Hi,
All I can say on this one is that if Tony Blair chose
to get rid of the British Pound unilaterally without
even consulting Parliament or the British people,
would that go over well?
Sad to say, I actually suspect he'd get away with it. It's pretty clear
from the last Labour
manifesto that they're committed to joining the Euro in principal. The
government may well opt for a referendum (bet they wish they didn't have
to though) - but there's no constitutional need for a referendum.
As for not consulting Parliament, there is an argument which would
suggest that the current British government is getting quite good at
that.
Patriotism is a little different for Americans, because
it is part of the glue that holds us together. You have
to remember, that ours is a nation who's members are tied
together by an ideology.
I take the point - but what of the UK? We have several different
nationalities, all of whom are pretty nationalistic on an individual
level. I don't think it's patriotism for the concept or ideal of the
United Kingdom that holds England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland etc
together (and at least one friend of mine would add Cornwall to the
list, whilst others would put in a word for Yorkshire ...).
You don't put a polyglot nation together for over two hundred years based on an
idea and turn it into the most powerful nation on earth without having an underlying pride
(patriotism) that it has held together.
I agree that this is the case with America, but again the British
experience is different. We managed to build a unified(ish) kingdom of
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland at the same time as building a
global empire that made us the most powerful nation on earth for a time.
Not sure there was the same degree of underlying patriotism behind it
though - at least, not in the same way.
Speaking of which, it's interesting to note that nations rise and fall -
Britain's been up there, but isn't any more. The Us is most definitely
top dog, for now - but what of the next century? Will another nation
arise to put the US into shade? China springs to mind ... (NB That is
NOT an attack on the US, personally I'd much rather have the US as #1
superpower than see China becoming a rival to that tital, let alone
supreme).
I say all this while at the same time extending thanks
to the NATO governments that are standing beside us
(namely the UK) even if most people in those countries
don't support us.
??? Where do you get that from? It just isn't true! Opinion polls over
here since 9/11 have
consistantly shown overwhelming support for America on *every* level.
Of course there is a
dissenting minority - please bear in mind that the UK has a significant
Muslim section of society whose view of these matters is understanadbly
different.
Europeans truly, truly do not understand Americans if you
do not believe that we would be doing the same thing in
Afghanistan, with the same level of military and moral commitment,
if this tragedy had happened in London, Berlin, or Madrid and not
in New York. This is where your absolute inability to understand
the American psyche is most apparent.
I think the writer has misunderstood the thrust of Mike Barber's
argument (or at least I hope so!) I would say that the past Irish
American support for the IRA does grate a little ... Other countries
have sometimes been a little behind in offering support against the UK's
war on terrorism which has been ongoing for decades. Let us hope that
the events of 9/11 stand as a reminder to everyone that political
resolution of disputes is the way forward, not the gun. In other words,
the ballot box, not armalite. The same goes for Israel and the
Palestinians.
I could go on, but it is my belief that without the
American contribution in the European Theater that it
is conceivable the Nazis could have won.
I don't understand why we need to get into the "we won" argument at all!
The point is WE - namely the US, Britain, Russia, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand etc etc etc defended democracy together.
One point that does have some currency though is that, whilst Britain
immediately stood by the US after the events of 9/11 (and on numerous
other occasions in the past, it took the US several years to stand by
us during WWI and WWII. The US was hardly a staunch ally during the
Falklands War either - and let's not even mention Suez (when Britain and
France were,in my opinion, wrong anway).
Again, I find it funny that the same people who for
years decried the evil of nuclear weapons and pushed
for disarmament during the '60's - 80's now see value
in deterrence.
Who did? This was never British policy during this period - at least not
on a unilateral level. Any sane person would push for a reduction in
arms at all times, but unilateralism is absurd and has surely been
totally disscredited by the outcome of the Cold War. To suggest that the
British government in the late 70's and '80's was in favour of
disarmament shows a total ignorance of British politics of the time. The
Prime Minister at the time was Margaret Thatcher, one of the most
extreme right wing and hawkish leaders Britain has ever had. Maggie was
as likely to pursue a policy of disarmament as she was of defecting to
the Soviets.
Colin.
