this sort of thing, isn't it? Humourous piece, worth a chuckle - the laffs get slightly better if the colonials bite.

Personally, if a senior member of House Windsor issued orders to dissolve parliament in order to rule by decree, and that decree would include pulling out of the EU and restoring the death penalty*, I would march into westminster with a bayonet on my rifle, a prayer in my heart and a song on my lips.



* I believe that keeping child rapists and murderers alive at the cost of £60+k per annum is a waste of time - treat them as you would a mad dog and put them down humanely.

[Aldramelech]

Its a bit early for this sort of thing, isn't it? Humourous piece, worth a chuckle - the laffs get slightly better if the colonials bite.

Personally, if a senior member of House Windsor issued orders to dissolve parliament in order to rule by decree, and that decree would include pulling out of the EU and restoring the death penalty*, I would march into westminster with a bayonet on my rifle, a prayer in my heart and a song on my lips.



* I believe that keeping child rapists and murderers alive at the cost of £60+k per annum is a waste of time - treat them as you would a mad dog and put them down humanely.

Should have added a bit about "having a sense of humour" :rolleyes:

Brass Scorpian you really are the biggest twonk on this forum arn't you?

[Hive Mind]

Why are the British so obsessed with looking backwards? Oh yeah, it's because we used to be relevant.

The really mind-boggling bit of it all is the Little Englanders who can't see that the E.U is the greatest thing to happen to Britain since the NHS. You'd think they'd recognise that it's our only opportunity for even slight relevance (that doesn't involve hanging off the U.S's proverbial nuts) but no, they're far too small-minded.

Seven months and twenty-nine days until I can flee this cess-pit and it's inhabitants for ever, thank the FSM.

[eldargal]

The problem is the EU has its own serious problems which could have been avoided had Britain been allowed to have a more central role even back when it was the EEC. People forget that we once wanted a bigger role and de Gaulle did his best to shut us out. The result was growing Euroscepticism which is seemingly being validated by the financial situation now. We were effectively shut out of the cool kids club and reacted against that sentiment (the populace, not the guvmint) by becoming increasingly cynical about it.

Though I'm not sure why you would think the 7th largest economy in the world would only have 'slight' relevence without the EU. The EU isn't the only option, either, the Commonwealth could be transformed into a similar economic bloc with some effort, an idea India is amenable to in order to help balance Chinas influence.

I used to be extremely pro-EU, now I'm not, largely because of supremely idiotic decisions like letting Greece and other second tier economies adopt the Euro. That didn't work out too well, but criticisms at the time were written off as snobbery and Euroscepticism.:rolleyes:

Let's not turn this into a EU debate thread, though.

[Aldramelech]

The problem is the EU has its own serious problems which could have been avoided had Britain been allowed to have a more central role even back when it was the EEC. People forget that we once wanted a bigger role and de Gaulle did his best to shut us out. The result was growing Euroscepticism which is seemingly being validated by the financial situation now. We were effectively shut out of the cool kids club and reacted against that sentiment (the populace, not the guvmint) by becoming increasingly cynical about it.

Though I'm not sure why you would think the 7th largest economy in the world would only have 'slight' relevence without the EU. The EU isn't the only option, either, the Commonwealth could be transformed into a similar economic bloc with some effort, an idea India is amenable to in order to help balance Chinas influence.

I used to be extremely pro-EU, now I'm not, largely because of supremely idiotic decisions like letting Greece and other second tier economies adopt the Euro. That didn't work out too well, but criticisms at the time were written off as snobbery and Euroscepticism.:rolleyes:

Let's not turn this into a EU debate thread, though.

Lets not turn it into any kind of debate

IT WAS A PIECE OF TONGUE IN CHEEK HUMOUR FOR GODS SAKE

Hivemind, dont let the door hit your *** on the way out!

[eldargal]

That's what you get for posting a Blair-era joke.:p

[Hive Mind]

Revisionist history and casual arrogance FTW. If only those damn Euros had listened to us in the first place, we could have sorted simply everything out.

And yeah, the Commonwealth could be transformed into a similar idea to the E.U. All it would need is more than a handful of countries that actually have any money, do any real business with each other or have anything in common with each other except once having had the same people occupying their territory. Too bad the Commonwealth has none of those.

[Aldramelech]

Revisionist history and casual arrogance FTW. If only those damn Euros had listened to us in the first place, we could have sorted simply everything out.

And yeah, the Commonwealth could be transformed into a similar idea to the E.U. All it would need is more than a handful of countries that actually have any money, do any real business with each other or have anything in common with each other except once having had the same people occupying their territory. Too bad the Commonwealth has none of those.

Your a very angry young man, the sooner you get back and get the kind of serious therapy that's only avalible Stateside the better I think.

[scadugenga]

Oh, no Aldy...he's all yours.

We already have our angry loony quotient maxed out over here.

To continue the tongue in cheek--my fellow democratic-republican's--it's only fair the Brits get their anti-american humor (or, humour, for those inclined to add an unwanted vowel...;))

They've earned it. I mean, we've been stealing British sitcoms and effing them up royally over here for years. They deserve a little comeback. (Coupling, I'm looking at you.)

[Hive Mind]

Your a very angry young man, the sooner you get back and get the kind of serious therapy that's only avalible Stateside the better I think.

I'm neither particularly angry nor particularly young. Where am I going 'back' to, exactly? I'm British and have lived in Britain for all of my 29 and a bit years, give or take a few months here and there.

[Aldramelech]

So you've been there and now your going back, basic and easily understood English I would think.

I had a conversation with my boss a couple of months ago on the subject of living in the States after he discovered my Mother is an American.

"So you could go and live over there any time you wanted?"
"Yep, I just need to turn up at the US Embassy with my mother and viola! Instant citizenship"
"Are you mental? Why don't you go? I'd go tomorrow"
"Why would I want to?"
"Its so crap here and so much better there, you should go for it"

"And do what? I have no real skills and no significant qualifications, I can move over there and do the same kind of job I do here and where does that put me? Here I live on a council estate and while that's not ideal, it's not terrible. I can walk to the shop at night in the reasonable expectation that someone won't "light me up" with an automatic weapon, I don't have a whole house of crack addicts at the end of the road, if I'm ill I can go to hospital and the thought of how much will this cost does not even enter my head and at the end of the year I couldn't even tell you how much tax I've paid because I didn't have to work it out and I'm a lot happier not knowing thanks". "I live ten minutes drive from the beach and in 15 minutes I can be on the middle of Dartmoor, People don't tell me to "have a nice day" 20 times a day and whilst the weather here is not brilliant I'm pretty sure it won't kill me or for the matter the wildlife either".
"WHY THE F&%$ WOULD I WANT TO LIVE IN THE USA?"

[DarkLink]

Does your mom live in the ghettos or something? You seem to have a extremely misinformed idea of America's crime rates as far as it concerns the vast majority of the population.

[Aldramelech]

Mate, I live on a council estate, I'm guessing you don't know what that is? The US equivalent are housing projects, so yes, as far as England goes, I live in the ghetto. I earn around 17k a year, reckon I'd be lucky to get anywhere near that over there so where am I going to end up if I move to the states? Yep......

It is of course all relative, someone who lives on an estate in Manchester would consider where I live in Devon as posh and a little piece of paradise.

I'm sure America is wonderful for all you middle class college graduates, but outside of your lovely little secure bubble that I wouldn't be able to afford to live in 15,241 people were murdered in 2009.

15,241

Less then 700 murders here in 09, what f$%&ing planet do you live on, have you ever visited earth?

[Hive Mind]

So you've been there and now your going back, basic and easily understood English I would think.


I've spent five days in New York City. That's the sum total of my U.S experience. Assumptions are bad, m'kay?

I'm going to Canada.

[ankhcitizen]

Alright you Yanks and Pommies settle down, now we all know that Australia is the greates nation in the history of mankind...(remembers that the carbon tax will take effect next year)...errr scratch that....

[eldargal]

You know I can't decide if you are an idiot or just woefully ignorant about everything. Apparently this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_4187000/4187714.stm) is revisionist history too, then. And this (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/eec-britains-late-entry.htm). This (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/1/17/eec-talks-seen-blocked-by-de/) too. Who would have though those revisionist historians would have been starting on the EEC thing as early as 1961, my word they get in early.:rolleyes:


Revisionist history and casual arrogance FTW. If only those damn Euros had listened to us in the first place, we could have sorted simply everything out.

And yeah, the Commonwealth could be transformed into a similar idea to the E.U. All it would need is more than a handful of countries that actually have any money, do any real business with each other or have anything in common with each other except once having had the same people occupying their territory. Too bad the Commonwealth has none of those.

[Psychosplodge]

You know I can't decide if you are an idiot or just woefully ignorant about everything. Apparently this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_4187000/4187714.stm) is revisionist history too, then. And this (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/eec-britains-late-entry.htm). This (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/1/17/eec-talks-seen-blocked-by-de/) too. Who would have though those revisionist historians would have been starting on the EEC thing as early as 1961, my word they get in early.:rolleyes:
Don't be ridiculous you can't argue with the rabid pro europe lot any more than you can the far right, nonsensical trade unionists or religious fundamentalists. They know what they know and be damned if anything like facts get in the way...

[Col.Gravis]

Don't be ridiculous you can't argue with the rabid pro europe lot any more than you can the far right, nonsensical trade unionists or religious fundamentalists. They know what they know and be damned if anything like facts get in the way...

That is true, but it's amusing to watch them foaming at the mouth. :p

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/38/3818/KMDYF00Z/posters/keep-calm-and-carry-on.jpg

[Hive Mind]

You know I can't decide if you are an idiot or just woefully ignorant about everything. Apparently this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_4187000/4187714.stm) is revisionist history too, then. And this (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/eec-britains-late-entry.htm). This (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/1/17/eec-talks-seen-blocked-by-de/) too. Who would have though those revisionist historians would have been starting on the EEC thing as early as 1961, my word they get in early.:rolleyes:

How awfully rude. And here's me trying my best to be polite to you.

You know, when you make a plethora of claims to which someone cries "bull****" (effectively) it is generally not an adequate rebuttal to offer something that only supports one of your claims and not the one actually caused the cry of "bull****". It is definitely an inadequate rebuttal when the material you provide actually provides support for the view you are meant to be maligning.

An idiot I may be (it's really not for me to say) but I'm afraid I just I do not have the rosiest of spectacles perched squarely upon my visage, tinting everything to just the way I want to see it. I do however have a year's worth of study under two of leading academics in E.U law and several articles on the history, development and future of the E.U published in respected legal journals on the subject to my name. Small beans I know compared to a detailed and ever-so-useful in-depth knowledge of the industrial capacity of a dead empire's smallholding of a terribly crappy and obsolete island but rather apposite for present purposes, don't you think?

[Psychosplodge]

How awfully rude. And here's me trying my best to be polite to you.

You know, when you make a plethora of claims to which someone cries "bull****" (effectively) it is generally not an adequate rebuttal to offer something that only supports one of your claims and not the one actually caused the cry of "bull****". It is definitely an inadequate rebuttal when the material you provide actually provides support for the view you are meant to be maligning.

An idiot I may be (it's really not for me to say) but I'm afraid I just I do not have the rosiest of spectacles perched squarely upon my visage, tinting everything to just the way I want to see it. I do however have a year's worth of study under two of leading academics in E.U law and several articles on the history, development and future of the E.U published in respected legal journals on the subject to my name. Small beans I know compared to a detailed and ever-so-useful in-depth knowledge of the industrial capacity of a dead empire's smallholding of a terribly crappy and obsolete island but rather apposite for present purposes, don't you think?
Human rights lawyer in the making, needs the european human rights act to make his millions, explains everything.

Good plan on being able to continue affording the hobby...

[eldargal]

Hehe, certainly he won't be biting the hand that feeds him.:rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you think I'm maligning, Hive Mind. I believe Britains future lies with the EU, assuming it survives the current crisis*. But I'm not sure how anyone can argue that having the British economy integrated with the EEC a full ten years earlier wouldn't have benefited both parties far more than having France continually try and keep us out completely, for fear we would supplant their position in the EU hierarchy. As those articles state. If Britain was such an obsolete irrelevency, why was France trying so hard to keep us out? It isn't an issue of 'oh, we could have shown them how to do it right' but 'we would have brought an economy roughly the size of that of France, an extra fifty million people and a much broader political powerbase than just France-Germany'. The EU would be stronger, we would be stronger and we may have been able to avoid this current mess or at least handle it better.

*I'm not being glib, if Italy defaults the Euro will fail and if the Euro fails the EU will follow.

[Hive Mind]

Human rights lawyer in the making, needs the european human rights act to make his millions, explains everything.

Good plan on being able to continue affording the hobby...

First of all, the European Convention on Human Rights has very little to do with the European Union, other than that the E.U acceded to the ECHR recently under the provision of the Treaty of Lisbon. The E.U is to the ECHR as the U.K is to the ECHR; a mere signatory. There is no requirement to be an E.U member to be a signatory to the ECHR.

Secondly, did you miss the part where I said I was going to Canada? Canada, as I'm sure you're aware, is not part of Europe and thus is not a signatory to, nor is likely to become a signatory to, the ECHR.

Thirdly, and you get a pass on this because there's no way you could have known, criminal prosecution is my bag and career aim.

Eldargal, your ideas and assumptions about the E.U are as laughably naive as they ever were. The E.U is not going anywhere, Italian default or no, and one irrelevant nation *****ing about another doesn't vindicate anything you've said and that I've taken issue with; two hobos fighting are still just two hobos at the end of the day.

[eldargal]

And your claims are laughably baseless and coloured by blinkered ideology as they ever were. I'm glad you can take the current situation so less seriously than, say, the ECB and every Eurozone government and I hope reality doesn't hit you too hard one day.

[wittdooley]

So Manchester City has a pretty good side this year....

[lattd]

Im worried about the lack of humour prevalent in this thread, what started as a joke has become a politic debate.

And just to wade into the debate, the European Union could have been great with a few differences, but it will struggle to survive in its current form, the ECHR is both a curse and a great bit of legislation, the commonwealth is more powerful than people think and has more member states than Europe, and finally Britain sits in multiple spheres of influence what with the UN, NATO, Commonwealth and Europe, America sits in two, tell me who is more influential now :p

I thought the original post was rather amusing however.

[Psychosplodge]

First of all, the European Convention on Human Rights has very little to do with the European Union, other than that the E.U acceded to the ECHR recently under the provision of the Treaty of Lisbon. The E.U is to the ECHR as the U.K is to the ECHR; a mere signatory. There is no requirement to be an E.U member to be a signatory to the ECHR.

As our courts are now subservient to eu courts in Strasbourg(?) I would disagree, but I only have the layman's perspective of it and accept it may not be fact. I would suggest the appearance of this being true though adversely affects your point.



Secondly, did you miss the part where I said I was going to Canada? Canada, as I'm sure you're aware, is not part of Europe and thus is not a signatory to, nor is likely to become a signatory to, the ECHR.

I got the impression you were f*****g off to Europe and the mention of Canada was merely in relation as preference over the US, but I was only skimming some of the thread at work...


Thirdly, and you get a pass on this because there's no way you could have known, criminal prosecution is my bag and career aim.

Also surly you'd be better studying law in the market you want to practice in hence your thing about eu law teachers affecting the assumption about where you were off to. Also doesn't North America have a surplus of lawyers? will it count as a needed profession to get you a visa for Canada? :confused:



So Manchester City has a pretty good side this year....

Premiership football is irrelevant on the basis of it being about who can buy the best team, the lower divisions are where real football is played... ;)

[Drew da Destroya]

Hey! Hey you Brits! I'm pretty sure you're supposed to be fighting us Yanks in this thread, so lay off each other.

Your queen smells funny and your only decent PM has been Churchill, and that's only because he was drunk most of the time.

Plus, what's the use worrying about the Euro when the Dollar is getting ready to collapse? If the US goes down, we're taking Everyone with us!

[Bigred]

Can you please just take the following:

Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana? Act within 90 days and we'll throw in Puerto Rico!

[Denzark]

Sorry BigRed but when Her Majesty decides on a doctrine of reclaiming the rebel colonies, there will be an exmption clause: "No states with dry/Bible Belts, or whose names are used in spelling competitions'.

Harsh, but there it is. She may however agree to take Puerto Rico if the US vassal government agrees to minister to Milton Keynes and Kilmarnock in a reciprocal show of servitude and loyalty.

[Psychosplodge]

Hey! Hey you Brits! I'm pretty sure you're supposed to be fighting us Yanks in this thread, so lay off each other.

Your queen smells funny and your only decent PM has been Churchill, and that's only because he was drunk most of the time.

Plus, what's the use worrying about the Euro when the Dollar is getting ready to collapse? If the US goes down, we're taking Everyone with us!

We've been fighting each other longing than you've been a country, don't worry we still find the time to take the piss out of you :D

We must have had more than one just through shear quantity...

It's all monopoly money anyway if hasn't got the Queen's head on it, there feel better?:p

[scadugenga]

Can you please just take the following:

Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana? Act within 90 days and we'll throw in Puerto Rico!

For shame Bigred!!!!!


You want to hand over New Orleans???

The French Quarter??

Are you mad?!?

You've been sniffing the primer again, haven't you...

[Bigred]

I'd like to amend my previous statement - We're keeping New Orleans as an autonomous American governed city - like West Berlin was, only with better food.

[eldargal]

Aw, I was looking forward to having New Orleans. Spoil all the fun, I like Cajun food.

[Denzark]

You have been sniffing pimer - that french-inspired crocodile teste jumbalaya crap is never better than genuine boxhead 'zweimal bratty und pommes weis bitter'.

[Aldramelech]

Your queen smells funny and your only decent PM has been Churchill, and that's only because he was drunk most of the time.

And half American, Just like me!:p

[eldargal]

Well I like German food too. Sauerbraten mit knodel und apfelrotkohl ftw.

You have been sniffing pimer - that french-inspired crocodile teste jumbalaya crap is never better than genuine boxhead 'zweimal bratty und pommes weis bitter'.

[scadugenga]

You have been sniffing pimer - that french-inspired crocodile teste jumbalaya crap is never better than genuine boxhead 'zweimal bratty und pommes weis bitter'.

Oh, it's not just the food, Denzark.

The women, the Blues and Jazz clubs, the artists (street and gallery alike) as well as Patty O'Brien's Hurricanes available 'round the clock.

(Having a Hurricane along with your morning beignets is an experience you can really only have in the French Quarter.)

Forget Mardis Gras (a bit too overcrowded to my taste...) St. Patrick's is a hellova lot of fun in New Orleans.

German food is all well and good, mein freund, but that's arguably the least part of the N.O. experience. :)

[eldargal]

Oh, I don't know, I think Berlin does pretty well when it comes to women, drink and artists.:p I admit it is hard to beat New Orleans for music. Berlin also has some first class museums.

[Aldramelech]

Oh, it's not just the food, Denzark.

The women, the Blues and Jazz clubs, the artists (street and gallery alike) as well as Patty O'Brien's Hurricanes available 'round the clock.

(Having a Hurricane along with your morning beignets is an experience you can really only have in the French Quarter.)

Forget Mardis Gras (a bit too overcrowded to my taste...) St. Patrick's is a hellova lot of fun in New Orleans.

German food is all well and good, mein freund, but that's arguably the least part of the N.O. experience. :)

Jazz is musical wanking

[eldargal]

Nothing wrong with that.:p I do prefer Bach though.

[Denzark]

What makes N'awlins a grande merde du plop is its reprehensible french connections.

[wittdooley]

As a concession for the renegging of New Orleans, the United States would like to offer to up Cleveland.

Enjoy.

[scadugenga]

Oh, I don't know, I think Berlin does pretty well when it comes to women, drink and artists.:p I admit it is hard to beat New Orleans for music. Berlin also has some first class museums.

I've never been to Berlin, so I can't attest to that. :) Perhaps someday.

Though my best friend was stationed in Germany while in the army--and he chose to take leave and go to Spain instead. And Germany does have castles--which are always cool.

But Nawlins has the French Quarter. Which, sorry to say Denzark, is really not even closely related to France anymore. It's uniquely a New Orleans phenomenon. Hell, even the criminals are very polite. As a Chicagoan, I found that distressingly odd.


Jazz is musical wanking

You won't find much of an argument from me on that. I'm more a fan of the Blues. I've been lucky enough to see Buddy Guy and B.B. King play live---damn, can those guys play!

[Drunkencorgimaster]

If you are talking food and music... in tossing out Mississippi and Arkansas Big Red just amputated the both Heartland of the Blues and the best damn BBQ in the world.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Eldar Girl, I agree with much of what you say. Your posts tend to be some the most logical and insightful ones I see on BOLS. However a few of the historical statements you made in this thread have left me confused and I am hoping for clarification.

"Quite wrong, Mr DarkLink, the British Empire contained around a quarter of the worlds landmass and a fifth of the worlds population at its peak (which lasted over a century)." -Most true! You could even go further and argue that if the so-called "mandate" territories are tossed into the mix, the British Empire had closer to 2/5th the planet's landmass after the Treaty of Versailles.

"The Pax Britannia also lasted 99 years, 1815-1914, whereas the Pax Americana lasted ten, 1991-2001. The US is also no longer the only superpower, since 2005 or so we live in a Great Power system once more where no one or two powers have more power than all the others put together." -You lost me on this one. Are you claiming that from 1815-1914 Britain was a sole superpower? In what terms? Militarily? Sure Britainia ruled the waves but her land forces were a distant third behind Russia and France, and then fell to fourth after 1871. Economics? By 1900 Britain's industrial output was behind that of Germany and well behind the USA.

Or are you applying a double standard requiring the USA to be a sole superpower during its "pax" period? It seems to me that if you are going to use the same criteria as you did for 19th century Britain (ie. accepting the presence of other great powers), you would have to start the Pax America no later than 1945 and certainly not end it in 2001.

"Not to mention that Britain was still the dominant power until 1940 or so" -Again, how do you define this? Land mass, sure, but it was hardly the world's dominant power economically or militarily. Even in nautical terms this claim is problematic. Britain accepted naval equality to the USA in the Washington Conference of 1921-1922.

"When it comes to influence, Britains in the nineteenth century was even more pervasive than Americas today or even fifty years ago." -How could something like that ever be quantified? Would you go through all the world's newspapers and count up every reference to something that struck you as particularly "British" or particularly "American?"

"The USA was about republicanism initially, not democracy. Britain has been a democracy since Britain was formed in 1707." -Really? A democracy in 1707? Can you cite a few influential British politicians from 1707 who believed their constitutional monarchy was a democracy?

"If you take democracy in the modern sense of universal suffrage then neither of our systems were democratic until the '20s." -Agreed. You are back on the right track.

"France has the most illustrious military history of every nation" -Again, how can you make such remarkable absolute black-vs-white statements? Can "illustriousness" be quantified? I agree that France had a first-rate military, but I would not put it in such extreme terms.

"They are also solely responsible for you winning youri ndependence from Britain, had the French fleet not blockaded the British in the Americas and threatened invasion of Britain at home the little rebellion would have failed miserably." -France played an enormously important role in the American War of Independence, perhaps more so in terms of ideology through the Enlightenment than in military aid. Yet your statements about "solely responsible" and "failed miserably" seem rather remarkable. I think you may have overestimated the challenges the British faced in the Americas (outnumbered, 3,000 mile long supply line, relatively passive loyalist base, etc.). Read Edmund Burke or some British periodicals from the era if you doubt me.

"The same situation in 1812-14, if Napoleon hadn't been ravaging Europe Britain could easily have won the War of 1812.:p" -The USA were (pre-1865 plural form) clearly allies of Napoleon and France in the Napoleonic Wars, but how do you figure that Britain did NOT easily win the War of 1812? The US capital was captured, burned to the ground, and the United States was forced to sue for peace. In the Treaty of Ghent the USA failed to get Britain to make any of the major concessions for which they went to war. You Brits won that one hands down in my book, but I do not see that France mitigated the hammering you gave us.

"I'm British" -Yes clearly, but you are also a scholar and a professional. I would like to offer the friendly recommendation that you employ a tad more balance when making historical statements in the future. I really am not trying to pick on you and I know that some of the people you were responding to made some exceptionally problematic claims. However as a fellow academic I have decided to hold you to a higher standard now that you have happily completed that doctorate. :) Congrats on that again btw.

[eldargal]

From 1815-1914 Britain literally ruled the waves and so long as it never got involved in a continental ground war (like it did in WWI) it was unassailable and could choke trade and supplies to any of the other Great Powers, the US and German Empire included. This is what it did in WWI with great success, but as it was also involved in a continental ground war things didn't go so well on that front.

Fair point, but I didn't mean it as sole power so much as 'unassailable' and apart from a period after WWII before the Soviet Union developed atomic weaponry the USA was never unassailable until 1991.

Also a fair point, I worded that poorly. Britain was still the largest, wealthiest state in the world but the USA was certainly in a very strong position. Dominant was overstating it.:)

It is difficult to quantify, certainly but when you have direct control over a fifth of the human race,virtually every other power jostling for your favour, sending its elites to your universities and your culture touching virtually ever corner of the globe it makes for a powerful argument.:) I'm not trying to understate Americas influence in the 20th century either, I just think it is naive to write off the British Empires influence just because American culture is dominant today so we can see its effects first hand.

I am aware of the challenged Britain faced, but had they not had to contend with the French fleet in the Americas they could have moved tens of thousands of troops at will along the coast, reinforcing areas as needed, cutting off American forces and generally dictating how the war flowed. But with the French fleet there and the fleet in the Channel threatening invasion Britain simply couldn't respond effectively to what was a relatively minor insurgency.

You are quite right, Britain won the War in 1812-14 convincingly anyway. But had they not had to worry about foreign invasion chances are they would have been able to crush the USA and re-absorb much, if not all, of the former colonies. But with Napoleon pressuring and Wellington refusing to take command they had to settle for effectively recognising the status quo. Imagine the difference 20,000 hardened Napoleonic veterans under a competent general, if not Wellington himself, would have made to British efforts in 1814.

Fair enough, we British are consistently told to devalue our history and culture, even our contemporary status as a great power (just look at Hive Mind to see what I mean) so I tend to get a bit over-defensive.:p Heck we aren't even supposed to call ourselves British anymore, it is 'Brits' or 'Poms'.

[Psychosplodge]

I thought we were encouraged to refer to ourselves as "british" but woe betide anybody who considers themselves English...

[Denzark]

Funny that, seeing as I'm British by birth and English by the grace of God...

[Psychosplodge]

Lol

[Drunkencorgimaster]

From 1815-1914 Britain literally ruled the waves and so long as it never got involved in a continental ground war (like it did in WWI) it was unassailable and could choke trade and supplies to any of the other Great Powers, the US and German Empire included. This is what it did in WWI with great success, but as it was also involved in a continental ground war things didn't go so well on that front.

Fair point, but I didn't mean it as sole power so much as 'unassailable' and apart from a period after WWII before the Soviet Union developed atomic weaponry the USA was never unassailable until 1991.

Also a fair point, I worded that poorly. Britain was still the largest, wealthiest state in the world but the USA was certainly in a very strong position. Dominant was overstating it.:)

It is difficult to quantify, certainly but when you have direct control over a fifth of the human race,virtually every other power jostling for your favour, sending its elites to your universities and your culture touching virtually ever corner of the globe it makes for a powerful argument.:) I'm not trying to understate Americas influence in the 20th century either, I just think it is naive to write off the British Empires influence just because American culture is dominant today so we can see its effects first hand.

I am aware of the challenged Britain faced, but had they not had to contend with the French fleet in the Americas they could have moved tens of thousands of troops at will along the coast, reinforcing areas as needed, cutting off American forces and generally dictating how the war flowed. But with the French fleet there and the fleet in the Channel threatening invasion Britain simply couldn't respond effectively to what was a relatively minor insurgency.

You are quite right, Britain won the War in 1812-14 convincingly anyway. But had they not had to worry about foreign invasion chances are they would have been able to crush the USA and re-absorb much, if not all, of the former colonies. But with Napoleon pressuring and Wellington refusing to take command they had to settle for effectively recognising the status quo. Imagine the difference 20,000 hardened Napoleonic veterans under a competent general, if not Wellington himself, would have made to British efforts in 1814.

Fair enough, we British are consistently told to devalue our history and culture, even our contemporary status as a great power (just look at Hive Mind to see what I mean) so I tend to get a bit over-defensive.:p Heck we aren't even supposed to call ourselves British anymore, it is 'Brits' or 'Poms'.

-Well said! Hear hear! And all that:D