Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before you scoff and close the browser, hear me out. I'm not actively encouraging or discouraging the following idea (well, not really), but am merely intrigued by the entire concept. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an admitted anglophile and monarchist, which sets me apart from a good number of Americans to begin with. But I also have a fairly substantial background in history, and tend to read a decent amount of Victorian/Edwardian period literature and modern analysis.
I first came across the concept of a British-U.S. 'reunion' in, of all places, Sherlock Holmes. I cannot recall the case or context, but I remember a moment when one of the characters speaks positively about the idea of Britain and the United States one day working out their differences to become one country again. I was struck by the notion when I first read it, but passed it over as a fantasy of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
However, over time, I've run into this same suggestion again and again. Interestingly, the concept most commonly emanated from the leading statesmen in the U.K. who, upon visiting the U.S., became infatuated with the idea of reunification. To quote Joseph Chamberlain (father of Neville Chamberlain, and himself an extraordinarily influential British statesman from the turn of the 19th Century):
Quote:
"Their [the United States] language is English, their literature English, their traditions English, and, quite unconsciously to themselves, their aspirations are English. What damned fools we shall be if we don't exploit this into a huge Federation of English-speaking peoples!"
Contrary to the scorn we receive from across the pond today, a lot of Brits in 1900 didn't just regard the U.S. as a wayward son, but amongst the very best 'British' people on earth. We had abolished slavery, emerged as a first-rate world power and the world's largest democracy, and were fast becoming the greatest economic force on the planet. What wasn't to like?
Obviously, that was a long time ago. Two world wars and four and a half decades of cold war have greatly eroded this trust fund of charity. Today, the U.S. is far less progressive than most European countries (and damned proud of it, too). Many of us love our guns, are ardently opposed to abortion, laud the death penalty, and continue to support an interventionist agenda (though support for this last point seems to be eroding on all fronts lately). If one were to sum up Europe's view of the U.S. in a single word, it would likely be something like 'un-evolved' or 'violent.' Most of us know that this is a crude misrepresentation of the truth, and that there is a lot more to us than that. Still, unfamiliarity tends to result in a focus on a few flaws, and in the case of U.S.-European relations, we are scorned more often than we are cheered.
This only serves to throw Chamberlain's desires into a sharper relief. And, ironically, I'd argue that in some ways, they ring even truer today than they did then. The rise of China and pending ascendency of India as economic juggernauts has overturned the status quo of western dominance. Britain has lost her Empire, America her way, and the world is arguably more lawless than it has been since the time of Napoleon (two World Wars being the obvious exception). As the English continue to buck more and more under the bridle of the European Union -- discovering, much to their chagrin, that they have far less in common with the French, Germans or Spanish than they once believed -- it leaves you wondering if there was an alternative we were all a little too proud or stubborn to examine.
Anyway, just food for thought. But I, for one, would welcome a closer alliance and friendship with other members and former members of the Commonwealth and Empire. And, hell, if the NFL ever gets around to actually putting a team in London, we're going to share a real sports fandom, too (no, soccer does not and never will count). Now that's bedrock of mutual understanding we can build off of!
Seriously though, this won't ever happen. Some EU like supranational organization including USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand is slightly more likely, but still very far-fetched. The USA would be so dominant in any sort of union that the UK and any other country would effectively be giving up their sovereignty.
As a monarchist, I assume you realize this would be the death of the British monarchy. There are far more republicans in the UK than monarchists in the USA.
But the bottom line is, it's fun to talk about, but completely 100% unrealistic.
While we do share a great deal of culture and of course our language, history and geography says we should be separate. It is the geography that made us separate to begin with, not even two hundred years of English settlement and we had changed enough to warrant a revolution for independence. The process of change has continued since 1776. There would be almost no support for this on either side of the pond, as you stated the Europeans see us as backward and warlike, we see them as too reliant upon government and too liberal. I think you have a better argument for a North American Union, as a similar agreement to the European union, and that does get serious discussion. Canada and the US are only separated by politics, not by nature. If you take your idea to its furthest extreme, you are talking about re-uniting the British Empire in a voluntary fashion. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. THis would constitute an economic and military power that would literally rule the world. Needless to say most of the world would try to stop this. This idea however is more of a dream than ever being reality. Reality is that this September the Scottish independence vote could break up Great Britain itself. The English speaking nations of the world will always share a kinship of common culture and language, but Union is an impossible dream. What could happen???? Economic cooperation, immigration agreements etc. We can always strengthen the ties we have.
I can't feign love for a sport that bores me. Not to mention, these days, it feels like soccer is more of a South American pastime than British treasure. All I can do is appreciate your passion for the game. I can't fake my own, though.
Quote:
As a monarchist, I assume you realize this would be the death of the British monarchy. There are far more republicans in the UK than monarchists in the USA.
I'm actually not sure this is true. It depends on the nature of the union, and what kind of political climate we were living in. Obviously, most U.S. citizens wouldn't support living under some reinvigorated pan-British monarchy. But a lot of us adore the Queen and the monarchy, with our interests ranging from fascination (or even obsession) to contented approval.
If we step back from the petty bickering, there's a lot that 'we' (the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia and New Zealand... and sort of South Africa) share in common. With Russia swallowing up the Crimea, China continuing to make threats regarding Taiwan and attempting to expand its influence throughout eastern Asia, there may come a time when 'we' makes a lot more sense than 'them.' I'm not by any means saying that that moment has arrived (or is even imminent). But I think a lot of us -- Brits and Americans -- have this hazy sense that our collective culture is eroding before our eyes.
Reunion could stem the tide, or lead to something great that we never even imagined.
Churchill made the most serious modern incarnation of that proposal, but it was vigorously rejected by de Gaulle. If the situation in Quebec is any precedent, the French treasure their independent language and culture even when doing so transcends current trends or common sense. Frankly, I still think the ties that bind the U.S. and the U.K. are more potent than those linking England to her neighbor across the Channel, and it begins and ends with our language.
Our common heritage with England has diminished to the vanishing point. We are more like Mexico and Brazil today than we are like England. Salsa overtook catsup as the favorite condiment 20 years ago. South American social, legal, and political traditions share nothing with England or even with Spain or Portugal for that matter.
England, Canada, Australia are much better candidates for union or association than any of these would be with the US.
The United States and United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, North Ireland) are already federations of states with local governing power. You want a confederation of federations?
The the trajectory now is toward more local independence, not toward more central control. In the US, it's backlash over the increase in federal powers after 9/11. There are even minority groups in some states that want to secede from the USA, but that will never happen. In the United Kingdom, it's Scotland's referendum this fall on total independence; that actually could happen.
Yes, we speak the same language, and our system of law is based loosely on English law, but pretty much everything else is different. Personal responsibility vs. society responsibility is the biggest, but also gun control, drug legalization, driving style, pretty much all the "rights" guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, etc. And as I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility and freedom, I would fight any union attempt.
I can go with a "closer alliance and friendship", but a union will never happen.
I find the idea not unappealing. But there would be many hurdles - social, economic, etc. - that I doubt could be overcome. Besides, I doubt the Brits would have us, anyway. I wouldn't think they would want to partially inherit many of our problems.
Modern world is owned and run by credit holders. AKA international banking elite.
USA economy is owned by Federal reserve. Federal Reserve is privately owned consortioum, with it's primary owner being the Rothschild family of London, their HQ stationed in the so called Mile, or City of London. That happens to be a privately owned property, that even Q of E has little power in, due to private property laws in Britain.
So, what exactly are we talking about? Cultural and spiritual reunion of two fraternal same language sharing nations? Economies already owned by same folks anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
