Should Britain choose Europe, hang with the US, or try to make the best of both?

Britain is torn between a Right which tells us to reject Europe and embrace America, and a Left which tells us to do the opposite. Meanwhile, Tony Blair has persistently tried to do both. I argue that he’s right – to sever our ties with Europe or America would be to cut off our left or right leg – but he’s gone about it the wrong way. What’s your view?  

Debate - page 1/2

Go to page 1 2

Michael Farrar, UK

The question posed is rather a false one since I don't see anyone asking it in such stark terms.Even President Chirac,despite differences over Iraq,does not intend to place France outside an alliance with the US.He frequently talks of France as the US's "oldest ally." He resents,quite rightly,Blair's claim to be uniquely qualified to speak to the US.Blair made an appalling tactical blunder in supporting the US war on Iraq.He isolated Britain from its European partners and gained nothing from the US in return.At least the falsity of the 'special relationship' was openly exposed but will Britain learn the lesson - namely that British interests can only be advanced in partnership with its EU allies ? I doubt it.

An important argument for a more positive British engagement with the EU lies precisely here.It is only through working within the EU that Britain can hope to regain influence on the world stage.Blair has left the country ridiculously bobbing around in the middle of the Atlantic.

What is to be done ? Certainly at the moment it is necessary to win the argument for a more positive British engagement with the EU.I have just outlined one reason why this is necessary.A further argument,which is not developed by TGA in his book,is that the EU,despite its imperfections,is the only practical way to set about the cooperative management of a continent that is notoriously unstable and which has the potential to become more so with the increasing number of centres of political decision-making - this goes for all areas of policy from fisheries through agricultural policy to environmental issues to foreign policy.This is why it is also in the interest of the US to support European unification.An unstable Europe twice in the last century forced the US to intervene. It is not in the US interest to continue to have to do this.

Kenneth Perry, Natural Born Englishman

A common currency has nothing to do with political affiliations. I remember my Grandfather showing me Golden Sovereigns in 1923. The Gold Standard was a global common currency for centuries. When it was abandoned the value of all currencies,including the Pound simply depended & depends on their acceptability as a tool of barter. My Pound as a pensioner goes much further here in Somerset than in London where I was born. But it is the same Pound.

Erwin D., Flemish (Belgian)

My opinion is that the English should be some kind of glue between Europe and the United States of America.
When England prefers one of these two and when they reject the other, they'll always be the minority.
So I think that when England plays this politcal game with some good old common sense, they'll choose to be allies with Europe ánd the USA. In that case, the United Kingdom will have a very powerful position. European states like Germany and France will have less power because they aren't the best friends of Uncle Sam (for example: the war in Iraq) but England's power will increase because they are the only "big nation" who's joining the USA in all his militairy adventures.
I think the NATO-countries shouldn't have so much rows, there are large problems in this world waiting for us like terrorism, the economic and military power of China and so on, let us solve them together instead of complaining about eachother. "United we stand, divided we fall!"

Gabor Palasti, University of Miskolc, Hungary

The question must of course relate to situations where there is a conflict of interest in a matter between the U.S. and Europe and therefore Britain has to decide which to follow. In my opinion the right choice is the EU, and so far this has mostly been the choice indeed. As for the war on Iraq, the UK chose the coalition with the U.S. only on the level of the government but not on the level of the population and so the choice the government made was one against its own public (compare that with the wide public support of the war on Iraq in the U.S. - esp. in the 'eye for an eye' atmosphere after 9/11). Aznar made the same mistake - the Spanish government chose not what its people did, and he paid dearly. So my answer would be that the UK government should choose what its people chooses. Note, that in many other matters the UK seems to follow the EU rather than the US - e.g. environmental matters, genetically modified food, etc.

Tim Worstall

A false choice as presented. There is no requirement to be either part of the EU or the 51 st state. The UK should remain what it is good at, being the UK. We already subcontract out swathes of things that used to be considered Great Power politics: defense to NATO, trade to the WTO, etc etc. Why be part of any bloc? Why not just be free and independent?

Brad, Michigan, USA

You have not gained nothing. Us Americans truly love the UK. We have roots that go deep. Blood is thicker than water. For myself, I would greatly love to see much closer relations between our countries. After all, we are historic allies, not enemies as you are with France and Germany. Why not expand NAFTA to include the UK (and Australia and New Zealand)? Heck, why not a similar organization to the EU? I do not say this as a desire to see the UK as a 51st state. Though Kissinger once said, 'countries do not have friends, only interests', I do not agree. We are friends. No, we are family. Nurturing this relationship, however, is in everybodies interest.

Richard Winter, Europe

Should Britain choose Europe? Yes. Why? Because it has no choice.

 

John Rennie, England

The nation state has some way to go before it becomes part of history. England, the oldest nation state of them all,
is by no means ready to give up what makes it unique. It may well be economically advantageous to have closer ties with either America or Europe, although that's doubtful in the short term, but wealth is not that important compared with independence. The Celts can do what they like.

 

M. Bastian, France

The UK should do neither: to cut off the ties with the US would be counterproductive for its own national interests, and indeed, wouldn´t even conform to EU interests. Not even France or Germany have ever considered cutting off ties with the US. On the other hand, it shouldn´t isolate itself from the EU, or it will loose much of its status. Britain, like all the other EU nations, can only thrive as a "global player" if it works through the EU. It has enough clout within the EU to make sure its vital national interests will be respected, so the fears of the british eurosceptics are just that: unfounded fears based on an old and outdated insular mentality.
At the moment, I even see a chance that Britain might act as a catalyst to repair the damaged EU/US relations. That´s what seems to be happening in relation to Iran, for example.

Towerbuddha, The Land of the Free

I think Britain needs to remain Britain. It doesn't need to give either the USA or EU a blank check when it comes to issues that effect the British people.
As an American, I think Britain has better friends in America then those in the EU. Friendly relations with powerful nations (the USA and the EU) may not seem important during this transitional time in history. However, as the century progresses and Europe continues its steady morph from Europe into Eurabia, absorbing large Muslim populations that do not integrate into European society, Britain will have far more in common with peoples west of the Atlantic then those just across the channel. They might need a strong friend and a transformed EU probably will not be able to assist, morally or politically. Of course this hinges on whether Britain can either integrate or stop its own exploding Muslim population in time to save its heritage/identity.
Someday the nation state might become a part of history. When it does, there is a harsh reality that limits the developement and implementation of a One World Government... So many stars won't fit on the American Flag.

D.L. Granberry, USA

Global population will become predominantly Moslem and Chinese over the next fifty years with Hindus being the third largest fraction. Clearly, Western Civilization as we have always known it is about to undergo major changes or, perhaps, be entirely subsumed by a rising civilazation that is only vaguely like ours.

Bertrand, France

Since the fall of the Grand Armada through the Napoleonic wars, the late 19th century WW I and II Britain has always been on side that would prevent a united Europe as an outcome. Of course ideological justification existed and fighting Nazism among other things was not a mere tactical choice. But conveniently enough , Brittany has always found itself on the side of the current European losing power, and also made sure no clear winner would prevail on the continent.
For the same motive of weakening or distract their rivals, as French Aristocrats sponsored the American Revolution, England helped whenever appropriate Prussia, Russia or Germany to defeat the continental power of the day. This was just good realpolitik.
Even Churchill admitted to de Gaule again in 1941, "Britain will always chose the open sea" which I believed could be translated by -please Europe, stay divided spend time, money and energy fighting each other when we conquer the rest of the word-
This certainly worked pretty well so far, and the outcome of Blair next move may appear predictable but things may be a little different this time:
- The French nor the German are ready to lift an army because of pure hate of each other. Primal nationalism is gone, reviving it is not realistic nor politically acceptable.
- The economy are now so intertwined that every European understand that absolutely nothing remotely economically bad for their neighbors can be good for them. All the sabotages have been tried yet, Britain's option here are running out, at this point the choices made on the Euro and the integration hurts the 'Ablion' more than it hurt Europe.
No more hope with Nationalism or the Economy as means to divide the continent. But a peaceful Europe is not yet a strong unified Europe. But the last hope of division opportunity may be gone. What Europe needed was a common goals in a shape of a common rival or adversary.
And thank to Bush's style, Blair's help (what an irony), blunder on Iraq and now Bush's re-election, Europe got just that.
Now you have it, the long awaited common objectives is here. Aside from a Martian attack what is better than a superpower to challenge ( and limited risk after all, common on he is not really going to bomb us, is he?).
Blair's next move ? Well, if choosing the English speaking Empire lead by the US sounds appealing to a large nostalgic English population and may sound as a logical evolution from the Imperial, it may not be so wise. History may be knocking at Blair's door. The political opportunity is huge: choosing Europe openly and fully would really bury 1500 years of European rivalries and really take a stand for peace and democracy.
With a clear and firm UK engagement with Europe, there would be not turning back. With such an incredible regain of faith in the future of the EU, Blair could easily become the great leader with a vision and will and would be remembered as the one leader that did the most courageous act for the European Unification. Unification that he could not avoid anyway.
As for the alternative, what would he gain from the option to go blind with the US, that Britain did not already got in the last 4 years ( exactly, not much..)?
Sure the US would like to prevent losing their best ally: may the courtship begin, election is next year...
However in the end if history can be shaped, not much that can be done with geography and the Island are in Europe not matter what some might say !!

Mark S., France

Tony Blair is continuing the policy of Winston Churchill and other British Prime Ministers when faced with the question : Europe or America, which do you choose ? (Churchill famously told De Gaule that when faced with such a choice, it would be the US. De Gaule never forgot this)
The truth is that Tony Blair is playing a very old game. While Europe remains divided as now, our interests (and indeed our security) are best served by allying ourselves more closely to the US than Europe. The problem is that Britian is a very much a European state, in sharp conrast to the US model.
Take the example of Britain and France. Both cherish the notion of a market economy with social controls, including a comprehensive welfare state and free healthcare. They have also learned from their colonial experiences that behind the scenes diplomacy and lobbying brings better results than direct application of military force. Both are middle-sized ex-world powers with a reduced international role but continuing aspirations to be major players on the global stage. Both seek to ally themselves to bigger players (America / China) and risk ultimately to be left out when these allies find such an alliance no longer works to their advantage. Not least is their physical proximity, which makes their mutual good relations a necessity more than a convienience.
Contrast this to the US, where the free market rules with few social safeguards and healthcare is a luxury for those with money or stable employment. A country which might seek but does not require international approval to act in its own interests. A country surrounded by oceans, and somewhat ignorant of the rest of the world. This is not Britain or France.
The simple truth is that Britain and Europe share a common concience from a common past and they also share a common future. When Europe buries its differences and develops a common and practical defense force together with a unified economic model, there will a driving force for a British PM to put Europe first. Tony Blair should be working harder with his European homologues to bring this day forward, and not waste his time playing power games with the US president.

Irene Adler, USA

Dear Mark S:
"Contrast this to the US, where the free market rules with few social safeguards and healthcare is a luxury for those with money or stable employment."
You are quite ignorant of American healthcare programs. The US spends a cool 1/2 TRILLION dollars on publicly financed healthcare expenses for the elderly, the disabled and the poor. This is only federal spending, mind you; individual state and county legislatures may apportion more healthcare expenses out of their own state and local tax revenues, at their discretion.
I am so sick of Europeans waxing self-importantly as "experts" about what our government does or doesn't do without bothering to check their facts. The US annual itemized federal budget is posted online on several different sites, easily found with a few minutes' worth of Googling; there is no excuse for this type of ignorance. You, sir are clearly listening to the bleatings of your cliched, anti-American, socialist press (which also seems incapable of investing a few minutes' time in Google) and swallowing it as the gospel truth. It isn't. Looks like it is not only Americans who are "somewhat ignorant of the rest of the world."
Regarding European social welfare programs, they are a luxury bought partly with American military subsidiaries. When Europe has to pay for its own defense, you will quickly find out how much the American military subsidiaries are worth; already you do not have the money to pay for your extensive welfare budgets and the loss of US military subsidiaries will only worsen the situation.
Regarding "They have also learned from their colonial experiences that behind the scenes diplomacy and lobbying brings better results than direct application of military force," give me a break! Where has this worked in any of the world's hotspots? Rawanda? Darfur? Pakistan-India? Israel-Palestine? North Korea?
Your condescending, ignorant, Guardianista-type remarks about the US -- which seem to be shared by 90 percent of the European population -- are one reason why we have grown increasingly disgusted with Europe -- Western Europe that is -- Eastern Europe has yet to grow such enormous, ignorant, childish egos as their Western brothers. Pfeh!

Sean USA

I feel a far deeper cultural connection to England than any other nation in Europe, certainly greater than that which we share with fair-weather ally France, let alone Germany. As an American, I view the world as a rather nasty and hostile place. When the barbarians are at the gates, England is the only country that can be trusted. Also, English culture is superior to the rest of Europe's, even if the weather isn't. Give me the land of Shakespeare over that of de Sade any day. Even Voltaire preferred the English.

Christian L, London, UK

Much like the recent US presidential election, this too, is a question determined by, yes, values. Why? Because the US is now firmly set on a political and cultural course which will take it further and further away from the common liberal (not in the American political sense) humanist values we have shared since the Enlightenment. The rejection of conservative catholic Rocco Buttiglione for European Justice Commissioner, the Roman church, its cultural and moral world-view, was symbolically and conclusively rejected by the only body which can lay claim to represent the peoples of Europe ˆ the European Parliament. With the re-election of a president, and solid majorities in both houses of congress a majority of Americans have signalled that they are fed up with the Enlightenment values their country was founded on. They no longer want a strict separation of church and state, they no longer think a woman should be sovereign over her own body, they think creationism is as scientifically valid as evolution, they consider gays second-class citizens worthy of constitutionally enshrined discrimination (so what? They‚re all going to hell anyway), they think that middle east policy should be determined by prophesies about the so called holy lands and the second coming, they are hostile to science in conflict with their mythological fairy stories (the bible) and consider seeing a naked breast on TV (Janet Jackson) morally worse than owning a gun. If we cherish the values of British society: a conviction in the power of reason and persuasion as opposed to force, scientific inquiry as opposed to religious mysticism, the equal value of all individuals in society regardless of race, sexuality, gender, physical ability or age ˆ then we have to join forces with the group of countries where these values have the greatest chance of not only survival but flourishing. And, very conveniently, we happen to belong here geographically as well. I used to understand and love (parts of) that great big experiment called the United States. I no longer do either.

Ward Schelfhout, Belgium

Tell me your vision of Europe and I'll give you the answer to that question.
Do you have a grand vision of Europe as one of the 4 (great)nations of the 21st century or do you have a vision of Europe as an ideologically and demographically exhausted market-battleground of national and regional interests ?
In the UK the latter (or no)vision dominates and the policy is to try to scavenge the European corpse for titbits to plaster up imperial hubris souvenirs and get approving nods from Master Washington.
If the British can make their vision come true (80% probability they can), then siding with the US as the 52nd state is undoubtedly in the British interest.
But as you might discern, what is in the interest of Britain depends on what vision it harbours.

Bob Powelson, Belgium

Winston Churchill once spoke of a federal union of the English speaking nations. That is an idea that I have long agreed with.
What a bastion of western civilisation that would make. The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and sundry litte chunks all over the world. More than 325,000,000 million people, about 9,000,000 square miles of land. Vast resources, including about 60% of the worlds fresh water. We speak the same language, have similar traditions and legal sytems to be nice fit together.
Besides, who could argue with us then?
If I were British I would realize that the US is a far better friend and ally than any nation in Europe has ever been.

Susan Murray, USA

Mark S. from France writes: "Contrast this to the US, where the free market rules with few social safeguards and healthcare is a luxury for those with money or stable employment."
I've read so many misstatements about America in these dicussions and above is one more example. Healthcare is not a luxury. Everyone in America has access to healthcare, whether it is paid for by the goverment or by insurance and some people can afford to pay for healthcare out of their own pockets. We don't all have access to healthcare insurance because the way insurance is regulated in the United States is at the State level where some states' laws say that an insurance company can exclude high risk people and some allow no exclusions.
More people have healthcare insurance where states allow those exclusions because it is so much cheaper for the insurance companies. The states, with help from the federal government, pick up the people who have been excluded by the insurance companies.
Anyone who needs healthcare in the US can get it even if they cannot pay. People who are on federal assistance have good healthcare. People who have insurance probably have the best healthcare in the world. It is a complex problem trying to provide everyone with affordable healthcare insurance and one we will work out in time. Most Americans prefer not to federalize healthcare as in Europe. The vast majority of Americans want to be able to buy affordable healthcare insurance from private companies.
To state that healthcare is a luxury in the US is simply false. Is it logical to think that in a country where 70% of the "poor" own their own homes, have multiple cars, TVs, cell phones, designer clothes that they would not have access to basic healthcare?

J, USA

Europe. We need the tough love here...

Jan Paul, USA

Is Tony Blair cutting his ties with Europe and choosing the U.S. or just "old" Europe? Or, is he just trying to do what he thinks is right and what is supported by many in "new" Europe which he hopes to trade with? Look at this list of nations that allied with the U.S. in this war.
Armed alliance preparing for invasion:
United States (permanent member of UN Security Council): 235,000 troops; United Kingdom 1.60 (permanent member of Security Council) 45,000 military personnel; Australia : 2,000 troops; Poland 200 troops.
Unarmed support in the Gulf:
Bulgaria (elected member of Security Council)- chemical warfare experts; Czech Republic - chemical and biological warfare specialists; Romania - non-combat personnel; Slovakia/Ukraine - chemical experts.
Permission for use of military bases/airspace: Bahrain ; Kuwait ; Qatar ; Croatia ; Spain (Security Council) ; Jordan ; Italy; Portugal ; United Arab Emirates; Ireland ; Turkey
Other supporters of war: Israel ; Canada ; Japan (post-conflict support); South Korea ; Denmark ; Netherlands ; Afghanistan ; Albania ; Azerbaijan ; Colombia ; El Salvador ; Eritrea ); Estonia ; Ethiopia ; Georgia ; Hungary ; Latvia ; Lithuania ; Macedonia ; Nicaragua ; Philippines ; Uzbekistan
Or, is it just possible he was just looking out for England and thought his own intelligence agency was right about WMD? What he had invaded and we were his allies? Would the world view be the same? Probably.

Steve, UK

The choice facing the UK is often described as one between alliance with the USA or with France (taken to represent the EU)but that's not the whole story.
The UK and France were quite able to realise that dialogue is better than war, 100 years ago, in the Entente Cordiale, without the help of the US. However, in more recent times, two events have changed the two countries perceptions of the USA.
The first of these was World War 2. France was invaded, but the UK escaped this because of 21 miles of Water and the RAF. The second event was Suez in 1956, when France and the UK, having acted militarily together, had to withdraw after the US withdrew "protection" from a threatened Russian nuclear attack.
Because of these events, two similar countries in similar situations took a very different outlook. France sought security and prosperity within the EU; and who could blame her over-riding wish to get so close economically and politically to the country that had invaded her 3 times within 100 years with such disasterous consequences that a future war between them would be unthinkable? On the other hand, the UK sought the same things by getting even closer to the USA.
In my view I think the UK is too close to the US, and should not forget its European situation, identity and history. Scotland has had an alliance with France for over 700 years. Most of the soldiers under Wellington at Waterloo were not British, etc.
In addition, people in the UK should be aware that the USA has not always been a close ally; for example it invaded Canada in 1812 and continued to covet it until the mid-1800s.
Also, although I must salute the bravery of those millions of Americans who came over to liberate Europe in WW2, and the debt we owe to them, it should be remembered that many in the USA wanted to allow the UK to be defeated, mainly out of dislike of imperialism and to take over its global trade. The USA only entered the war 2 years after the UK had held off the German invasion in the battle of Britain, and even then only when it had too (it was attacked by Japan and Hitler foolishly declared war on the USA). It demanded a high price for ancient destroyers under the lend-lease scheme, and, as mentioned above, pulled the plug on Suez.
Of course we do owe a lot to America, as the Arsenal of democracy, the country that fiancially rebuilt Europe after the war, and our leader during the Cold War. I have seen the graves in Normandy, and can only guess at the bravery of the men who came half-way round the world to fight and ended up being burried there. But the UK should take a long view of its position in the world and remember that its interests are on the one hand intertwined with a stable and peaceful Europe's, and on the other not always the same as those of the USA.

David, Citoyen du Monde

I have trawled this site, like so many others which try to conduct a civilised political debate, and it is frankly amazing that everywhere, sooner or later, someone starts with the gratuitous insults based on presumed national character, or the sweeping prejudicial judgments based on a tiny slanted sliver of the factual information available.
Take, for example, the US healthcare budget -- yes, it's vast, but that's largely because the prices charged for drugs are so astronomical, because expensive 'cutting -edge' treaments are favoured over basic health support, and not least because it's a market-driven system where you get what you pay for, and people are prepared to pay vast sums. AND YET, tens of thousands of US citizens illegally import prescription medication from Canada because it's several times cheaper, and millions of US citizens DO NOT have any form of meaningful healthcare cover. These also are facts. They also have nothing to do with the question, but then neither did the original post.
Slightly more pertinently, are the US and Britain 'historical allies', and Europeans our 'historic enemies'? The last war fought between Britain and the USA ended in 1815. [Score: Britain, one torched White House; USA, one new National Anthem]. The last war Britain fought against France ended in, Oh, 1815! Apart from some brief unpleasantness in the late 1790s, the USA and France have NEVER gone to war against each other.
For pete's sake, get your stuff together here! The world is going to hell in a handbasket and you're bickering on a website where the exact opposite is supposed to happen

Irene Adler, USA

Well, Citoyen du Monde, whenever the Euros start up their America-bashing, they start in with our healthcare. It's a boring, stupid and idiotic cliche that we're fed up with hearing about.
Beats me why Euros are so obsessed with our healthcare system anyways. Do you think we don't know about the Superbug hospitals in the UK? The hundreds of Brits who travel to India for needed surgeries they can't get under their "universal" socialized medicine? The old ladies who wait in a queue for five years before they get a hip replacement? The 55-year-old heart patient who must wait behind the 35-year-old heart patient for treatment? The 15,000 French old people who roasted to death in the summer of 2003, partly because many of their wonderful socialized medical providers were off on a month-long holiday? I had a friend who broke her ankle while living in Italy; she described her treatment there as "Third World" quality. Before you scold us for not buying your product, maybe you should take a look at the quality of what you are selling. Years-long queues for hip replacements and other needed surgeries don't look all that enticing to American eyes.
Regarding our drug costs; yes, they are expensive because we subsidize pharmaceutical R&D for the rest of the world, Europe included. Without Americans paying full freight to finance drug company R&D, breakthroughs in drug research wouldn't be nearly so plentiful. Europe freeloads off of our medical system, not that we expect to hear any thank-yous any time soon.

Ross Gurung, France

Hello to all big chatters,
I, for one, find quite pleasant to make our world on web according to what we think just. Pl. Irene Elder of the US, don't be so filthy by spitting your poison on Europe.
Mr.Sean of US, all Europeans really love The Americans but not their far right government. The English people always live in the past as they always did.When they were in Indian subcontinent all those 'bums of the scums of London-ask Kipling' played the Nabab by plotting against the local potentats. The result was, as everybody knows, a naked ascetic called Gandhi kicked them out manu militari.Britain ought to be in Europe 'cause world commands that.If everybody accepts that only the supremacy of mind prevailes Britain should not stay with their nostalgy, if not it will be a nightmare in the quigmire of rivality between the west and the muslim world.

Peter Trevino, USA

"Should Britain choose Europe, hang with the US, or try to make the best of both?"
Neither, nor. Britain is the best country to serve as a mediator between the two parties. Britain has the exact conditions, thoughts and characteristics to be right in the middle between the European thought and the American thought.
I could not expect France or Germany or Greece, nor for that matter, Mexico or Russia or any other country to be the half way entity to serve best the relationship between Europe and the United States. Britain is strong, independent and wealthy enough to not need to have to choose between Europe or the United States. Yet Britain needs both for its own and the world's Peace.
I guess if I had to choose among the three choices of the original question I would say: "...to make the best of both."
And I have complete confidence that the British people have what it takes to meet their own needs and those related to keep the relationship between the United States and Europe in good stand.

Glen Hards, Saxon-American

Howdy Folks,
England is the land of my fathers fathers, Angelcynn Saxon and Celt for over a thousand years, and before that Northwest Europe their fathers fathers flourished for thousands of years. America is a land once known for its Englishness and love of the motherland, as well as of course for North America, many people from Europe immigrated here and found rich soil for their seed and here they flourished here in this land, this rich resourceful land which they took with such hostility and without due recompense from its aboriginal peoples. Scots, Anglos, Germans, French, Italian, they all came here to sow their seed, now they would turn on their fathers fathers brothers sons and daughters, and curse them and spite them as a different animal, a foriegn race, an enemy power, this ought not be so. I don't see where an imaginary line like a border, or the span of a Sea, means one should be seperate from and or ignorant of who he/she really might be, their genetic makeup, folk history, the colorful history their ancestral fabric, no self Identity, no cultural identity, no Heritage, just a consumer directed, media generated, product of bigotry and hate, emersed in sensual pleasures and vanities, supporting an indignant fascist regime. If we free ourselves from the Bush, and those of his nature, the dark elves, we free ourselves from a future dark with the rumblings of war, smoke-filled skies with the innocents cries, I see a wave of deep depression as it crashes loudly on the sharp jagged rocks of despair and the seemingly endless grey foaming spray dropping like nails piercing our hearts it is cold with death and disorder and nightmares of doom from which there is nowhere to repair, the things goodmen stood by and watched, unwilling, unknowing, uneducated, dishonorably they slept, lets be fair, they just combed their hair, and snickered at the homeless guy on the corner, who in turn just looked hard and focused on the heartless man from afar, way across the street, and how so much devided them, and that they were brothers from birth seemed so strange, No! Said heartless, of that thought, he would not entertain, This is America, Land of the Free, whoever be poor is poor cause he be, up by the bootstraps young nazis do pull, and attain wealth and honor in our prize society Bull. Knowledge is hoarded love for dollars and dimes, then sold to the rich to commit their dark crimes of keeping division and deciept the sign of these times, Heimdal will soon blow his horn, the gods will storm accros bifrost and gather in the plains of Muspel, and ragna-rok this world, Vidar has slain the Wolf and Loki is on the run, then we will be in a brave new green world, when he is finally, eternally and internally, overcome.

Irene Adler, USA

Ross Gurung: "Pl. Irene Elder of the US, don't be so filthy by spitting your poison on Europe."
I am not being "filthy" nor "spitting poison" on Europe. The things I named are all happening in Euro-land. Yet I find it puzzling, all you Euros seem to want to do is ignore them while constantly spitting venom at the US. It's like a kind of sickness. Really, get over it. Quit obsessing on our healthcare, our poor people and what have you, and start worrying about yours.
Already now in Holland, doctors are starting to put old people and handicapped infants to death because they are too much of a burden on the welfare state. (Cloaked in fine words about relieving the suffering of the hopelessly ill, of course, but it's awfully suspicious that this is starting to happen just at the time when the welfare state/Ponzi scheme is starting to experience revenue shortfalls.)
Are you not worried about this state of affairs? Are you not worried that one day YOU will be the old grandpere who roasts to death because your medical professionals couldn't be bothered to interrupt their six-week vacations? Why continue to lecture, lecture, lecture the US when you've got so many of your own problems to take care of?

Michael Bastian, France

To Irene Adler,
> I am not being "filthy" nor "spitting poison" on Europe. The things I named are all happening in Euro-land. Yet I find it puzzling, all you Euros seem to want to do is ignore them while constantly spitting venom at the US. It's like a kind of sickness. Really, get over it. Quit obsessing on our healthcare, our poor people and what have you, and start worrying about yours.

> Already now in Holland, doctors are starting to put old people and handicapped infants to death because they are too much of a burden on the welfare state. (Cloaked in fine words about relieving the suffering of the hopelessly ill, of course, but it's awfully suspicious that this is starting to happen just at the time when the welfare state/Ponzi scheme is starting to experience revenue shortfalls.)
So now we outright kill our elderly and handicaped people to save money. Miss Adler, you asked us to stop obsessing on your healthcare. I for one am quite prepared to do that since, frankly, your healthcare system is of limited interest to me personally. However, in return, please stop calling us names, suggesting we are murderers or depraved or decadent etc., especially since you clearly haven´t got the slightest idea of what you are talking about. It´s insulting to us and it´ll only serve to unnecessarily promote the rift between us "Euros" and you "Yanks".
> Are you not worried about this state of affairs? Are you not worried that one day YOU will be the old grandpere who roasts to death because your medical professionals couldn't be bothered to interrupt their six-week vacations?
Like I said, get informed on the issue before you start making inane statements like that. It´s not about "roasting" people, medical personel in Europe generally and in the Netherlands in particular are far from having six-week vacations and no doctor here will let his patient die because he´s too lazy to treat him. I mean, honestly!
> Why continue to lecture, lecture, lecture the US when you've got so many of your own problems to take care of?
Well, let´s make a deal, then: you stop lecturing us and we´ll stop lecturing you.

Ross Gurung, France

To Irene 'Adler'of the US,
Irene, I changed your name Adler to 'Elder' in order to show my due respect to your flagrant knowledge of the social security. I'm not at all an expert in these matters. Only thing I know that the present situation would not last very long. Somebody said before me that the Europeans prefer security, whereas, the Americans of the USA prefer autonomy. So everybody tries to find out the appropriate solution to these doldrums. Only thing is what kind of solution? Do you have anything ready-made?

Scott Loranger, United States

For Britain to make its decision, it must first understand US foreign policy. I'll explain it here, straight and to the point: WE'RE NUMBER 1! WE'RE NUMBER 1! AND WE ONLY WORK IN OUR OWN BEST INTERESTS! ahem. You see, the British have to realize that the United States has no real interest in them. They are expendible to us, believe me. Therefore, I believe Britain needs to align itself fully with the European Union. In the European Union, Britain is a critical player and I believe, should push toward further integration into the EU. It still baffles me as to why Tony Blair would go along with this war in Iraq...Bush must have promised him something for his troubles. Please Britain, stay away from the US, we will only hurt you in the end.

Amanda, USA

Campare the Nation System of England and France to Germany and Italy. What ideas might the Germans and Italians have used to make their nation building more successful. Does every Country use the Nation system to run their country. thanks

Alfredo Bremont, France

in one respect Britain is now an extension of the American nation on the other hand it is the other way around, this makes Britain in the middle of both. now we have the question of time when is Britain at the service of the American nation and for how long, them the other theories fallow. Britain in fact does not exist as a nation today it is a sort of mess fallowing a dying elephant; English language and its heritage does exist worldwide and it is fallow by the rest of the planet. Britain we can say is Shakespeare alive.
the actuality is related to the culture of the western world at large which is on its last legs; moreover western culture is European culture, American culture is continuity of the European mind and extension if you like, Americans have the difficult of existing without Europe, which they are unable to, simply because 77% of American are of European origins. they might believe otherwise but they will look at their green eyes and pale skin and they know were that is coming from.
so in fact America is just an illusion based on advertising and commercial propaganda. this exist thanks to the Europeans derange mind and clever industrialism.
freedom does exist, rarely and on very few individuals, what differs between one nation and the other is how they complement their repression and how they diversify the freedom that each citizens is allow to exercise. for instants a fresh citizens has certain freedom that the American does not have, consequently an American will have a different side of freedom that the fresh will Lock, in conclusion freedom exist when you combine the different elements in each different nation, individual all nations oppress their own citizens.
in fact freedom does not exist, Why, there are many reason to it which will deviate the subject.
in this new 21 century real freedom can materialise to the human race, hopeful it will be achieve.
all the elements are there for such a liberation to take place, the question is would anyone see it.

Steuart Payne, South Africa

There is, of course, more to the world than the USA and the EU. Obviously so, but sometimes the two entities seem to spend so much time looking at each other that they forget.
Anyway, speaking as neither a European nor an American, I look forward to the emergence of the EU as a superpower (or, rather, a more influential power in world politics. I don't know what a superpower is, actually. Does anyone?). I feel the EU has a more realistic vision of the world than does the current US administration and to have the ancient and brilliant cultures of France, Italy, Greece etc. in a more prominent position would be beneficial to all.
Not least the USA. The current position of the USA is, I think, as unhealthy for the USA as for anyone else. Where is the America of Woody Allen or Gore Vidal? It's there, thank God, but submerged in triumphalism and nonsense. A little weakness is needed, a little reminder that the rest of the world has something to offer. A little reminder that being a friend does not mean always agreeing. (Of course, should the EU find itself in a position similar to that of the USA today, it might suffer the same problems. I hope for the balance of a multi-polar world).
Should Britain move closer to the other European nations? Well, I am uncomfortable with the idea that political boundaries are as important as some here seem to believe. A Euro-African or Australian-American Union would make about as much moral sense as a European or African Union ˆ the fact that someone is separated from me by land and ocean is no more a separation than a separation by land alone.
Britain certainly should divorce itself from the current US administration - if it is going to be independent, be independent. But I fear that Britain‚s position is going to be increasingly impotent, without influence on US policy and without credibility in Europe. And, as someone who is rather fond of Britain, I find that regrettable. I looks like I do want it to choose Europe. Well, well.

james cooper, usa

Dear Sir
A false choice.
Britain was, is, powerful because it is small!The Kaiser described its army, at near the peak of its power, as comtemptibly small. A 20 mile moat meant it was militarily isolated but intellectually integrated with the World. That World was Europe and is now the whole.
As a colonial power it gave education a priority, several including Harvard within in a few years of the founding of the colony. India had 3 at least in the 19th century. Inevitably these countries wanted Independence. There was not a single graduate in the Congo when it became independent in 1961 and it was a wealthy country then, Union Miniere perhaps the wealthiest company in the World.
The US has so much in comon that it will always be a partner.There is no "Western" culture. Before 1500 most technology came from the East. without Arabic math notation, no renaissance. How else can a citizen express themselves without democracy? Unfortunately the US fails to understand that Coke and Blackstone established that democracy ensured reasonable law, hence the Supreme court over the executive.
These common values ensure the continuation of partnership.Is it a coincidence that Denmark and other Nordic countries surport the US in Iraq?

Dee Klein, Paris

Scott Loranger, United States
"For Britain to make its decision, it must first understand US foreign policy. I'll explain it here, straight and to the point: WE'RE NUMBER 1! WE'RE NUMBER 1! AND WE ONLY WORK IN OUR OWN BEST INTERESTS! ahem. You see, the British have to realize that the United States has no real interest in them. They are expendible to us, believe me. Therefore, I believe Britain needs to align itself fully with the European Union."
I live in France. Nowhere is the concept of national interest more alive than in Paris or London. I think you are alluding to the ability of the US to act in a unilateral manner and believe this contrasts with the multilateral tendencies that the European left believe to be so credible. In reality, European impotence restricts European nations to pursue avenues where they have a distorted advantage over the US. In the arena of international diplomacy, the EU out numbers the US 25 to 1 and thus every issue of international discussion is pushed into this circle and maintained there as a means of leveraging as much power away from Washington. This is simply the pursuit of national interest restricted by the limits of one-sided 'soft' power that most European nations have trapped themselves with, and continue to dress up as multilateralism. >In the European Union, Britain is a critical player and >I believe, should push toward further integration into >the EU."
I havent seen any reason to deprive ourselves of our sovereignity other than to influence the direction of European policy in our favour. It roughly translates as, you have to be in it to destroy it.

Ernest Mathebula, South Africa

Does Parliament matter as a body of political decision making in Britain?

Ray Vickery, Canada

I note that Jan Paul lists Canada among the nations that supported the aggression against Iraq. This is simply untrue, and so obviously untrue that it is hard to believe that someone doesn't know it.
I have read a considerable amount of attacks on Europe for its various misbehaqviurs in this debate. While certainly no-one would deny that the record isn't all that good, neither is that of the United States. Americans have an unfortunate habit of failing to see the beam in their own eyes while looking at the mote in the eyes of others.
The United States has:
(i) engaged in covert and overt "Operations" against independent states; from "Operation Zapata", and "Operation Northwoods" against Cuba, through "Operation Condor" in Chile, through years of euphemistic operations such as "Operation Just Cause" against Panama and more recently "Operation enduring freedom" against Afghanistan, and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" against Iraq
(ii) promoted the spread of Evangelical Christianity around the world, undermining local indigenous cultures, and instilling fear through the dangerous, and absurd belief in the "rapture", "Armageddon" and "left behind" and denigrating other established beliefs and practices
(iii) propped and financed military dictators that furthered its vested national interests and targeted and assisted in the assassination of leaders of other sovereign states, who interfered with US national interests.
(iv) established over 700 military bases in sovereign states around the world
(v) produced weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical, and biological, in defiance of the global commitment made at Stockholm in 1972 to eliminate the production of weapons of mass destruction., and refused to abide by the Non Proliferation treaty obligations, and violated the Geneva Protocol related to prohibited weapons
(vi) circulated nuclear powered or nuclear arms capable vessels throughout the world, and berthed these vessels in urban ports
(vii) planted land mines throughout the world, and failed to sign and ratify the Convention for the banning of Landmines
(viii) moved towards the militarization of space, and increasing the arms race through the US Anti-ballistic Missile Defence system in violation of the Outer Space Treaty
(ix) used weapons such as Depleted Uranium and cluster bombs that would be prohibited under the Geneva Protocol II
(x)abandoned significant obligations under key international
non-proliferation treaties
(xi) perceived justice in terms of revenge through military intervention
rather than seeking justice from the International Court of Justice,
(xii) misconstrued Art 51 (self defence) of the Charter of the United
Nations to justify premeditated non provoked military aggression by
illegally invading Afghanistan,.
(xiii) misconstrued prevention of war by adopting a policy of
pre-emptive/preventive attack to aggressively attack sovereign states that
are designated as being on the axis of evil, by illegally invading Iraq in
violation of
the UN Charter article 2 and international law and has committed the
'supreme' international crime of a war of aggression
(xiv) undermined the international resolve to prevent the scourge of war by
intimidating or offering economic incentives in exchange for support for
military intervention; (the US continually cajoles, intimidates, and
bribes, on other members of the United Nations.)
(xv) participated in the assassination of or assassinated state leaders who
interfere with US interests or who are deemed to be a potential threat
(xvi) promulgated propaganda for war in violation of the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
(xvii) ignored the provisions in the Convention on the Right to Correction
which affirmed:
",,, to protect mankind [humanity] from the scourge of war, to prevent the
recurrence of aggression from any source, and to combat all propaganda
which is ether designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression
(xviii) failed to reduce their military budget and reallocate military
expenses and transfer the savings into global social justice as undertaken
through numerous UN Conference Action Plans and UN General Assembly
Resolutions. (The US spends over 500 billion per year on the military and
is the major exporter of arms)
(xix) demonstrated disdain for the international rule of law, and refused
to accept the jurisdiction or decision of the International Court of Justice
(xxiv) disregarded obligations incurred through conventions, treaties, and
covenants; and made commitments through conference action plans , related
to the Public trust/ Common security - peace, environment, human rights and
social justice
(xx) failed to sign, failed to ratify, failed to enact the necessary
legislation to ensure compliance with, or respect for Public Trust
international Conventions, Covenants and Treaties,
(xxi) undermined international obligations incurred through Conventions,
Treaties, and Covenants, and commitments through UN Conference Action
Plans, related to the Public Trust or to Common Security -peace,
environment, human rights and social justice
(xxii) failed to act on commitments made through UN Conference Action
Plans, or failed to fulfill expectations created through General Assembly
Resolutions.
(xxiii) extended "human security" to mean "humanitarian intervention" to
legitimize military intervention
(xxiv) violated Geneva conventions on the treatment of civilians, and has
violated both
international human rights and humanitarian law during the occupations of
both Iraq and Afghanistan
(xxv) violated the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(xxvi) engaged in cruel and inhumane punishment through the practice of
capital punishment, in violation of accepted international norms
(xxvii) promulgated globalization, deregulation and privatization through
promoting trade agreements, such as the WTO/FTAA/NAFTA etc that undermine
the rule of international public trust law, and condoned corporations
benefiting and profiting from war
(xxviii) advocated and supported IMF structural adjustment program, and
exploited vulnerable and indigenous peoples around the world
(xxix) opposed an international commitment to transfer .7% of the GDP for
overseas aid, failed to support the canceling of third world debt
(xxx) promoted the privatization of public services such as water, and
health care, and reduced funding for universities, and promoted corporate
funding of education and corporate direction of research
(xxxi) promulgated globalization, deregulation and privatization through
promoting trade agreements, such as the WTO/FTAA/NAFTA etc that undermine
the rule of international public trust law
(xxxii) subsidized and invested in companies that have developed weapons of
mass destruction, that have violated human rights, that have denied social
justice, that have exploited workers, that have destroyed the environment.
(xxxiii) failed to ensure that corporations, including transnational
corporations comply .. with international law, and to revoke charters of
corporations that violate human rights, destroy the environment, denies
social justice and contributes to war and conflict
(xxxiv) opposed Mandatory International Ethical Normative (MIEN) standards
and enforceable regulations to drive industry to conform to international
law, and supported corporate "voluntary compliance"
(xxxv) failed to revoke charters and licences of corporations that have
violated human rights, including labour rights, that have contributed to
war and violence, and that have led to the destruction of the environment
(xxxvi) promoted the privatization of public services such as water, and
health care, and reduced funding for universities, and promoted corporate
funding of education and corporate direction of research
(xxxviii) contributed to environmentally induced diseases and poverty
related health problems and denied universal access, to publicly funded not
for profit health care system
(xxxix) produced or permitted the production of toxic, hazardous, atomic
waste, and failed to prevent the transfer to other states of substances and
activities that are harmful to human health or the environment as agreed at
the UN Conferences on the Environment and Development, 1992.
(xl) produced, promoted, grown or approved genetically engineered foods and
crops and led to a deterioration of the food supply, and heritage seeds
(xl)i disregarded obligations to not defeat the purpose of the Convention
on Biological Diversity which the US has signed but not yet ratified
(xlii) ignored the warnings of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate
change, disregarded obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate
Change (to which the US is a signatory) and refused to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol
(xliii) discriminated on the following grounds:
- race, tribe, or culture;
- colour, ethnicity, national ethnic or social origin, or language;
nationality, place of birth, or nature of residence (refugee or
immigrant, migrant worker);
- gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or form
of family,
- disability or age;
- religion or conviction, political or other opinion, or - class, economic
position, or other status;
(xliv) denied women's reproductive rights, in contravention of commitments
made under the International Conference on Population and Development
(xlv) (xlv) denied fundamental rights through the imposition of religious
beliefs
(xlvi) enacted anti-terrorism legislation that violates civil and political
rights, and engaged in racial profiling
(xlvii) targeted and intimidated activists and discriminated on the grounds
of political and other opinion (a listed ground in the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights- to which the US is a signatory) ;
The FBI has included the following in their designation of terrorists:
"... category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally profess a
revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the
people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism and imperialism.
They aim to bring about change in the United States through revolution
rather than through the established political process."
"Anarchists and extremist socialist groups -- many of which, such as the
Workers‚ World Party, Reclaim the Streets, and Carnival Against Capitalism
-- have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential
threat in the United States. For example, anarchists, operating
individually and in groups, caused much of the damage during the 1999 World
Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Seattle."
"Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and
left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to
resolve specific issues, rather than effect more widespread political
change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically
motivated violence to force segments of society, including, the general
public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their
causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life,
environmental, anti-nuclear, and other political and social movements."(xlviii) failed to distinguish legitimate dissent from criminal acts of
subversion.
(xlix) engaged in racial profiling
(l) discriminated against immigrants, and failed to sign the Convention for
the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families(li) Continued to be an international rogue state, intruding and
intervening, unilaterally and abandoning multilateralism
(lii) Undermined the notion of democracy by couching a plutocracy/theocracy
in democratic notions of "freedom". So let's have an end to the parade of supposed virtue.

Ben Piggot, UK/US dual citizen

To the Americans who think Britain is culturally similar to the US, I say spend some time in Britain. The Brits - really the English - don't like Europeans - in many cases for historical reasons - but at the same time, Britain is much more culturally similar to France, Holland, Norway, Germany, and so on than it is to the US. This is true in any number of fields: religious faith, the welfare state, popular culture, sports, etc.. So Britain will remain at arms length to both.
So as many above note, Britain is best served remaining a bridge. Because it shares many basic societal values with continental Europe (at least in comparison to the US), but it shares language and history with the US. It'd be silly for Britain to "choose." Its stronger by not doing so.

Ben Piggot, UK/US dual citizen

Irene Adler,
I think the back and forth is kind of silly. In some ways, you either like or prefer a certain set of choices or you don't. I think what bugs Europeans about the US is that many right-wingers in the US simply assume it is self-evident that the US is the greatest country in the world and that everybody should naturally agree. When other people prefer other choices, it angers said Americans, and then this silly debates starts.
Frankly, there are pluses and minuses to living in Britain, France, the US, Canada, wherever. One has to weigh what they prefer. Personally I think Britain and Canada come closest to getting it right. While the US has much to offer, I find it too conformist and puritanical. Still, I don't begrudge you your preference for the "American way." Just don't begrudge others their choices.

Ray Vickery, Canada

I note that many people in this thread have commented on the supposed virtues of both public and private health-care systems, and think that my experience might be interesting.
A few years ago, my doctor felt that I might need heart surgery. It seemed likely that, as this was not life-threatening at that stage, there might be quite a wait for it in Canada, so I suggested that I might have it done in the United States.
The doctor said that this would be a good idea, provided that I nailed down the diagnosis in Canada˜she felt that, given the room on my Visa card, it could be done immediately in the United States, but that it might well be done whether I needed it or not.

Emilio Fernández Castro, Albacete, Spain

Could you explain to me why they, I mean, the Brits, have to choose? I am a Spaniard and if anybody told me I have to choose between Europe and Latin America I immediately say: "are you absolutely crazy?". My roots are, at the same time, on both sides of the Atlantic. I know that Miami, or Havana, or Buenos Aires, are not the same as Madrid, Valencia or Santiago, and I can say the same about Paris, Berlin or even (why not?) London. But all those (wonderful) places have a part, a piece, of my cultural and historic heritage. So, why Brits have to choose?

Ian Crawford, UK

Personally, i believe that we should have a closer relationship to Europe, than to the US. On moral grounds rather than economic ones.
It is common for most to see the benefits of one or the other in terms of power or wealth, neither of which are important after a certain level, which we reached years ago.
If you take them both to their extremes then you are left with a country that is run by the military-industrial complex, as shown by the US.
What interests me more is how we are moving towards Orwell's "prediction" in 1984, and whether or not this is a desirable position to be in?

Jake, US

I don't know what all this stuff is about Great Britain having to "choose" between us and the rest of Europe. I have nothing against either, but is Europe really so different from the U.S.? Sure this Iraq guff they are more against than for, but we are relatively similar. We may speak different languages, but we all simply want our countries to grow and prosper in relative harmony right? I really don't see the U.K. having to make any choice between my country and Europe.

Emilio Fernández Castro, Albacete, Spain

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JAKE!!!!
I'm a proud European, but just because I'm very proud of my historic and cultural heritage, I've always thaught the same, because I'm not only aware of the many differences between the US and the EU, but also the huge list of things we've always shared. I wish there were much more Americans and Europeans who could express the same.

Joseph D, UK

It appears to me that the British people are rather schizophrenic in their relations with The US and Europe. It has been noted that we favour secular society and government, and slightly socialist welfare system. However, the average Briton does not trust the average European, ancient stereotypes and prejudices are very much alive. Ridiculous bureaucracy and wastefulness in European institutions continues to make further integration politically untenable even to pro-European politicians like Blair.
I think the average Brit feels more akin to the American people, maybe a lot to do with popular music and movies. However, the rise of the religious right and its dominance of the body politic in America is widely regarded as very worrying. The war in Iraq brought a lot of uneasiness about America to prominence and if we had a half-decent opposition party may well have resulted in a change of government in the coming election.
However, I do think a choice has to be made. It is clear that the American government only does what is in its own interests, as it right, which leaves the UK as a lapdog. Therefore, the only choice for the UK is to engage in and try to improve Europe. Europe needs to wake up, liberalise its economy, start looking after its own defence and figure out how to integrate the growing musilm population. We need to get over our ancient prejudices and realise deep down our social values are closer to liberal Europe than Puritan America. Also, its a lot closer.

Ron Walker, UK

I agree with the central premise of the question. The "centre ground" of politics (that which divides "right" from "left", and upon which there's mass consensus) is different when looked at on opposite sides of the North Atlantic. And the UK sits somewhere between the two (in other words, I don't think this is an "economic" issue - it's a cultural one as much as anything else... peoples' perceptions of the differences between "right" and "wrong")
And that's where the question collapses into a heap. Europeans may be able to agree on what's an acceptable ingredient for sausages, or how much of strawberry jam should actually BE strawberries... they've even agreed on a single currency. But on cultural and moral issues, even on what the law IS and what it's FOR... we're a long way from consunsus, and (as a "hard question") it's one that is being avoided.
Activities that are routine and commonplace in Italy or France (like "Pistonage" - the exchange of subsidised housing for political favours) are criminal offences in the UK and Germany. The French regard "law" as kind of a "declaration that you're generally in favour of something". Merely passing a law doesn't mean that you have any intention of actually *enforcing* it. The Brits on the other hand do enforce the laws we pass. That's why we're perceived as being so damned DIFFICULT about the details when negotiating treaties. (And have the best record in the EU on enforcement of the treaties we DID sign up to)
In some ways, we're very like the USA (or the USA as it thinks it is) in others, we're more like the EU. Like the EU, we believe that there's more to life than economics (check the number of days holiday Europeans and Brits get.... compared with Americans!) We believe in free healthcare, redistribution of wealth to protect the poorest... which makes us more "European" than "American". We disdain political corruption like good Northern Europeans (and most Americans, with the obvious exception of American politicians and lobbyists)
So, the REAL question surely is "why can't we just be ourselves?" When Kruschev told Russians to work harder, they asked "Does he think we're Germans?" Each nation has its own unique collection of beliefs on what's right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad. And that's something you can't easily "federalise". Moreover it's probably something that *shouldn't* be harmonised. The problem that arises from this is that a nation's laws represent a formulation of those cultural aspirations. Passing a law with which nobody agrees merely brings the institution of "The Law" into disrepute.
I resented and resisted Thatcher's attempt to Americanize the UK. We're NOT Americans: "we have different dreams". I'm worried by Blair's claims that "American values are our values". (If he truly believes that, then why doesn't he emigrate?) But I also resent and resist the attempts by people like Delors to turn us into "Europeans"... because in reality, there's no such thing.

Jonatha Bailey, United Kingdom

It is apparent that within this day and age multilateralism is becoming increasing important as a means of extending one's sphere of influence. The United States can ill afford its present stance on multilateralism. A solution must be found, and that solution is to accept more multilateral policies.
For example, within the international community there has been a lot of hype over canceling African debt. If the United States were to make a real commitment to canceling African debts, many countries would begin to accept the US as a multilateral organization.

C. Martin, American

In response to one reveiw by a Christine L., I'd like to point out that last time I checked, it wasn't a bad thing to have values. Values, to my mind, normally means "morals" which are generally regarded-even by most Europeans-as a good thing to have. Not having "values" has produced atrocities. Now, given that Ms. L. seems to be very anti-American at this point in time, it seems logical that she'd applaud our recent discovery of "values", given that we have the largest military in the world. If we have "values," it makes us less likely to murder 28 million people like Stalin did, doesn't it? If Ms. L. has a problem with our "values," then I'd suggest that she either take a good, long look at her own or reconsider her point of view. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked it was not a crime to be religious. As to her referral to abortion, I'd like to point out that after a woman becomes pregnant, she begins to share her body with another human being. If people can cavalierly throw that human life away, then I'd say that the world is in trouble.

Joe, US

My guess is that it's all rather academic. By any number of indices, the UK IS in fact a bridge between the two--linguistically, culturally, politically. In fact I'll go a bit farther afield and say that the whole "structure" looks rather like this: US-Can/Aus/NZ-UK-EU, with most of Latin America as sort of a side road, if you will.

Michel Bastian, France

To Ron Walker:
> I agree with the central premise of the question. The "centre ground" of politics (that which divides "right" from "left", and upon which there's mass consensus) is different when looked at on opposite sides of the North Atlantic. And the UK sits somewhere between the two (in other words, I don't think this is an "economic" issue - it's a cultural one as much as anything else... peoples' perceptions of the differences between "right" and "wrong")Indeed. Absolutely right.> And that's where the question collapses into a heap. Europeans may be able to agree on what's an acceptable ingredient for sausages, or how much of strawberry jam should actually BE strawberries... they've even agreed on a single currency. But on cultural and moral issues, even on what the law IS and what it's FOR... we're a long way from consunsus, and (as a "hard question") it's one that is being avoided.
No, I strongly disagree with that assessment. We don´t have that many cultural and moral differences, and we don´t disagree on the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law. What we do have is a problem with quite a bit of sovereignty and power having to be given up to EU institutions if we want the EU to function. That´s why France, Germany and the UK are being difficult oftentimes.
> Activities that are routine and commonplace in Italy or France (like "Pistonage" - the exchange of subsidised housing for political favours)
"Pistonage" is a general slang term meaning favouritism. And that´s not specifically a french or italian problem.
> are criminal offences in the UK and Germany.
And in France, too.
> The French regard "law" as kind of a "declaration that you're generally in favour of something". Merely passing a law doesn't mean that you have any intention of actually *enforcing* it.
I´m sorry, but that´s just untrue. As in the UK or Germany, laws will be enforced in France. Even the ones that are unconfortable to certain politicians.
> The Brits on the other hand do enforce the laws we pass. That's why we're perceived as being so damned DIFFICULT about the details when negotiating treaties. (And have the best record in the EU on enforcement of the treaties we DID sign up to)
Nope, part of the reason why the Brits are so damned difficult about european treaties is their insular mentality and the fact that the Iron Lady out-negotiated all the other european leaders when she was PM. Not that the french don´t also nurse quite a heavy dose of nationalism when it comes to the EU, but I´d say the most genuinely pro-european country in Europe is Germany, not the UK. Incidentally, if you want a stickler for legislative detail, take a german, not a brit. Germans have a passion for working out laws down to details nobody else even dreamed of and nobody is likely to ever need. That´s part of the german economy´s problem: overregulation. Actually, I think there is still a good dose of rivalry between Britain and France, so when it comes to the EU, they tend to want to throw a monkey wrench into each other´s plans. Britain succeeded best at that until now, but the french are catching up ;-).
> In some ways, we're very like the USA (or the USA as it thinks it is) in others, we're more like the EU. Like the EU, we believe that there's more to life than economics (check the number of days holiday Europeans and Brits get.... compared with Americans!) We believe in free healthcare, redistribution of wealth to protect the poorest... which makes us more "European" than "American". We disdain political corruption like good Northern Europeans (and most Americans, with the obvious exception of American politicians and lobbyists)
Hmm, I´m not sure british politicians and lobbyists are much better in that respect.
> So, the REAL question surely is "why can't we just be ourselves?" When Kruschev told Russians to work harder, they asked "Does he think we're Germans?" Each nation has its own unique collection of beliefs on what's right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad. And that's something you can't easily "federalise". Moreover it's probably something that *shouldn't* be harmonised. The problem that arises from this is that a nation's laws represent a formulation of those cultural aspirations. Passing a law with which nobody agrees merely brings the institution of "The Law" into disrepute.
I resented and resisted Thatcher's attempt to Americanize the UK. We're NOT Americans: "we have different dreams". I'm worried by Blair's claims that "American values are our values". (If he truly believes that, then why doesn't he emigrate?) But I also resent and resist the attempts by people like Delors to turn us into "Europeans"... because in reality, there's no such thing.
Yes and no. Yes, there is no such thing as a european national identity (although, if the Bush administration keeps on sniping at individual member states, there might well be one soon) and no, there is a common cultural and political denominator. You said it yourself: the term "social market economy" was coined in Europe, and that includes Britain. Culturaly and historically, we have our differences, of course, but I think that´s not an obstacle that can´t be overcome. The problem is that building Europe is a bit like walking on a tightrope: you have to respect very diverse national identities and sovereignties, but at the same time, you have to have a functioning european union. And of course, there will be conflicts because of that. The motto of the european union describes it perfectly: united in diversity. Will it work? We don´t know yet, but I damn well hope it will.

Mike, London

I'm afraid this has nothing to do with the debate on this page.
To C Martin-
The presence of values are more likely than anything to cause atrocities. Stalinism did not kill millions because of it's lack of values, but because of it's values (i.e. communism and industrialisation). People's values differ, and that's what causes conflict. Showing respect for the diversity of other people's values, within reason, avoids conflict.
I think your conception is telling, as what you have done is equate 'values' or 'morality' as meaning (what I assume to be) your own western Christian values. You wrote:
"If Ms. L. has a problem with our "values," then I'd suggest that she either take a good, long look at her own or reconsider her point of view"
This is the reason religion should be avoided in government- it allows for only one world view, and through a process of dialectics undermines and devalues those that differentiate. Abortion is a perfect example. Personally, I feel that, done early enough, abortion is often the moral thing to do. To my atheistic mind, an early feotus is merely a collection of cells, and to bring an unwanted child into our crowded world is more cruel than to terminate a collection of cells which has less complexity than a plant. Our values differ on this- it does not mean I have no values.
Another of my values tells me it is wrong for people with one set of values to force them onto others who do not share them, as this is the basis of religious persecution.

Michael Woodley, United Kingdom of Great Britain

It is not a question of whether Britain should embrace either Europe or America; it is a case of Britain embracing its self.
My compatriots in Britain, we have the fourth largest economy on the planet, and preside over the single largest geo-political organization in existence, namely the Commonwealth of Nations. Britain‚s influence and POTENTIAL power is unrivaled! All over the world we have established our selves as the arbitrator Nation who diplomatically clears up after America, and we have thusly earned the respect of the third world. Our Great Empire created the political and social infrastructures to which many of our former colonies owe their success and continued existence. Many of them have affirmed their loyalty by embracing the principles of the Commonwealth of Nations, and have retained the head of our State as the head of their own. People, the Commonwealth is our greatest asset!
I know the British people, we are a nation of the third way, our destiny in the world does not involve either Europe or America it involves the new Empire of the Commonwealth. To quote Sir Oswald Mosley, „The art of life is to be in the rhythm of your age‰ and the long ignored rhythm of our age is the Commonwealth. If we could prioritize our trade with the poorer countries and give them British expertise and technologies, we could develop their infrastructures, and if in return, if we could receive just a small fraction of their mineralogical wealth, we could forge the greatest civilization the world has ever known!
We did it once before and we have all the tools needed to do it again!
America has lost the will to power, it is in a state of decadence and decline as a world power, within 50 years its economy will look like nothing compared to China. Europe is an unstable pseudo-construct on the verge of collapse, held together, barely, by the Utopianism of Socialist internationalists. It is an attempt to forge a super-nation out of nations whose cultures have put them in a state of interminable conflict and war for the last one thousand years, so it is doomed to failure!
I say again, why should we intertwine our destinies with these? Why should we take sides in this? The destruction of the European Union and the disintegration of America as a world power represent the end of an epoch, the passing of one great era and the birth of a new one! We British are creatures of destiny, we can seize this opportunity, and we must! Only a strong Britain backed by a strong Commonwealth can compete with China in the coming decades.

Jan Paul, USA

The belief that Canada didn't support the U.S. is covered in this article
http://www.nowar.ca

Jake, US

Sure thing Emilio! Even though I have done very little international travel, I am trying to increase my open-mindness about the international problems and topics. I just am glad that we all have close ties and are able to share our knowledge. I myself am finally going to Europe; Germany that is. I am glad I have the oppertunity to go and I think we should all encourage things like exchange students to streangthen our international ties.

John Bancroft, England

As the debate over the EU constitution (belatedly) begins, the differences between Britain and the rest of Europe will hopefully be brough to the fore so the British people can reject absolutely a foreign, undemoctratic, historically different European continent.
The Anglo-Saxon world born of the UK (USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) is not homogenous but it differs in important ways from Europe.
IMHO, I would rather be the 51st state of America, than a constituent state of the EU. The garden of Britain blew its seeds across the Atlantic for them to blossom, but is now being choked by the weeds of Europe blown across the English Channel.

Michel Bastian, France

To John Bancroft:
> As the debate over the EU constitution (belatedly) begins, the differences between Britain and the rest of Europe will hopefully be brough to the fore so the British people can reject absolutely a foreign, undemoctratic, historically different European continent.
Would you care to be more specific? How is the european continent "historically different" and "undemocratic"?
> The Anglo-Saxon world born of the UK (USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) is not homogenous but it differs in important ways from Europe.
IMHO, I would rather be the 51st state of America, than a constituent state of the EU. The garden of Britain blew its seeds across the Atlantic for them to blossom, but is now being choked by the weeds of Europe blown across the English Channel.
I´m not going to comment on that "british seeds" and "european weeds" bit, since it´s a nice phrase, but clearly meant to be polemic.
51st state of the union? Better get used to it, because if the EU fails, that´s all you´re going to be: a vassal of Washington. Time to decide for yourself: would you prefer to continue playing poodle to Washington (because that is all you are going to get; don´t delude yourself that the US will give you any say in any matter of consequence) or would you rather be a full-fledged member of a powerfull union of states with a completely revolutionary political concept and the possibility of making the british vote count for something? Hmm, not too complicated a choice I should think.

Emiliano, Italy

Hello,
I came here and read all this messages after having search on google for "english people-rest of europe"... Trying to see if it's only me or also other people feels something strange over here.
Of course, the subjects in this site are a bit different but please let me say something.
I've been living in England for 4 years now. Why?
Because I can do easily lots of jobs, more than in Italy...!
I'm a maniac? I can work in a primary school so easily.
I'm not drinking alcohol until I fall every step but just every three? Maybe I can be a bus driver.
I can't properly use my hands? No problem, I can work in a processing food factory.
I know just a bit of medical things and, of course, I'm foreign? I can be a rich doctor!
Well, this are some of the examples that makes this country (or I should say the whole Great Britain) a strange place where to live. With both, the good and the bad sides of the medal. Good economy, for sure. But also rich people houses with Jaguars, and, behind their walls, poor children left on the road by drunk young couples.
I've been reading lots of things about economic reasons to be friends with the Usa, or pound verse euro.
But the real thing to do, for me, has something to do with the society: why don't TRY to see what other people from everywhere in the world can offer to us (and to you british, in this case) ?
The list is full of nice things!
Water mixed half cold half hot, rinsing plates after soap them. Ah, sorry, this is just the igienic list, nobody cares about it anymore, today.
Well... What about opening the eyes and see what's going on on british pavements, while Blair is happy with our (gosh) Cavalier Silvio (eeeew), uhm?
If you go out where I live (north west) there is just and I say JUST one thing: DRINKING MESS.
And it's a joke the police that makes "safe" roads everytime, giving to people the mirage of better life, while after, at night, you can't put a foot out that a band of human young worms (also called chavs, but I call them clones, because they look all the same, no?) is ready to kill you, if they feel that's nice to do to get out from their boring existences.
Ok, I can't post a calm letter here, too many things going out and poor english language in me.
I'll think about "our" mafia, don't worry!
But you civil educated english people (and I know you must be somewhere!) please do something for your own country!
Make it a better place, because it's not THAT great ...!
Why it'so common thinking over here the fact that "schools" are not important,"uncool"?
Last thing: I've never ever thought before land here to go out a night walking with a small dog and be shouted by a bunch of sweat patriotic pub guys "gay dog", just because my dog wasn't a "men's one"...
Or, to end, I've never been attacked verbally and (unfortunately) phisically like over here. Where young or even old people are always ready to make jokes about my hat ( ! if I wear one) or shout out from their car windows at me, when they passes on the road.
Europe it's so bad, maybe. So full of evil people (our Silvio, first of the list!).
But I'm sure, hundred percent sure, that "we" (commie dirty meltin pottish european?) have got such a better society. But to explain what I mean for "better" it's too long now...
Remember that when I get angry about what I see around here (Uk) it's just because I really love this country, it's a beautiful land but... You know what I mean?
Sorry again the "out of subject" and the bad english.
(But, again... Try to write me a letter in italian and then we can speak about it ;)

Alex, UK

Mr. Woodley, I have to say that out of this whole discussion your view is the only one that is in any way acceptable. The US has opposed us at every possible occasion from the Revolution to supporting Napoleon prior to the 1812-1814 war. Following WW 2 they banned us from retaking our colonies straight away, because Imperialism was wrong, but they retook the Phillipines! The Suez crisis was another case. Despite the special relationship, they refuse to support our stance on Africa and Global Warming, they renounce terrorism, yet support Sinn Fein and the IRA. Are they really our allies? Europe on the otherhand are no better, trying to stop the rebate and our optout from the 48 hour working week. These are jealous attacks on the UK because of our superior economic situation. No true ally would do this. We have to look towards the Commonwealth, after all the Empire, which there is no denying made mistakes, was moving towards becomming a Commonwealth of equal Dominions, but war interrupted this. Why not re-instate this policy?

Robert Burnett

In 216 years the US went from disparate colonies to the world's Gold Medal champion. We got there despite Europe or their elites who preferred aristocratic pretensions. The UK is willing to be poodle in order to bask in the reflected glory of America. America's history has seldom seen it on the wrong side. We seem to always get it right typically by ignoring Europe or taking advantage of its excesses. We are the world's marker and have never been matched in human history for providing common good. Its ideas, influence, and culture is commonly feared by those who have good reason to not want or not able to compete with America's love of universal concepts of liberty, freedom, and democracy. These concepts personify America and distinguish us from European harpers and carpers. The UK and US would not make a good close match because UK's loony leftists are a fait accompli in that culture, whereas, in America we don't do socialism. The role by the UK of being a poodle is realpolitic. It's either that or being a doormat for the Vichy-Prussian controlled EU axis. Whatever choice UK makes, the US needs to maintain its unilaterialism which alone allows it to triumph over the forces of evil.

Go to page 1 2

 

Debate - page 1/2