Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote: (I don't care about US culture either).

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not worried about losing culture because living cultures change all the time. Britain has "lost" culture to US and Australian TV shows.

Since Australia is sorta descended from Britain, isn't our culture just sort of like the slowed cousins-culture dropping in to pay a visit? Rather that the US which is completely split off.

dogma wrote: (I don't care about US culture either).

It must really kill you to know that not only are you a part of that culture but that you contribute to it.

I always said, the day England loses the pound and it's sovereignty is the day I move to either the US or preferably Canada.

Not that I have anything against the US, I just prefer Canada's weather.

I'm moving next year anyways, the UK is getting flushed down the crapper.

I was, at one stage, very proEuro. But again, just like joining the common market, we've dragged our heels and arrive late to the table, after France and Germany divided up the spoils... And there are other nations who have joined that will pull us down to a lower common denominator.

The centralised government is also riddled with corruption and bs and back-scratching cronies.

Don't you worry. The European aristocracy is well on its way to finally ridding itself of that pesky democracy fad. They'll get the serfs back in the proper place soon enough.

On the subject of the referendum, I think things like the Lisbon treaty aren't really suited to them. They're multifaceted and nuanced, and require a detailed knowledge of the current structures and how they will change, and understanding of various higher order political implications. A simple subject like "Do we want abortion" is much easier to have a referendum on, and you're much less likely to get misinformation campaigns.

One group, Cóir, who are a conservative catholic group, had posters up saying that the minimum wage would drop to 1.84 this time round. Last time, they were saying our neutrality would be violated and there would be conscription. Then, they were saying the EU would take away our abortion ban. All of these are untrue. When polled on why they voted no, these were some of the biggest reasons. That and losing our commissioner. So the EU went and made it so we'd keep our commissioner, and then gave legal gaurantees for the other issues. Hilarious, because the other issues weren't part of the damn treaty anyway. It was the legal equivalent of a pinky swear to do what they said they'd do and not engage in some massive paddywhacking conspiracy.
While the no campaign was polluting the public discourse with misinformation and fear, the yes campaign were flacid (in the first vote) or completely aspirational (in the second vote). By that I mean they avoided the content of the treaty altogether and said things like "We're better with Europe" etc. Which has nothing to do with the treaty again- it wasn't a vote for membership!

Finally, I was disgusted by the behaviour of the French on this issue, as they felt the need to make threats at several times. I intensely dislike larger nations in the EU trying to boss smaller nations about especially on issues like this, so the French Foreign Minister can suck my fat one. It also backfired horribly. Threaten the irish electorate (or any electorate) and they react very negatively.

So, that was a long post. What am I saying? The lisbon treaty was damn complex, I decided a yes was the right answer despite not liking bits of it. I'm pro europe and pro european integration. I think the No Campaign were scummier than the Yes, but both sides had people I'd rather spit on that speak to. (UK Independance Party, the British Conservative Party and Sinn Féin all holding hands together on the one issue? Woo.)

Ireland is a republic. We elect people to make decisions for us. In some cases, they know more about the issues than average joe gobshite on the street. This was one of those cases.

Politics.. we all get fethed. Eu politicians feth us, our own politicians feth us, every politician feths everyone!

Now, im waiting for someone to attempt to pick apart my slightly jokingly worded humorous statement, but i have to stand by this. Does any country on earth not think that their politicians are sneaky lying bastards?

Its simple to me, the EU is a bad idea cos we get MORE politicians.

I think we should half the size of parliament as well. These fethers are taking the piss out of us all.

Ahtman wrote:
It must really kill you to know that not only are you a part of that culture but that you contribute to it.

If that were the case, then I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about it.

Hmmm, I'm not great at politcal views, I just shout my extreme ones and hope people listen.

What annoys me about this whole EU thing is that we only bend to them when we want something restricted. When something could be opened up to the UK we go out on a limb to prevent it. e.g EU laws on immigration and transport are much better than ours but we refuse to embrace them.

The OC-D

One of my econ professors was lecturing us on how the EU is starting to regulate trade from each country. For example: Britain I found out actually has a wine industry, mostly dessert wines though. I had a bottle when I was there and thoroughly enjoyed it. I tried to find some here, but found out that Britain is not allowed to export its wine because of the amount shipped by countries in Europe. I was kinda pissed to be honest...

ermm... that's not true I'm afraid.

We do have a (small) wine industry, and there might be some restrictions but there's no (well known anyway and not affecting the 2 farms I know locally who export plonk quite successfully at least) such law.

Perhaps he/she was getting confused witht he labelling restrictions we have ? For example in the EU only grapes grown in a certain region of France can be labelled as "Champagne", even if said product otherwise identical.....but I'm sure you've seen Wayne's World and know this anyway.*


*Disclaimer : may be Wayne's World 2.. Whichever one has Rob Lowe in.

EDIT : See 2nd paragraph here.

Our business is growing all the time and our greatest challenge is making enough wine to satisfy the demand. Today Chapel Down wines are surprising and delighting informed wine drinkers all over the world; you can find us in bars, restaurants and wine stores in Paris, Sweden, Japan and Hong Kong, as well as the better hotels, restaurants and stores in the UK.

I personally am severely hacked off with Europe. The EI is nothing more than a creation of politicians to give themselves more jobs and money. It's completely undemocratic, it's throroughly corrupt, and completely un-British.

As said before, the Uk, and its associates get along. I can meet with a welshman, a canadian, and an australian, and feel we have something in common. The same goes for scotsmen, south africans and the irish. Europe on the other hand, has no sense of shared unity or history with us. The people are different, the philosophies are different, and the cultures are different.

The Labour government sold us out. I was praying to god the Irish would hold out one more time, because if they had, the tories would have been forced to hold a referendum when they came in. Now, their hands are tied and we're committed to this ludicrous expansion of the United States of Europe that absolutely no-one has had a say in. It's stalinistic, and to be perfectly honest, if it goes any further, I'm emigrating to Canada. Enough is enough. The day the EU military is formed is the day I leave this country.

Unlike the US, we have no written constitution here to protect our rights. The Labour government has sold our sovereignty over the channel to an undemocratic instituion that supercedes our own democratic one in all areas of law, and now, foreign policy. I wouldn't mind another Empire with the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Canadians, Australians, and South Africans. But the French and Germans? No thanks. We still have some pride and dignity left, even if it is just the tattered remains of a bygone age.

A few corrections to the above post.

Sorry.

It's completely undemocratic, it's throroughly corrupt, and completely un-British.

err nope. Britain, especially Churchill, was very influential in getting the project off of the ground... something to do with being keen to avoid another world war after the last 2 started in Europe.

I can meet with a welshman, a canadian, and an australian, and feel we have something in common. The same goes for scotsmen, south africans and the irish

That might be language related perhaps ?

Europe on the other hand, has no sense of shared unity or history with us.

What ? This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you seriously telling us that Britain has no common history with France or the Roman Empire ? Really ? We also haven't had several centuries of alliances and wars with/against those countries ? Entente Cordiale not ring any bells ?

The Labour government sold us out.

Rubbish. Who took you into the Common Market and Europe ? Which deputy PM was it said "The nation state is dead." ?

if they had, the tories would have been forced to hold a referendum when they came in.

Why would they have been "forced" to do so ? There's no such requirement in the UK constitution.

Unlike the US, we have no written constitution here to protect our rights.

..errr. no. Aside from the "living" constitution of the Constitutional Monarch we also have the Human Rights Act....courtesy of the EU...hmm.. irony.

I wouldn't mind another Empire with the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Canadians, Australians, and South Africans.

Clarification please : which ones..just the white ones ? And you don't think the rest of the world might perhaps be a bit PO'ed at this "Empire". Not least as you somehow appear to be claiming that whilst we are unable to form a coherent policy with nations next door to each other and connected by centuries of trade and understanding.. we would, apparently, be able to form one with countries on the other side of the world.. really ?

err nope. Britain, especially Churchill, was very influential in getting the project off of the ground... something to do with being keen to avoid another world war after the last 2 started in Europe.

If Benjamin Disraeli had helped lay the framework of the American Constitution, would that make it British? No. Not to mention the fact Britain did not actually join the EU initially, and held out for quite some time. And I think it is distinctly un-British to have a spureme authority in the courts of law unanswerable to the British oublic, regardless of who helped lay the framework.

That might be language related perhaps ?

To an extent. However, I've always felt I've had more in common on a personal level with the Canadians I've met than the Americans, regardless of sharing a language. Something to do with personality and national character I think.

What ? This makes no sense whatsoever. Are you seriously telling us that Britain has no common history with France or the Roman Empire ? Really ? We also haven't had several centuries of alliances and wars with/against those countries ? Entente Cordiale not ring any bells ?

The Roman Empire is irrelevant, as Britain actually did not exist then. As for France. we've spent as much time fighting them as we have allying with them. I do not think the phrase, the enemy of my enemy is my friend' any real basis of common ground between nations, it's just political expediency when faced with another military power. Not quite the meaning of the word 'unity'. We have very little in common, in culture, or character.

Rubbish. Who took you into the Common Market and Europe ? Which deputy PM was it said "The nation state is dead." ?

Here I was referring to Labour signing the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.

Why would they have been "forced" to do so ? There's no such requirement in the UK constitution.

It was part of Cameron's manifesto to hold a referendum if the Lisbon treaty had still not been ratified by the time he came into power.

..errr. no. Aside from the "living" constitution of the Constitutional Monarch we also have the Human Rights Act....courtesy of the EU...hmm.. irony.

The British constitution is unwritten, and the monarchy, whilst holding technical power, has none in reality. It's like how the British Empire could technically be reformed if Parliament passed an act decreeing it so, it might technically be the case in law, but would never work in reality. And the human rights act to this day does not stop the Council snooping through our dustbins. There are many flaws with it.

Clarification please : which ones..just the white ones ? And you don't think the rest of the world might perhaps be a bit PO'ed at this "Empire". Not least as you somehow appear to be claiming that whilst we are unable to form a coherent policy with nations next door to each other and connected by centuries of trade and understanding.. we would, apparently, be able to form one with countries on the other side of the world.. really ?

To be perfectly honest, I believe we should make something more of the Commonwealth, simply because our people all have something in common. As to the whole 'white ones remark', I actually have several black south african friends who might take issue with your 'white ones' only remark. South Africa, is, as things stand, the most democrtic remaining power in all Africa, even if it currently looks to be sliding the way of Zimbabwe. With some proper changes in law to prevent such bad corruption, I think it isn't such a lost cause.

And our centuries of 'connectedness' with Europe is one of war and political expediency, not through any real integration of our people's or culture. Geography is not the issue here, the difference in culture is. And why would the rest of the world be hacked off by it? I'm not thinking of invading anyone, just a greater unity of people's with a similar culture and heritage.

Ketara wrote:
If Benjamin Disraeli had helped lay the framework of the American Constitution, would that make it British? No.

In the sense that it would contain British influences, yes.

You seem to be under the impression that if any given thing less than completely British, then it is not British at all. There's some credence to that idea, but only if you acknowledge that any statement about the "European" nature of a thing must contain some reference to the fact that Britain contributes to any such notion.

Ketara wrote:
And why would the rest of the world be hacked off by it? I'm not thinking of invading anyone, just a greater unity of people's with a similar culture and heritage.

Because the creation of a new power bloc is almost always against the interests of anyone not in said bloc.

In the sense that it would contain British influences, yes.

You seem to be under the impression that if any given thing less than completely British, then it is not British at all. There's some credence to that idea, but only if you acknowledge that any statement about the "European" nature of a thing must contain some reference to the fact that Britain contributes to any such notion.

I think a certain percentage of British influence would be required to make it British, not 100%, more like 50%. I do not believe Churchills contribution anywhere near significant enough to make it qualify as British.

Because the creation of a new power bloc is almost always against the interests of anyone not in said bloc.

Fair enough. But why should I put the rest of the world's interests ahead of our own?

If Benjamin Disraeli had helped lay the framework of the American Constitution, would that make it British? No. Not to mention the fact Britain did not actually join the EU initially, and held out for quite some time. And I think it is distinctly un-British to have a spureme authority in the courts of law unanswerable to the British oublic, regardless of who helped lay the framework

hmm.. Churchill.. September, 1946 says you are wrong. I'll grant you he wanted more of a Federalist than a full on "Nu Europe" approach but your claim that " It's Unbritish" is nonsense.

As for France. we've spent as much time fighting them as we have allying with them.

Rubbish. Who is "we" here ? The "auld alliance" or the tail end of the 2ndM AD ? We've spent longer fighting each other than the French .. are you saying that England, let alone the UK should split up as well then ?

Not quite the meaning of the word 'unity'

And this statement works with your "ideas" about a new Empire with countries on the other side of the globe how... ?

Here I was referring to Labour signing the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.

Which is irrelevant. Answer the initial question please.

It was part of Cameron's manifesto to hold a referendum if the Lisbon treaty had still not been ratified by the time he came into power.

And ? A statement of intent, even during an election campaign, is not legally binding, please explain how he/anyone would have been "forced" to do so ? And, of course, he/his party dropped this pledge... hmm.. you don't mention that whilst slating Labour again and again..hmm..

The British constitution is unwritten, and the monarchy, whilst holding technical power, has none in reality. It's like how the British Empire could technically be reformed if Parliament passed an act decreeing it so, it might technically be the case in law, but would never work in reality. And the human rights act to this day does not stop the Council snooping through our dustbins. There are many flaws with it.

Magna Carte is written. No power in reality... hmm.. as opposed to what ? Does the.. indeed any Govt. actually hold any power without the consent of the it's people and/or resources ? As to your claim that the Empire could be reinstated.. err.. no. We passed acts in 1926, 1932 and 1931 that would legally prevent the recommencement of the Empire as it was.

And the Human Rights Act can prevent people from snooping through your dustbin : don't put it out on public property. Quite simple.

There's flaws in every law..your point being ? Mine was we DO have written rights.. which you claimed we didn't.

To be perfectly honest, I believe we should make something more of the Commonwealth

perhaps. Not very practical though is it ?

South Africa, is, as things stand, the most democrtic remaining power in all Africa,

I'd argue Ghana perhaps.. but.. whatever. You appear to be missing the point that the "something in common" you keep talking about is in fact a colonial legacy and irrelevant for the future. I especially like the way you keep saying we should be friends with Canada and denying any common interest with France at all.

And our centuries of 'connectedness' with Europe is one of war and political expediency, not through any real integration of our people's or culture. Geography is not the issue here, the difference in culture is. And why would the rest of the world be hacked off by it? I'm not thinking of invading anyone, just a greater unity of people's with a similar culture and heritage.

No, our connectedness is one of trade as well dating back thosuands of years, which you want to ignore in favour of a few centuries whilst claiming the weight of history is with you. Where does our royal family come from ? What was their name before their changed it again ? Are you actually claiming there is no relationship between the Royal Families of Europe ? Really ? Why do we have Xmas trees in this country ? What do we call penis piercings ?

As to your question as to why the rest of the world would be hacked off with us suddenly claiming ownership of countries, and the contents therein, all over the globe ... really ? You really don't think certain countries might be a bit pissed off with that.. or, perhaps, the inhabitants of said countries ?

To clarify : You are objecting against an EU Superstate on the grounds that it is Undemocractic..whilst proposing that the wishes of other people all across the globe should be ignored and a new British Empire formed.. what ?

You've made some interesting points there reds8n.

However, in answer to this idea that I have a 'desire' for a new Empire I simply said I wouldn't object to one. By that I mean I would rather form a hegemony with those nations I feel I have that much more in common with culturally, rather than Europe, not that I wish for the resurrection of the British Empire. I would rather have a geographical gap with nations I culturally identify with, than a cultural gap with nations geographically close to me.

I'll admit a manifesto is not legally binding in that sense, but do you see a government suddenly reversing their stances on such a prmoninent issue straight after election? Whilst they might not be legally bound to it, they would forced to it in the idea that they would be crucified in the court of public opinion and at the next elections if they didn't hold a referendum.

I didn't know we passed acts preventing the reformation of the empire, although to be perfectly honest, Parliament could repeal such laws any time it chose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't bins have to be placed on public property to be collected? There wouldn't be any rubbish in them to be snooping through otherwise. However, if you want a different example, the ones whereby council officials can now demand entry to your house in order to look around and decide if you should be taxed more for owning a slightly nicer property is a good one.

And by us not having written rights, I was referring to something along the lines of the American Constitution. To my knowledge, there IS no piece of legislation titled, 'The British Constitution' enshrining unalienable rights of the British.

You appear to be missing the point that the "something in common" you keep talking about is in fact a colonial legacy and irrelevant for the future.

Aren't you arguing here that our history's with France should bind us to them? If our colonial legacy is irrelevant, so is all this mention of past trade you keep referring to.

To clarify : You are objecting against an EU Superstate on the grounds that it is Undemocractic..whilst proposing that the wishes of other people all across the globe should be ignored and a new British Empire formed.. what ?

To clarify. No. I simply said I wouldn't mind one. So if they weren't interested, they wouldn't be in it. That would be undemocratic. Please do not put words in my mouth. You seem to have extrapolated an entire line of argument out of something I never said. I never advocated a forcible takeover of other nations to resurrect a long dead Empire, just that I wouldn't mind the establishment of a closer hegemony with nations we have a shared cultural heritage with. You may believe it impractical to make something out of the CommonWealth, but it would require no less effort than is currently being sunk into creating a European superstate.

As to Churchill, I believe that a undemocratic European superstate is un-British. The EU of today is not the EU of forty years ago. So regardless of Churchills's participation back then (And even then I would still dispute the level of influence he had in its creation), what he initially would have outlined is definitely not what exists today.

Ketara wrote:


Fair enough. But why should I put the rest of the world's interests ahead of our own?

You shouldn't, but its usually wise to to consider the knock-on effects of any choices made with respect to allegiance/commonwealth/confederation/et al. Often times what seems like a great option at first glance will sour after extended consideration.

For example, Canada would never agree to membership in a sort of nouveau commonwealth/empire dominated by an English heritage. They have enough issues with the clash between English and French culture as it is.

It's interesing how us Brits are happy to make use of the Bill of Human Rights & the 48hr working week restriction, but kick off about everything else. The goverment brings in 24hr drinking, so clubs, pubs and restaraunts can open like in Europe (which is what people used to moan about) and what do we do? We go out and abuse it! We don't think it would be nice to sit out on a summers night, having a drink and chatting with friends, with no pressure to drink up. No, we carry on getting hammered, throwing up in the streets and fighting, and we have the nerve to be proud of this, to look down on the rest of Europe?

We are so up ourselves it's unbelievable!!!

I should point out, the Irish certainly wouldn't be part of any empire with Britain right now. Possibly in the far future, but no way in hell at this point in time.

As to referenda on the issue, like I said, this issue is not suitable for a referendum. If your system of governance is not direct democracy (and Britain isn't a direct democracy) can you really expect to have a vote on every issue?

The Lisbon Treaty doesn't create the United States of Europe, or anything close to it. I'm not pro-Federal. I wouldn't have voted for it if it was doing that. If you're gonna talk about it, I suggest you go and educate yourself about it. What it mostly does is streamline how things work, and believe it or not it makes Europe more democratic and gives nations more of a direct say over what happens than before. Well, national governments. Which I understand is not the same thing.

It doesn't create the United States of Europe, but it makes it one step closer to one. It institutes the EU's own foreign office, and a president. The position of president is in itself incredibly ill defined.

It's true we don't live in a direct democracy, but on an issue of such prominence, and importance, to refuse to hold a referendum strikes me as most un-democratic.

The president is just a single person representative. It's a diplomatic position more than anything else.

I'd disagree that this issue is suitable for referenda. It's too complicated and people are too lazy to educate themselves. That was my experience of the referendum in Ireland anyway- if you look at the reasons why people voted no the first time, 3 of the top 4 had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the treaty.

Ketara wrote:It doesn't create the United States of Europe, but it makes it one step closer to one. It institutes the EU's own foreign office, and a president. The position of president is in itself incredibly ill defined.

It's true we don't live in a direct democracy, but on an issue of such prominence, and importance, to refuse to hold a referendum strikes me as most un-democratic.

Please tell me you're joking? I wouldn't trust the majority of the British public with such a thing. Would you really trust the readers of The Sun, Mirror, Express & Mail to such a thing? For a refenedum on this to work you'd at least want to know that people would make an effort to read up on the facts and make an informed decision... not sure the forementioned would.

If you have a complete lack of trust in your fellow countrymen, that's very well and good, but don't expect everyone else to share such a viewpoint.

I find it interesting that you lumped the Mail in with the Sun. I'll admit they don't always have the most intellectual of material, but when it comes to news, they're usually no better or worse than most of the good papers(aka, the Independent).

The second you start saying that people are too stupid so you shouldn't consult them, is the first step down the path to never consulting the public about anything simply because you think you know best. Then you get things like the ID card scheme because you've developed a superiority complex to the rest of the population. And then you're really not the kind of person who should be running the country.

And the President is just a diplomatic position? Really? Why does he need to exist then? If he has no power, and does nothing, why bother having him? His obscene salary aside, I'm pretty damn sure I didn't vote for him. In fact, I don't think I voted for a tremendous number of these new positions. Who did? I elect the people I want to run my country, I'm pretty sure the French and Germans shouldn't have anything to do with it. What's the new presidents policies? What does he stand for? What's his track record? What if I would prefer to vote for a different candidate? Oops, silly me. I'm just a silly peasant and couldn't possibly be expected to understand the great and complex machinations of government. How dare I ask questions like these? I should just shut up and pay my taxes.....

Ketara, did I mention your name in my previous comments? I don't think so as you appear to be able to think for yourself and look at the facts. I have no problem with anybody who has a different view to me on such matters... as long as they've taken the time to read up on the subject in the first place. My point is that a large chunk of the British public wouldn't. They would just read / believe what the papers say.

You only have to look at good old imigration to see how this works. The papers get their knickers in a twist over it, saying it costs British people their jobs, but business leaders say that thats wrong. They say that in most cases they do jobs us Brits won't do as the money is so low. Who would you believe?

You mean the 'business leaders' who are responsible for the current recession? I'll admit that the papers often hype stuff to sell papers, but anyone with half a brain knows that and reads between the lines in issues such as immigration. However, that's far from saying immigration is a good thing.

You say the British public wouldn't understand, or would be easily manipulated by the press in a referendum, but I give you this as a counter. Those people who are stupid, and believe anything they're told do not vote. I do not think enough of them would get off their bums to cast their say in a referendum, to significantly alter the outcome.

And who's to say that on an issue such as the EU, the papers aren't in the right? Just because they hype some stuff doesn't automatically mean everything they say is wrong, and you must take the opposite stance. Believe it or not, you do get some intelligent, literate people writing things in newspapers. Reliable politicians as well, like Vince Cable.

Also, as I said before, the minute you start proclaiming that the English public is too stupid to understand anything,you're proclaiming that you, by comparison, are far smarter than most people. Otherwise how would you be in a position to judge their mental capabilities and overall IQ? People with God complexes rarely run democratic governments well. Hang on, who voted for Gordon Brown again? I'm pretty sure I never voted him for Prime Minister....

The answer to the original question is "conflicted".

Don't think the business leaders had anything to do with the recession, bank, yes. As I understand it the ground for this balls up was laid by the government and the Tories. No way should of GB got the job as he did, that goes without saying.

Perhaps stupid is the wrong word, more like too lazy to read up on the facts. Papers are there to make money, how do they do that? They print stories that sell. Stories that give plain, simple, boring facts don't sell. Shock stories that play on peoples fears do.

Ketara wrote:. Hang on, who voted for Gordon Brown again? I'm pretty sure I never voted him for Prime Minister....

If you don't live in his constituency you never will have, we don't elect the Prime mInister at all, never have done never will.

What were you saying about people's understanding again ?

, but do you see a government suddenly reversing their stances on such a prmoninent issue straight after election?

err..are you actually asking if politicians will say one thing and then do another..really ? Yes. THis happens all the time..Boris doinga fine job getting rid of that congestion is he.. oh.. wait.

"No raised taxes".... "I'm going to have to raise taxes".. things like that happen all the time, sometimes with good reason.

There is no way in hell that the Govt. could suddenly decide that it would be alright to have an Empire again.

Aren't you arguing here that our history's with France should bind us to them? If our colonial legacy is irrelevant, so is all this mention of past trade you keep referring to.

No, nice try though. I'm arguing against your idea that all we have done is fight them/similar and using history to show this, We continue to trade and do business with Europe today.. right now even, far more so than any other area of the world. How much trade do you think we have with Australia compared to mainland Europe ? It's just simple geography more than anything.