NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this, officially, is the straw that broke the camel's back (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm).

School-leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country, says a report commissioned by Gordon Brown on British citizenship.

Report author, ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith, says it would give teenagers a sense of belonging.

Council tax and student fee rebates are suggested for people who volunteer - as well as a "Britishness" public holiday...

Obviously, everyone is up in arms over this, as the rest of the article reveals, but crucially, the New Labour leadership isn't, which means it's very likely that it won't matter what everyone else says.

Is this the start of a campaign of nationalisation of the British people? Or will this suggestion be the start of the end for Brown's Labour government?

They won't give us a written constitution but want us to pledge allegience. "God save the queen it's a fascist regime..."

So if i lie and say i give a damn about being British, i pay less tax get a bigger student loan! and have no other impact on my life!

Sign me up!:D

just cos you say something dose not mean you think it true, God (or other non_existent entity) please don't let this happen i don't want the bad karma (or mojo etc) that come with lying

I think this, officially, is the straw that broke the camel's back (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm).



Obviously, everyone is up in arms over this, as the rest of the article reveals, but crucially, the New Labour leadership isn't, which means it's very likely that it won't matter what everyone else says.

Is this the start of a campaign of nationalisation of the British people? Or will this suggestion be the start of the end for Brown's Labour government?

Aren't the British people already nationalised? I wouldn't worry too much about this one. It seems to be eaxactly what it says on the tin. Mr Brown is worried that the British people seem to have lost their national idenity, and he is right, he wanst to instil in us some pride in our nation, that's all it is.

Will we stand for it though, well that's a seperate issue.

eryone is up in arms over this, as the rest of the article reveals, but crucially, the New Labour leadership isn't, which means it's very likely that it won't matter what everyone else says.

Is this the start of a campaign of nationalisation of the British people? Or will this suggestion be the start of the end for Brown's Labour government?

Personally, I'd go with the latter, I cannot see Labour still holding power after the next general election, although there is questions as to what will happen if we get a hung parliament.

I seriously doubt anything will actually come of this, even if they manage to get it through the commons, they probably won't get it through the Lords and it's most likely to be quietly forgotten or randomly brought out at regular intervals with no real action being taken, like a lot of their citizenship ideas have (Britishness day, official motto... and so on).

They won't give us a written constitution but want us to pledge allegience. "God save the queen it's a fascist regime..."

Do we want one?

Do we want one?

What the hell is the magna carta then?

What the hell is the magna carta then?

An agreement between the aristocracy and the King that the king will renounce some 'rights'.

Do we want one?

It not a bad idea, but what should be on it? i want the right to kill the three nipped wombat :cool:

An agreement between the aristocracy and the King that the king will renounce some 'rights'.

A written agreement.

Do we want one?

I know I do. The US model is very good (apart from the gun nut stuff).

A written agreement.

...between the barons and the king - no mention of the people.

...between the barons and the king - no mention of the people.

Wait... Barons are not people? I went to school with a Mike Baron, I'm pretty sure he was a person.

What a ridiculous idea. Forced nationalism is an awful concept. Very few people would voluntarily say it, and suggesting it at a time of high levels of apathy or rebelliousness (i.e. teenager years) just adds to this guy's ignorance.

And a more general question: why do we need a sense of belonging or 'Britishness'?

dose it need to mention the people? sorry di9d not think it had too?

Scots nationalists won't go for it, Welsh won't, Northern Irish Republicans certainly won't...

Did he have feudal rights over any serfs?

Well he was a bit of a bully, thats more or less the same thing, innit?

A written agreement.

Not every written agreement is a constitution ;)
If you're looking to draft a constitution, though, I would advise to take a look at the more modern ones around, not necessarily the US version.

What a ridiculous idea. Forced nationalism is an awful concept. Very few people would voluntarily say it, and suggesting it at a time of high levels of apathy or rebelliousness (i.e. teenager years) just adds to this guy's ignorance.

And a more general question: why do we need a sense of belonging or 'Britishness'?

i agree, it a stupid idea, but something or someone needs to do something about the general feeling of abbonament by the government felt by a large amount of British people (largely the poor and the uneducated)

(largely the poor and the uneducated)

feel i should mention that these are not necessary the same people

i agree, it a stupid idea, but something or someone needs to do something about the general feeling of abbonament by the government felt by a large amount of British people (largely the poor and the uneducated)

But is that a feeling of lack of unity as a nation, or a lack of faith in the government (particularly the current one)? The government is not necessarily what people would consider 'British' or what they would identify with.

dose it need to mention the people? sorry di9d not think it had too?

Well, a well tought out constitution ought to name the basic rights and duties of all citizens, as well as outline the way the government will be set up, its procedures and duties.

Scots nationalists won't go for it, Welsh won't, Northern Irish Republicans certainly won't...

so the British become the English! :headbang:

edit: sorry just the English

[QUOTE=Extreme Ironing;13517891]But is that a feeling of lack of unity as a nation, or a lack of faith in the government (particularly the current one)?

Prob a mixture of the two.

Wait... Barons are not people? I went to school with a Mike Baron, I'm pretty sure he was a person.

Did he have feudal rights over any serfs?

-snip-

While I'm personally against the idea of an 'oath' on the basis that it's a stupid concept, there is something that no one seems to have mentioned that pretty much makes this whole debate pointless. You even had it in the quote from the BBC you put up:

School-leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance

The scheme is voluntary. And what teenager is going to ever do it, other than snotty Tory boys?

i agree, it a stupid idea, but something or someone needs to do something about the general feeling of abbonament by the government felt by a large amount of British people (largely the poor and the uneducated)
The thing is that this is indicative of New Labour's approach to antisocial behaviour: It's all other peoples' fault. They refuse to believe that there's anything wrong with how they're doing things, instead thinking that the reason everyone's feeling negatively about the Government is because there's some disease of criminality or apathy spreading through the people, and that a good dose of community spirit will cure that.

They, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems alike, need to be made to see that the whole political institution of Britain is out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent. Or, equivilently, replaced (though that raises problems over what will fill the gap...).

The government is not necessarily what people would consider 'British' or what they would identify with.

Isn't that why we in democracy? the government put there by the majority to put there views across? (i know it don't wrk like that but heY)

The scheme is voluntary. And what teenager is going to ever do it, other than snotty Tory boys?
The scheme may be voluntary in the sense that nobody will be forced to say it, but it's still going to be introduced into public ceremony, and that alone is enough to oppose its introduction.

Laughable!

The scheme may be voluntary in the sense that nobody will be forced to say it, but it's still going to be introduced into public ceremony, and that alone is enough to oppose its introduction.

Meh I really don't see the big deal with it. Do it or don't *shrug*

The scheme is voluntary. And what teenager is going to ever do it, other than snotty Tory boys?

but they want to add incentives, such as lower tax etc so while it voluntary, people will go for it due to this not and not because they love Britain

but they want to add incentives, such as lower tax etc so while it voluntary, people will go for it due to this not and not because they love Britain

Well, more than anything, that makes it even more of a joke than it already is. If the only reason people are doing it is because of bribery, what does it actually mean?

They, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems alike, need to be made to see that the whole political institution of Britain is out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent. Or, equivilently, replaced (though that raises problems over what will fill the gap...).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7285814.stm They do, well the Lib Dems do. I seriously doubt the tories would bring about effective constitutional reform, but ironically I think they'd go less authoritarian than Labour.

Meh I really don't see the big deal with it. Do it or don't *shrug*
The illusion of "choice" is one of this Government's typical tactics. Transport, the Health service, policing, local government, education... Introducing "Alternatives", fudging reports to say that the alternatives are better and allowing the more "successful" option to reap the rewards is how New Labour changes things that they dislike. ID cards, CCTV and biometrics were like that originally, but are swiftly becoming mandatory. I see nothing to assume the trend will be broken this time.

Well, more than anything, that makes it even more of a joke than it already is. If the only reason people are doing it is because of bribery, what does it actually mean?

That people in Great Britian are greedy and selfish, just like everyone else?

Isn't that why we in democracy? the government put there by the majority to put there views across? (i know it don't wrk like that but heY)

Supposedly, though a government could be in power with only a slight majority, alienating the large number of people that didn't vote for it, such is the problem of non-proportional representation and the way our constituencies are allocated.

However, would you say the government has ever in the past few decades really represented the will of the people? Does the Queen do this instead? Can any national entity ever represent the 'will of the people', if such a homogenised thing can exist in such a large population? I doubt all these, so I see no good in the government trying to introduce false nationalism. National pride, if it is wanted by the people, is going to come from themselves and the communities within it, not by some national entity.

The thing is that this is indicative of New Labour's approach to antisocial behaviour: It's all other peoples' fault. They refuse to believe that there's anything wrong with how they're doing things, instead thinking that the reason everyone's feeling negatively about the Government is because there's some disease of criminality or apathy spreading through the people, and that a good dose of community spirit will cure that.

They, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems alike, need to be made to see that the whole political institution of Britain is out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent. Or, equivilently, replaced (though that raises problems over what will fill the gap...).

Agreed.

I’d be prepared to swear allegiance to country, but not to an unelected, elitist institution with no place in the 21st Century, and whose members are mostly a complete waste of space.

That people in Great Britian are greedy and selfish, just like everyone else?

God save this green and pleasant land. :)

The illusion of "choice" is one of this Government's typical tactics. Transport, the Health service, policing, local government, education... Introducing "Alternatives", fudging reports to say that the alternatives are better and allowing the more "successful" option to reap the rewards is how New Labour changes things that they dislike. ID cards, CCTV and biometrics were like that originally, but are swiftly becoming mandatory. I see nothing to assume the trend will be broken this time.

Okay well evfen if that is the case. Realyy you are this het up over some words that some teenagers may say?

You know when taking any sort of pledge you can in fact lie, if you don't mean it what are they gonna do?

Really, and trust me on this, it's a big fuss over nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7285814.stm They do, well the Lib Dems do.
I noticed that call, and I agree, but the Lib Dems abstaining on the Europe referendum gave me serious concerns over their willingness to listen to what people have to say. If the Dems are happy to give more substance to their suggestions then I'll be happy to consider them, but until then, I'm going to have to be somewhat skeptical.

'course, I'll still vote for them. I cannot with a clean conscience vote Labour or Tory anyway.

You know when taking any sort of pledge you can in fact lie, if you don't mean it what are they gonna do?
Don't suppose you've ever read Catch-22?

"The important thing is to keep them pledging," [Captain Black] explained to his cohorts. "It doesn't matter whether they mean it or not. That's why they make little kids pledge allegiance even before they know what 'pledge' and 'allegiance' means."

Even if you haven't, perhaps this quote might ring a bell:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Well, a well tought out constitution ought to name the basic rights and duties of all citizens, as well as outline the way the government will be set up, its procedures and duties.

If I remember rightly, wouldn't a written constitution inherently conflict with one of the fundamental parts of the current unwritten constitution, namely that all laws are equal and what one lot of MPs put in place another lot can reverse.

Don't suppose you've ever read Catch-22?



Even if you haven't, perhaps this quote might ring a bell:

Yes I certianly have.
*shrug* It is meaningless though in this deabte. 'I pleadge allegiance to the Queen'

That's it? Words man, just words, say em, don't say em, mean em, don't mean em.

Really, can anybody explain to me what is soooooo bad about this that it is 'the straw that broke the camels back'? Coz I just ain't seeing it?

Anybody?

One of the things I like about being British (although given certain celtic insecurites this may apply more to the English;)) is that we're generally self confident enough and diverse enough as a nation not to worry about the concept of Britishness or Englishness. Outside of The Daily Mail (and certain sections of the government), we don't go much go in for flag waving, oath swearing, or "God bless The United Kingdoms". I think this is a good thing and a sign of the country's maturity (binge drinking and teenage pregnancies aside:)).

Americans would take the oath and mean it. By and large the British wouldn't which is why it's pointless and also why it isn't needed. I'm glad that by and large the British attitude to Britain is a wry chuckle and it's a bit crap but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

(Cue people saying they want to emigrate ASAP)

I agree - this isn't a 'threat' because no one would ever take it seriously.

One of the things I like about being British (although given certain celtic insecurites this may apply more to the English;)) is that we're generally self confident enough and diverse enough as a nation not to worry about the concept of Britishness or Englishness. Outside of The Daily Mail (and certain sections of the government), we don't go much go in for flag waving, oath swearing, or "God bless The United Kingdoms". I think this is a good thing and a sign of the country's maturity (binge drinking and teenage pregnancies aside:)).

Americans would take the oath and mean it. By and large the British wouldn't which is why it's pointless and also why it isn't needed. I'm glad that by and large the British attitude to Britain is a wry chuckle and it's a bit crap but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

(Cue people saying they want to emigrate ASAP)


Naaaa I agree with you. I saw this on this mornings news, and the first thought was, Britishness, wazat then?

What a load of nonsense. If Brown thinks he can prevent Scottish and Welsh nationalism and a loss of Labour seats in the Commons (should they go independent) by forcing 'Britishness' on everyone, then he's more of an authoritarisn wankstain than I had initially thought. We've never needed this USA-style flag waving and forced nationalism, and we don't need it now. I won't swear allegience to the Crown or to the State when told to by the government, thank you very much.

Council tax and student fee rebates are suggested for people who volunteer.
How very New Labour. Make something voluntary, but penalise those that don't do it. *cough*ID Cards*cough* While we're at it, why not have student fee rebates for students at English, Welsh and Northen Irish universities, if public finances are in a state where the Government can offer rebates to groups of students. Why not give council tax rebates to impoverished elderly homeowners who've been hit hardest by tax rises? I hate to sound like a whinging tory boy, and god knows I'm not, but really, there's such a better use of this money.

One of the things I like about being British (although given certain celtic insecurites this may apply more to the English;)) is that we're generally self confident enough and diverse enough as a nation not to worry about the concept of Britishness or Englishness. Outside of The Daily Mail (and certain sections of the government), we don't go much go in for flag waving, oath swearing, or "God bless The United Kingdoms". I think this is a good thing and a sign of the country's maturity (binge drinking and teenage pregnancies aside:)).

Americans would take the oath and mean it. By and large the British wouldn't which is why it's pointless and also why it isn't needed. I'm glad that by and large the British attitude to Britain is a wry chuckle and it's a bit crap but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

(Cue people saying they want to emigrate ASAP)

Well, more than anything, that makes it even more of a joke than it already is. If the only reason people are doing it is because of bribery, what does it actually mean?

it both make a joke of it at first, and many will be force to do ny there parents. but as always some will start taking it seriously and then it will come to mean something but prob not they want

(i think i make sense)

Edit: sorry someone made this point already, in a much more elagent way sorry again

Given Diana, it's lucky this one isn't enforced:

At the moment they include sleeping with the wife of the heir to the throne, which is punishable by life in prison

While this recommendation - the pledge - is going to go absolutely nowhere, it is disturbing. Weren't the Tories roundly chastised for much the same thing 20 years ago? Something about which cricket team one would cheer for?

In some senses it's quite bizarre.

Really, can anybody explain to me what is soooooo bad about this that it is 'the straw that broke the camels back'? Coz I just ain't seeing it?
It's not the end of the world; it's just that worrying next step towards totalitarianism. And, I reckon, the last one people will stand for.

Supposedly, though a government could be in power with only a slight majority, alienating the large number of people that didn't vote for it, such is the problem of non-proportional representation and the way our constituencies are allocated.

However, would you say the government has ever in the past few decades really represented the will of the people? Does the Queen do this instead? Can any national entity ever represent the 'will of the people', if such a homogenised thing can exist in such a large population? I doubt all these, so I see no good in the government trying to introduce false nationalism. National pride, if it is wanted by the people, is going to come from themselves and the communities within it, not by some national entity.



Agreed.

i got to admit i agree with you, until a system of proportional representation is in place we stuck with thing the way they are

One of the things I like about being British (although given certain celtic insecurites this may apply more to the English;)) is that we're generally self confident enough and diverse enough as a nation not to worry about the concept of Britishness or Englishness. Outside of The Daily Mail (and certain sections of the government), we don't go much go in for flag waving, oath swearing, or "God bless The United Kingdoms". I think this is a good thing and a sign of the country's maturity (binge drinking and teenage pregnancies aside:)).

Americans would take the oath and mean it. By and large the British wouldn't which is why it's pointless and also why it isn't needed. I'm glad that by and large the British attitude to Britain is a wry chuckle and it's a bit crap but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.


I first heard about this while trying to wake up to Radio 4 (I love having a radio alarm-clock), and the opposing commentator (I missed their name) made the point that, that an overt nationalistic pledge is in many ways counter to what most people would consider to be British, therefore defeating the whole point.

One of the things I like about being British (although given certain celtic insecurites this may apply more to the English;)) is that we're generally self confident enough and diverse enough as a nation not to worry about the concept of Britishness or Englishness.. I think this is a good thing and a sign of the country's maturity (binge drinking and teenage pregnancies aside:)).

(Cue people saying they want to emigrate ASAP)


Don't forget the cornish, they claim to be celtic so can we discount them as english :D

Oh and teenage pregnancies is a good thing! prove me wrong:p

oh and i goin to cornwall now we agree it not part of england

Given Diana, it's lucky this one isn't enforced:



While this recommendation - the pledge - is going to go absolutely nowhere, it is disturbing. Weren't the Tories roundly chastised for much the same thing 20 years ago? Something about which cricket team one would cheer for?

In some senses it's quite bizarre.

Yeah, I think I remember that about the Cricket teams. Tories ... Bless em. I think that was more about trying to get minorities to swear an oath to Queen and country, but this one's less racist and more bizzare.

I think all this debate about a national identity is way off the mark. A governement distraction? The British know who they are and that doesn't involve swearing oaths. It involves having stupidly high sporting expectations, a a respect for authority that still thinks that most authority's an ass, drinking vast quantities of alcohol, a certain pride in the few bits of history that have entered the national consciousness, curry, tolerance, insularity, a great deal of stupidity and more than our fair share of genius.

I first heard about this while trying to wake up to Radio 4 (I love having a radio alarm-clock), and the opposing commentator (I missed their name) made the point that, that an overt nationalistic pledge is in many ways counter to what most people would consider to be British, therefore defeating the whole point.


Absolutely

Cornwall can't be England. They go surfing there. (Although I have seen people surfing at St Andrews in Winter :rolleyes:)
You can surf in England. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Bore#Severn_bore)

Cornwall can't be England. They go surfing there. (Although I have seen people surfing at St Andrews in Winter :rolleyes:)

I live on the English/Cornish border (in Plymouth) and people surf on the english side of the border to! gosh we so cool down here it hurtz!

I really don't see what this is meant to achieve.

Don't forget the cornish, they claim to be celtic so can we discount them as english :D

Oh and teenage pregnancies is a good thing! prove me wrong:p

oh and i goin to cornwall now we agree it not part of england

Cornwall can't be England. They go surfing there. (Although I have seen people surfing at St Andrews in Winter :rolleyes:)

And a more general question: why do we need a sense of belonging or 'Britishness'?
How depressing people are who ask that.....

Firstly, this would be nothing more than an empty gesture. That it is deemed necessary to tempt with tax rebates confirms as much; Labour have no belief in the patriotism of their youth, and thus must tempt them to take an oath they ought to be prepared to take anyway.

In any case, I hardly see the point. Any unified national identity that did exist, and it did, was immolated upon the altar of multiculturalism in the aftermath of "rivers of blood". Mr. Phillips may well have performed a volte face typical to his character and rejected the notion of multiculturalism,however, there can be little doubt that the fractured, mutually uncomfortable, mutually discontent and mutually loathing society we now possess is the result of multiculturalism.

its worth noting, people, that the govt. has not actually adopted this, or even said its a good idea. Lord whatsisname wrote the report, its his idea. unless this passes to parliament then what's the big deal?

i do think its stupid though. the notion of patriotism is a stupid one from my point of view, and celebrating that - and particluarly swearing by it - is wrong on so many levels.

and don't get me started on the queen.....

.

And a more general question: why do we need a sense of belonging or 'Britishness'?
QFT

...there can be little doubt that the fractured, mutually uncomfortable, mutually discontent and mutually loathing society we now possess is the result of multiculturalism.

i'd personally put it down to Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society"

but then i don't think the situation as bad as its made out to be

Not in the slightest. In permitting all extraneous cultures to sustain themselves in Britain, we have created a polyglot society in which our only unifying characteristic is our lack of anything more substantial and permanent with which to identify with those from a different ethnic or religious group.

Why would Britains need or want some kind of unifying characteristic, beyond the fact that they live on the same island?

Not in the slightest. In permitting all extraneous cultures to sustain themselves in Britain, we have created a polyglot society in which our only unifying characteristic is our lack of anything more substantial and permanent with which to identify with those from a different ethnic or religious group.

Because we were a unified culture before this? Perhaps we were, if you were one of the lucky few who gave the orders. But what about those who were the workers, who were doing the dirty work? Did they have a sense of 'Britishness?' Or did they simply do what they had to, trying to survive from one day to the next as those with the money congratulated themselves on how great the country was?

Stop looking at the past through rose tinted specs, kiddo. If you're going to claim we've 'lost' something, you're going to have to show exactly what that thing was.

In any case, I hardly see the point. Any unified national identity that did exist, and it did, was immolated upon the altar of multiculturalism in the aftermath of "rivers of blood". Mr. Phillips may well have performed a volte face typical to his character and rejected the notion of multiculturalism,however, there can be little doubt that the fractured, mutually uncomfortable, mutually discontent and mutually loathing society we now possess is the result of multiculturalism.

There can be plenty of doubt. Masses of doubt. Absolute shitloads of doubt.

Don't forget the cornish, they claim to be celtic so can we discount them as english :D

Oh and teenage pregnancies is a good thing! prove me wrong:p

oh and i goin to cornwall now we agree it not part of england

The Cornish are English, they should live with it.

And all this Pledge of Allegiance is nonsense. No one would do it, and even those that might be convinced to do it would do it for the rebates making it completely useless. We're not American, it might be nice if some in government remembered that.

There can be plenty of doubt. Masses of doubt. Absolute shitloads of doubt.

Not in the slightest. In permitting all extraneous cultures to sustain themselves in Britain, we have created a polyglot society in which our only unifying characteristic is our lack of anything more substantial and permanent with which to identify with those from a different ethnic or religious group.

It's not the end of the world; it's just that worrying next step towards totalitarianism. And, I reckon, the last one people will stand for.

How? How exactly is a mooted plan to ask students to pledge allegience to the Queen the next step towards a totalitarian goverment in the UK?

Nope, fear mongering is what I would call your response.

How depressing people are who ask that.....

Agreed.

Not in the slightest. In permitting all extraneous cultures to sustain themselves in Britain, we have created a polyglot society in which our only unifying characteristic is our lack of anything more substantial and permanent with which to identify with those from a different ethnic or religious group.

So presumably Britain is the only country in the world to have "adopted" multiculturalism?

[QUOTE=The blessed Chris;13518051]Firstly, this would be nothing more than an empty gesture. That it is deemed necessary to tempt with tax rebates confirms as much; Labour have no belief in the patriotism of their youth, and thus must tempt them to take an oath they ought to be prepared to take anyway.
QUOTE]

Thank god for our lack of patriotism (and our secularity too). We are an old enough country and society that it doesn't matter.

Multiculturalism and diversity are part of what makes us an interesting and, by and large, tolerant country. The sheer spread of different people and cultures is what makes London such an impressive and vibrant capital.

Convention functions far better than a constitution, it is exactly for this reason so much is left out of the Australian Constitution.

Not in the slightest. In permitting all extraneous cultures to sustain themselves in Britain, we have created a polyglot society in which our only unifying characteristic is our lack of anything more substantial and permanent with which to identify with those from a different ethnic or religious group.

I don't see anything wrong with that. We've always been a "mongrel race". Even in the cotswolds, heart of middle england, Polish serve at lidl and drive buses (with more grace than most British cahsiers and drivers) full of English asians to their jobs in skilled manufacturing. Hurrah.

Without our polygot society racism would be more prevalent and we'd eat less currys and kebabs. Surely not a good thing

I think this, officially, is the straw that broke the camel's back (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm).



Obviously, everyone is up in arms over this, as the rest of the article reveals, but crucially, the New Labour leadership isn't, which means it's very likely that it won't matter what everyone else says.

Is this the start of a campaign of nationalisation of the British people? Or will this suggestion be the start of the end for Brown's Labour government?Right. Lord Goldsmith is an idiot. Gordon Brown is an idiot for not reacting negatively after receiving the report. The Peer Baroness Kennedy is to be commended.

Not in the slightest. In permitting all extraneous cultures to sustain themselves in Britain, we have created a polyglot society in which our only unifying characteristic is our lack of anything more substantial and permanent with which to identify with those from a different ethnic or religious group.
Since when have we ever been a unified society? We've always had English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, working class, middle class, upper class, northerner, southerner, Protestant, Catholic, United fan, City fan and any other number of divisions and identifications that we like to label ourselves as, and they've all existed long before the Immigrant Hordes took over. Our 'polyglot society' is an evolution of something that has long existed in British, as well as every other European, society, rather than some thing new.

How? How exactly is a mooted plan to ask students to pledge allegience to the Queen the next step towards a totalitarian goverment in the UK?
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

A public pledge of allegience to the crown during a student's graduation is an example of state involvement in the personal life of the individual, the subordination of the individual to the state and the suppression of public dissent. Smells distinctly totalitarian to me.

How depressing people are who ask that.....
It's a fair question. I have yet to see anything gained by attachment to the British (or any other national) identity that isn't surpassed by attachment to the global identity. Our humanity is more important than where on earth we were born, surely?

It's a fair question. I have yet to see anything gained by attachment to the British (or any other national) identity that isn't surpassed by attachment to the global identity. Our humanity is more important than where on earth we were born, surely?


Agreed

They won’t give us a written constitution but want us to pledge allegience.
We have an uncodified constitution. It’s made up of lots of documents, court precedents, and treaties the UK is signatory to. Frankly, I much prefer that set-up to a codified constitution; look at all the problems the US has with interpreting or even understanding a piece of paper that’s over 200 years old.


How depressing people are who ask that.....

Agreed.
Why?

I see no good thing in an incredibly strong ‘British’ identity, it only limits our understanding of what ‘proper’ Britons are; see the inane/insane cries of ‘Britishness’ from the extremes of the Tories, UKIP, the BNP et al.


Since when have we ever been a unified society? We’ve always had English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, working class, middle class, upper class, northerner, southerner, Protestant, Catholic, United fan, City fan and any other number of divisions and identifications that we like to label ourselves as, and they’ve all existed long before the Immigrant Hordes took over. Our ‘polyglot society’ is an evolution of something that has long existed in British, as well as every other European, society, rather than some thing new.
Well said sir.

The myth that at any one stage Britain had a shared culture, or even that Scotland England or Wales have ever had a respective shared culture, is laughable. Indeed, this highlights the nonsense-factor inherent in ‘Nation X‘s culture’; such a thing is impossible to define.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

A public pledge of allegience to the crown during a student's graduation is an example of state involvement in the personal life of the individual, the subordination of the individual to the state and the suppression of public dissent. Smells distinctly totalitarian to me.


Don't be silly now. Remember what we are talking about here, a plan for such a voluntary scheme.

There is nothing totalitarian about it, or would you concede that the Cubs, Scouts, Brownies, and Guides are totalitarian organisations?

How does the utterance of mere words suppress public dissent? We already have the state involved in our personal life, we all pay taxes, is that totalitarian also?

I asked exactly how does the idea of such a voluntary pledge lead to a totalitarian goverment, now can you answer this?

Well said sir.


seconded :)

We have an uncodified constitution. It’s made up of lots of documents, court precedents, and treaties the UK is signatory to. Frankly, I much prefer that set-up to a codified constitution; look at all the problems the US has with interpreting or even understanding a piece of paper that’s over 200 years old.


Mmm an uncodified constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

I think it is possible to have a basic written constitution combined with the combined case law that builds up.

Don't be silly now. Remember what we are talking about here, a plan for such a voluntary scheme.

There is nothing totalitarian about it, or would you concede that the Cubs, Scouts, Brownies, and Guides are totalitarian organisations?

How does the utterance of mere words suppress public dissent? We already have the state involved in our personal life, we all pay taxes, is that totalitarian also?

I asked exactly how does the idea of such a voluntary pledge lead to a totalitarian goverment, now can you answer this?

though the scheme is "voluntary", you will be at a disadvantage by not being part of it (you miss out on tax breaks etc) so the only people that will "choose" not to be apart of it will be fanatics and idiots,

You are at no disadvantage by not joining cub... etc

though the scheme is "voluntary", you will be at a disadvantage by not being part of it (you miss out on tax breaks etc) so the only people that will "choose" not to be apart of it will be fanatics and idiots,

You are at no disadvantage by not joining cub... etc

Even so, it still does not equate to 'the next step to totaliterianism'.

You miss out on tax breaks if you are not a parent, is that totalitarian?

Why is it necessary? What we've got works pretty well and has a nice feel of history behind it. It's easier to amend such a system as nobody gets misty eyed about the sacredness of a written constitution.

It would be about codifying Britishness, which has been said, is unBritish. Our governments, laws and history are fairly shambolic, but generally they just about work. That's British

To be honest my main concern was with how Tony Blair took us into the second war in Iraq.

Mmm an uncodified constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.

I think it is possible to have a basic written constitution combined with the combined case law that builds up.


Why is it necessary? What we've got works pretty well and has a nice feel of history behind it. It's easier to amend such a system as nobody gets misty eyed about the sacredness of a written constitution.

It would be about codifying Britishness, which has been said, is unBritish. Our governments, laws and history are fairly shambolic, but generally they just about work. That's British

I'm all for pledging allegience to Britain, but not to the monarch. I don't think that an individual should ever be treated as being the focus of a country's loyalty, particularly not if it's from something hereditary. I'd sooner get rid of the monarchy, but I think a pledge of loyalty to this country would be a good thing.

By a parliamentary vote :( Blame the politicians not a lack of a constitution. Not that they had to go to a vote in the first place. If they had gone ahead without a vote or the vote had gone against them the government would have been untenable. Protests defections etc

I would really like to see formal declarations of war being required and the majority required actually beng over 75% in favour.

To be honest my main concern was with how Tony Blair took us into the second war in Iraq.

By a parliamentary vote :( Blame the politicians not a lack of a constitution. Not that they had to go to a vote in the first place. If they had gone ahead without a vote or the vote had gone against them the government would have been untenable. Protests defections etc

Even so, it still does not equate to 'the next step to totaliterianism'.

You miss out on tax breaks if you are not a parent, is that totalitarian?

Wrong, As a parent i get no tax break! what am i missing out on?

Wrong, As a parent i get no tax break! what am i missing out on?

So you recive no child benifit?

I would really like to see formal declarations of war being required and the majority required actually beng over 75% in favour.

would be nice but even if we had a written constitution that would never get into it. The constitution would be written by politicians after all ;)

I think the concept of pledging allegiance to a country/flag/monarch is an anachronism that has no valid place in Britain today, and that's without stopping to consider all the people who view themselves as English/Northern Irish/Welsh/Scottish ahead of being 'British'. I know a few of the "march on the border" types who'd be, well, marching if the idea got pushed through so it looks like there are, as usual, knuckle-dragging fools on both sides of the debate.

I was trying to just ignore the topic and hope it went away. Sadly, BBC News 24's half hourly loop has been carrying the story all afternoon, complete with a clip of young American schoolchildren robotically droning their way through their pledge. A better advert against the idea is something I find hard to imagine.

Wrong, As a parent i get no tax break! what am i missing out on?

Working Family Tax Credits. The level at which you can claim that at is higher than you might think, but it don't add up to much if you're on anyway like a halfway decent income

Don't be silly now. Remember what we are talking about here, a plan for such a voluntary scheme.
And remember what I said earlier - that's how this government works. The period within which a scheme is voluntary is a transition period, designed to make people feel comfortable about it. Just look at the NHS, for instance.

There is nothing totalitarian about it, or would you concede that the Cubs, Scouts, Brownies, and Guides are totalitarian organisations?
The recital of the scout law isn't being introduced into the education system by government advisors, now, is it? The Scouts aren't being told what to do by the state; Schools are a different matter.

How does the utterance of mere words suppress public dissent?
Public declarations are the institutional suppression of opinion to the contrary. Surely you see that? You cannot speak out against the message if the louder voice is drowning you out.

We already have the state involved in our personal life, we all pay taxes, is that totalitarian also?
Paying taxes isn't involvement in your personal life. Taxation is about resource distribution, not about its utilisation. If you were being told what to do with the money that was yours then that would be a sign of totalitarianism, but taxes are public money, and totalitarianism only comes into effect there when the public bodies are being dictated to by the government in how to do what they're there to do.

I asked exactly how does the idea of such a voluntary pledge lead to a totalitarian goverment, now can you answer this?
Sure. Government asks schools to do pledging at graduation. Some time passes. Government says doing pledging has reduced levels of crime (being staggeringly vague in the process) and announces that they're expanding it to every school. Nobody complains, because they're used to the idea. Everyone learns it. Government uses it in national pride ceremonies. Everyone says it; national pride skyrockets. Government starts using national pride as an excuse for further involvement in private life and public life, combined with (already excessive) policing. Nobody complains. Totalitarianism.

It's an age-old strategy. Build up the national pride then use it as a political tool for everything from immigration management to round-the-clock observation. And we already know our Government is trying to do that. Look at our CCTV culture, look at our ID cards, look at our violations of privacy laws under the banner of "counterterrorism".

Yipee!! Finally some sense out of this government!

To all those who say this is facist/nationalististic... you have no idea of the meaning of the word

So you recive no child benifit?

Technically a benefit and not a tax break. Besides kids are expensive. Give me more money to pay for our future :p

There is a British Constitution. It's just not one document, it's loads of them.

I think we should Pledge:

I shall support the British Crown in it's endeavours, I shall always be loyal to her Britannic Majesty, I shall support the government if I feel they are helping Britain.

I shall never support any Enemies of the Nation or those who wish it ill. i shall never take up arms against my Soverign, nor against the government unless ordered to do so by the Monarch.

I shall always keep my country high in my priorities and always respect it's laws as long as they are Just.


Yes, I have left room for Civil war / Labour Governments.:D
Here Here!

Forthampton;13518373']To all those who say this is facist/nationalististic... you have no idea of the meaning of the word
You used two words there. Fascist isn't appropriate for the context, but nationalistic undoubtedly is. Which one did you mean?

would be nice but even if we had a written constitution that would never get into it. The constitution would be written by politicians after all ;)

There is a British Constitution. It's just not one document, it's loads of them.

I think we should Pledge:

I shall support the British Crown in it's endeavours, I shall always be loyal to her Britannic Majesty, I shall support the government if I feel they are helping Britain.

I shall never support any Enemies of the Nation or those who wish it ill. i shall never take up arms against my Soverign, nor against the government unless ordered to do so by the Monarch.

I shall always keep my country high in my priorities and always respect it's laws as long as they are Just.


Yes, I have left room for Civil war / Labour Governments.:D

And remember what I said earlier - that's how this government works. The period within which a scheme is voluntary is a transition period, designed to make people feel comfortable about it. Just look at the NHS, for instance.

And the proof of this conjecture is?


The recital of the scout law isn't being introduced into the education system by government advisors, now, is it?

No nor is this is it, it is TALK about a PLAN, for a VOLUNTARY pledge.


The Scouts aren't being told what to do by the state; Schools are a different matter.

Yes because schools are run by the state. So I guess that the state gets to tell the schools what to do.


Public declarations are the institutional suppression of opinion to the contrary. Surely you see that? You cannot speak out against the message if the louder voice is drowning you out.

How so? If I stand up in speakers corner in Hyde park and declare my alligenace to the crown of Britain, how does that suppress anothers ability to stand up after me and declare the opposite?

There remain still in this country a few racists, who shout and holler, and yes their voice is growing ever dimmer, but I can still hear them can't you.



Paying taxes isn't involvement in your personal life. Taxation is about resource distribution, not about its utilisation. If you were being told what to do with the money that was yours then that would be a sign of totalitarianism, but taxes are public money, and totalitarianism only comes into effect there when the public bodies are being dictated to by the government in how to do what they're there to do.

Isn't it? I am free then to choose not to pay my taxes, and to use my hard earned cash where I like?


Sure. Government asks schools to do pledging at graduation. Some time passes. Government says doing pledging has reduced levels of crime (being staggeringly vague in the process) and announces that they're expanding it to every school. Nobody complains, because they're used to the idea. Everyone learns it. Government uses it in national pride ceremonies. Everyone says it; national pride skyrockets. Government starts using national pride as an excuse for further involvement in private life and public life, combined with (already excessive) policing. Nobody complains. Totalitarianism.

It's an age-old strategy. Build up the national pride then use it as a political tool for everything from immigration management to round-the-clock observation. And we already know our Government is trying to do that. Look at our CCTV culture, look at our ID cards, look at our violations of privacy laws under the banner of "counterterrorism".

Again conjecture, I didn't ask for your worst case scenerio, I asked how exactly this will lead to a UK totalitarian goverment. By your reasoning then the goverment of the USA is and has been for a long time totalitarian?

As I said ages ago, fear mongering. You have a bee in your bonnet but no real evidance to back up this 'feeling' you have.

That's fine we all have our bees, and indeed our bonnets(mines a manly red without a hint of pink BTW) just realise that what you have is just a bee.

So you recive no child benifit?

not a tax break, it a allowances!:p

It's easier to amend such a system as nobody gets misty eyed about the sacredness of a written constitution.
Strangely enough, that's exactly why I do want a written constitution and bill of rights. I'd much rather that the government of the day not be able to alter the fundemental structures of the state and rights of the people without there being a consensus that something needs to change.

not a tax break, it a allowances!:p
Friendly advice: shorten your sig before a mod does, and welcome to NSG.;)

not a tax break, it a allowances!:p

Meh same differance for what we are talking about. It can be seen as a penalty for those who are not parents.

Working Family Tax Credits. The level at which you can claim that at is higher than you might think, but it don't add up to much if you're on anyway like a halfway decent income

Dang, i was hoping they would not come up!;)
and trust me you can't get those things, i applied more time then i care to say and never been given a thing!
At one point i was working a minimum wage job 50-55 hour per week just to stay solvent! Thankfully i in a better situation now but because (and i was told this by the job center staff) I am not under 18,never been unemployed (been employed since i was 16), i am educated to a reasonable level ( 5 a-levels at mo,i put chemistry degree on hold after 2 years due to knocking the miss's up) have no drug problem and i am native to this country i do not qualify for help!

Yes because schools are run by the state. So I guess that the state gets to tell the schools what to do.
No it doesn't. Public schools are public sector, which is fair enough, but that doesn't mean the government gets to tell it what to teach. And this suggestion goes way beyond public schools.

How so? If I stand up in speakers corner in Hyde park and declare my alligenace to the crown of Britain, how does that suppress anothers ability to stand up after me and declare the opposite?
You're missing the point. You might stand up and speak, but if everyone is saying the opposing point at the same time, you might as well not bother, because nobody's going to hear you.

Isn't it? I am free then to choose not to pay my taxes, and to use my hard earned cash where I like?
Only if your taxes are your money. Which they're not.

And the proof of this conjecture is?
This Government's actions. The evidence is circumstantial, I grant you, but the sheer volume of it is more than enough to provide a pretty clear picture.

Again conjecture, I didn't ask for your worst case scenerio, I asked how exactly this will lead to a UK totalitarian goverment.
This isn't merely a worst case scenario. This is history repeating.

By your reasoning then the goverment of the USA is and has been for a long time totalitarian?
Certainly. Of course, it's slightly different in the case of the USA in that it's the Corporations that control the state rather than the other way around, but the effect is the same: millions of people being quietly brainwashed into acting like good little consumers.

That's fine we all have our bees, and indeed our bonnets(mines a manly red without a hint of pink BTW) just realise that what you have is just a bee.
The bee in my bonnet is a killer hornet. I'm keeping it there because it's something that can't be allowed to let go unrestrained. If I let it go, I will be responsible for what follows, and my conscience won't allow me to do that.

There are some causes that are worth getting worked up over.

Meh same differance for what we are talking about. It can be seen as a penalty for those who are not parents.

yeah cos £18 a week make the trouble have raising a kid worth it

Friendly advice: shorten your sig before a mod does, and welcome to NSG.;)

thank hopefull wont make to big a fool of myself

How depressing people are who ask that.....

Would you care to explain why you think this? What benefits do nationalism bring to me and the country I happen to reside in?

And would you (and TBC) care to explain whether Britain has ever had a homogeneous culture, and what you think this is/was?

You're missing the point. You might stand up and speak, but if everyone is saying the opposing point at the same time, you might as well not bother, because nobody's going to hear you.

Heh enough with metophor. Please explain clearly to me how saying a pledge of allegience means that others are being denied the ability or the right to proclaim any descent?



There are some causes that are worth getting worked up over.

Yes I agree, this though is not such a case.

yeah cos £18 a week make the trouble have raising a kid worth it

Bwahaha yes of course I agree, but please read back to see the point I am making.

Bwahaha yes of course I agree, but please read back to see the point I am making.

i do agree with you to be honest, but as with all these things, there are people out there who without this money would necleted there kids, £18 is not a lot but
when i had almost no money it all that i had to feed me and the miss's. (the rest of the money spent on baby and rent etc.

And would you (and TBC) care to explain whether Britain has ever had a homogeneous culture, and what you think this is/was?
Of course we had a homogenous culture. It looked a little like this:
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/images/portraits/A070645.jpg
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3375380.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=89B856506CE546546CE3FBE2F7A6F46CA55A1E4F32AD3138
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/9/9e/Wtfocker.jpg
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3351582.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=0629904139C22E58A7720805986A2C2BA55A1E4F32AD3138
http://www.martinemartin.co.uk/uploaded_images/CameronEton2_468x420-763347.jpg

thank hopefull wont make to big a fool of myself
Glad to be of service.

Of course we had a homogenous culture. It looked a little like this:
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/images/portraits/A070645.jpg
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3375380.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=89B856506CE546546CE3FBE2F7A6F46CA55A1E4F32AD3138
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/9/9e/Wtfocker.jpg
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3351582.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=0629904139C22E58A7720805986A2C2BA55A1E4F32AD3138
http://www.martinemartin.co.uk/uploaded_images/CameronEton2_468x420-763347.jpg

Oh, of course, old chap, how could one forget?

Heh enough with metophor. Please explain clearly to me how saying a pledge of allegience means that others are being denied the ability or the right to proclaim any descent?
I'm not saying that a single individual saying it has that sort of power. What I am saying is that institutionalising it results in a social division between the conformists and the dissenters, within which no dissent can be expressed without automatically rendering the dissenter part of the opposition. In other words, there can be no constructive criticism when those who refuse to make the pledge are exposed as such, because those that do say it will denounce the silent as being unpatriotic, traitorous or whatever.

Yes I agree, this though is not such a case.
I suppose I can't convince you otherwise. Since I am determined that that which would prove you wrong will never occur, I don't expect to ever do so, either.

To be honest I'm surprised to hear this kind of 'cash for oaths' idea being even semi-endorsed by Brown, who's noted for his habit of quoting John Stuart Mill in his speeches. One of Mill's best arguments in On Liberty was against the practise of banning Atheists from testifying in court: Mill pointed out that this restriction only kept the honest atheists out, as dishonest atheists would simply 'swear to God' and get in.

Similarly, giving tax-incentives to students who agree to take the oath will only encourage the unscrupulous opponents of the pledge to take it, as the supporters will take it anyway and the honest opponents will still refuse on principle.

As an Atheist Republican (in the UK sense of the word, no right-wing nutters please) I'm not sure how much of the pledge I could affirm in good faith, but as an impoverished student I'd be inclined to compromise by lying through my teeth and then writing a sanctimonious letter to the Guardian to make myself feel better. :D

The scheme is voluntary. And what teenager is going to ever do it, other than snotty Tory boys?

Cash-strapped students who are intimidated by the size of their debt?

Council tax and student fee rebates are suggested for people who volunteer - as well as a "Britishness" public holiday...

thank hopefull wont make to big a fool of myself

Heh yes welcome, and don't worry we all do that from time to time.:D

i do agree with you to be honest, but as with all these things, there are people out there who without this money would necleted there kids, £18 is not a lot but
when i had almost no money it all that i had to feed me and the miss's. (the rest of the money spent on baby and rent etc.

Hah yeah as I was telling one of my nepthews just last night, you kids are bloody expensive you know.

I'm not saying that a single individual saying it has that sort of power. What I am saying is that institutionalising it results in a social division between the conformists and the dissenters, within which no dissent can be expressed without automatically rendering the dissenter part of the opposition. In other words, there can be no constructive criticism when those who refuse to make the pledge are exposed as such, because those that do say it will denounce the silent as being unpatriotic, traitorous or whatever.

Yes you keep saying it, but you have not yet shown me how that IS the case. You have presented me with conjecture and no evidance at all.

If you call a man unpatriotic, how does that inhibit his freedom to be so? I'm not patriotic, I see no sense in the idea at all, many people know this of me yet I have no problems, my voice is heard along with the rest, and the goverment have not crashed down my door to arrest me as a traitor. Of course unpatriotic and traitor are two differant things.

Seeing it in another way, many Christians denouce those who are not as sinfull and bound for hell, but what real damage does this do to these people? How is such denouncement detrimental to their lifes?



I suppose I can't convince you otherwise. Since I am determined that that which would prove you wrong will never occur, I don't expect to ever do so, either.

Heh never say never, I can be and have been swayued to change my mind before. Yet if here you admit that what you fear will never happen then what is the problem you have with this?

To be honest I'm surprised to hear this kind of 'cash for oaths' idea being even semi-endorsed by Brown, who's noted for his habit of quoting John Stuart Mill in his speeches. One of Mill's best arguments in On Liberty was against the practise of banning Atheists from testifying in court: Mill pointed out that this restriction only kept the honest atheists out, as dishonest atheists would simply 'swear to God' and get in.

Similarly, giving tax-incentives to students who agree to take the oath will only encourage the unscrupulous opponents of the pledge to take it, as the supporters will take it anyway and the honest opponents will still refuse on principle.

As an Atheist Republican (in the UK sense of the word, no right-wing nutters please) I'm not sure how much of the pledge I could affirm in good faith, but as an impoverished student I'd be inclined to compromise by lying through my teeth and then writing a sanctimonious letter to the Guardian to make myself feel better. :D

And that is the real point. What effect would this have really, I mean it's just words, say and mean it, don't say it, say it and don't mean it, how can the goverment know your heart, what will they do to those who swear and don't mean it, what can they do?

Is this the start of a campaign of nationalisation of the British people? Or will this suggestion be the start of the end for Brown's Labour government?

It's another step in becoming USA State #51.

It's another step in becoming USA State #51.

Don't you mean USE, Look at the first full time e.u presidents full title is President of the united states of Europe.

Forthampton;13518456']Here Here!

Thank you. Maybe I should send it in as a draft pledge. Then I could make lots of money!!!!!!!!!!! :D

And that is the real point. What effect would this have really, I mean it's just words, say and mean it, don't say it, say it and don't mean it, how can the goverment know your heart, what will they do to those who swear and don't mean it, what can they do?

Precisely. What do you think would happen if someone swore by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who has quite a following among sixth-form students)? They can't very well refuse to accept it for fear of somebody crying religious discrimination, and the whole affair will be turned into a farce.

Not that I'd ever do that of course... :p

Don't you mean USE, Look at the first full time e.u presidents full title is President of the united states of Europe.This sentence is a bit too ambiguous to be sure of what you're trying to say.