Poland warns of war 'in 10 years' as EU leaders scramble to contain panic

[Neil]

There would be several parties.  Remember, you'd be adopting our system rather than the reverse.

I don't see why the US would want to bed knee to Britain. Like I said I don't think we overthrew British rule only to impose it on ourselves centuries later. George Washington would be rolling in his grave.

George Washington was traitorous scum, and so affronting his ghost is a good thing.

That said, without the US adopting a parliamentary system, Ide's Anglo Union can never be.  We've seen how the US system functions, and the Anglo world would be better off without your presidents and congresses.

[Martinus]

When the Euro breaks up, we can't even afford a war anymore.

If the EU ever breaks up Germany will have a ton of subsidy money to spend on its favorite hobby. 

Not really. We spend less than 1% of our GDP on the EU. If you add that to our current military expenses, we'll maybe reach 2.2% or so of GDP, which is still less than say France or UK spend now.

Not to mention, with the EU gone, Germany will lose a massive tarriff-free export market for its goods so it will be probably worse off.

[Martinus]

The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.

Does it include stuff like NHS?

[garbon]

That said, without the US adopting a parliamentary system, Ide's Anglo Union can never be.  We've seen how the US system functions, and the Anglo world would be better off without your presidents and congresses.

Exactly it wouldn't be a wimpy Anglo Union, it'd be American domination.

[Zanza]

The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.

Does it include stuff like NHS?

Depends on whether the NHS is considered value added or subsidy.

Anyway, GDP isn't a good measure for "poor", it's just the best I could find as a proxy. GDP is an output measure, not a consumption measure. So it could be that Wales does consume more than Mississippi despite creating less GDP. That could happen if considerable amounts of wealth were transferred from say London to Wales. However, as Mississippi gets considerable net federal funds in the US, I doubt that it is poorer than Wales.


Here is the definition of GDP according to Eurostat: "As an aggregate measure of production, GDP is equal to the sum of the gross value added of all resident institutional units (i.e. industries) engaged in production, plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs. Gross value added is the difference between output and intermediate consumption."

[Martinus]

The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.

Does it include stuff like NHS?

Depends on whether the NHS is considered value added or subsidy.

Anyway, GDP isn't a good measure for "poor", it's just the best I could find as a proxy. GDP is an output measure, not a consumption measure. So it could be that Wales does consume more than Mississippi despite creating less GDP. That could happen if considerable amounts of wealth were transferred from say London to Wales. However, as Mississippi gets considerable net federal funds in the US, I doubt that it is poorer than Wales.


Here is the definition of GDP according to Eurostat: "As an aggregate measure of production, GDP is equal to the sum of the gross value added of all resident institutional units (i.e. industries) engaged in production, plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs. Gross value added is the difference between output and intermediate consumption."

Yeah. By that definition, an industrial district of Liverpool probably is "richer" than Chelsea.

[dps]

The poorest NUTS2 region in the UK is Wales at 21,200€ GDP PPP/capita (~$29k with current exchange rate) in 2008, the poorest US state is Mississippi at $32,967 GDP nominal in 2010. Hard to compare, but I would guess that it means that Wales is poorer.

Does it include stuff like NHS?

Depends on whether the NHS is considered value added or subsidy.

Anyway, GDP isn't a good measure for "poor", it's just the best I could find as a proxy. GDP is an output measure, not a consumption measure. So it could be that Wales does consume more than Mississippi despite creating less GDP. That could happen if considerable amounts of wealth were transferred from say London to Wales. However, as Mississippi gets considerable net federal funds in the US, I doubt that it is poorer than Wales.


Here is the definition of GDP according to Eurostat: "As an aggregate measure of production, GDP is equal to the sum of the gross value added of all resident institutional units (i.e. industries) engaged in production, plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs. Gross value added is the difference between output and intermediate consumption."

You also have to consider stuff like cost of living.  By most standards, West Virginia is poorer than North Carolina, but when we moved down here we found that, for example, a gallon of milk cost about 1.5 times as much here.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Germany needs to inform the PIIGS that there are two ways they can repay their debts: in gold, or in blood.

[Neil]

That said, without the US adopting a parliamentary system, Ide's Anglo Union can never be.  We've seen how the US system functions, and the Anglo world would be better off without your presidents and congresses.

Exactly it wouldn't be a wimpy Anglo Union, it'd be American domination.

And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.

[garbon]

And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.

I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free.

[Neil]

And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.

I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free.

Come now.  America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.

[garbon]

And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.

I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free.

Come now.  America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.

It does in this ridiculous hypothetical.

[Neil]

And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.

I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free.

Come now.  America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.

It does in this ridiculous hypothetical.

Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.

[dps]

And that's impossible too, because no free people could consent to live under your monstrous Congress or your abomination of a constitution.

I think that's the domination bit. You wouldn't be free.

Come now.  America doesn't have the strength for that anymore, especially in regards to the UK.

It does in this ridiculous hypothetical.

Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.

Eh, he won't mind as long as we put "Royal" somewhere in the name of our army.

[garbon]

Well, your troops would probably be eaten by the giant, bulletproof spiders that the mad scientist Dr. Canuck has been developing in protest against imperialist aggression.

I don't think they'd fare well against our nuclear assisted giant cans of RAID.