Make America Great Britain Again

[Grande Republic of Arcadia]

My point is there's no reason for us to not simply be fellow Americans.

Guys, enough with the cultural dick measuring, most of us were invaded by the Brits sometime.
Can we get back to the logistics on how the U.S. can become a Dominion?

It can never happen because british law states no civilian including police can legally own fire arms, unless they belong to a hunting club and they may oonly have a shot gun and shotguns make up a very small percentage in the US and only the rich will be able to afford to join the hunting clubs, and the better question is how will you deal with US military separatists who WILL oppose british rule, how will you deal with the South and parts of the Mid-west? The only way to make the US a dominion of any nation is by conquest which aint gonna happen anytime soon, its more likey that the UK will take the UK than this scenario.

[Biona]

...forgot about Agustin there for a sec. Shame I can't share a king with Spain. Who's Norton? Is he another Iturbide?

You aren't familiar with the reign of Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico? What do they teach in history classes these days?

The civil war and the great depression.
The Emperor wasn't on the list. Glad to see he decreed for the Bay Bridge to be built, though, and I think I'd actually like to have him as a ceremonial monarch. It would be cool.

[Tweedsmere]

Guys, enough with the cultural dick measuring, most of us were invaded by the Brits sometime.
Can we get back to the logistics on how the U.S. can become a Dominion?

It can never happen because british law states no civilian including police can legally own fire arms, unless they belong to a hunting club and they may oonly have a shot gun and shotguns make up a very small percentage in the US and only the rich will be able to afford to join the hunting clubs, and the better question is how will you deal with US military separatists who WILL oppose british rule, how will you deal with the South and parts of the Mid-west? The only way to make the US a dominion of any nation is by conquest which aint gonna happen anytime soon, its more likey that the UK will take the UK than this scenario.

Being a Dominion does not mean that you are subject to every law of the British legislature. Canada is still a Dominion, even if we don't use the term that much anymore.

[Novus America]

I suppose a parliamentary system would appease all these people who are upset with the current two main parties. I also have always enjoyed the trappings of monarchy and we'd get a chance to celebrate the Queen's platinum jubilee.

What? I know this is a joke thread, but plenty of parliamentary systems are two party rule. We would just be giving the Paul Ryan and the house majority near absolute power. In the case of the U.K. Itself, the U.K. Parliament can literally rewrite the constitution with a single majority vote.

[Kola Republic]

I suppose a parliamentary system would appease all these people who are upset with the current two main parties. I also have always enjoyed the trappings of monarchy and we'd get a chance to celebrate the Queen's platinum jubilee.

What? I know this is a joke thread, but plenty of parliamentary systems are two party rule. We would just be giving the Paul Ryan and the house majority near absolute power. In the case of the U.K. Itself, the U.K. Parliament can literally rewrite the constitution with a single majority vote.

and that's why we have a written one that takes ages to amend, and if we're going to go parliamentary we should go continental and not westminster. That's the progenitor of the shit we have today- the dictator is 650 people elected whenever one of them feels like it's time and not 1, basically, in westminster systems without any sort of constitutional safeguard.

[Mushet]

Just put me in charge, what can go wrong?

[Galloism]

Bah, just make me king. We'll make my slogan "Hey, at least I'm not Donald Trump."

[Kola Republic]

Bah, just make me king. We'll make my slogan "Hey, at least I'm not Donald Trump."

300-odd million people can't be worse than trump

[Anollasia]

I'm curious as to why more people said yes than no.

[Galloism]

Bah, just make me king. We'll make my slogan "Hey, at least I'm not Donald Trump."

300-odd million people can't be worse than trump

Yeah, but I mentioned it.

[Maurepas]

I think that's where we really went wrong as a country here. We need the Queen to potentially override President Trump. I think we need that insurance, heh.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'll break out the earl gray
And I better get a snazzy uniform

[Noraika]

It can never happen because british law states no civilian including police can legally own fire arms, unless they belong to a hunting club and they may oonly have a shot gun and shotguns make up a very small percentage in the US and only the rich will be able to afford to join the hunting clubs, and the better question is how will you deal with US military separatists who WILL oppose british rule, how will you deal with the South and parts of the Mid-west? The only way to make the US a dominion of any nation is by conquest which aint gonna happen anytime soon, its more likey that the UK will take the UK than this scenario.

1) Adoption of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II will not mean an adoption of British gun laws. After all, Canada, Australia, and the other monarchical Commonwealth nations, have total control over their own internal and foreign policy affairs. All that would happen would we'd be like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We'd share a common head of state, but still be completely sovereign political entities, in charge of our own foreign policy and military. The only difference is the replacement of the Presidential-Congressional system with a Monarchical-Parliamentary system.

2) If this would happen, it would via popular referendum, in a similar fashion to how Australians vote every so often on whether to keep the monarchy, or become a Commonwealth republic. Separatism and rebelling would be the epitome of anti-democratic action, and I find it unlikely that it would happen. Its just like most political ventures like legalization of gay marriage, the election of the Obama administration, or any other political decision that had the South up in arms and threatening sucession again. A few people would make a fuss, but then it would die down.

3) With that said, as political figures, Her Majesty the Queen is very popular, so I doubt a revolt would occur.

I'm curious as to why more people said yes than no.

Well, at least in my case, it is because in my opinion I find the whole Presidential system of governance to be rather silly, and not good for democracy. Monarchy is better for democratic governance and stability, and a parliamentary system is better than a presidential system, in my opinion. Not to mention the economic, national, social and political benefits to our entering the Commonwealth of nations, and adopting the monarchy.

Overall, I just find it to be a better system, so I voted yes.

[Soviet Papyrus]

Monarchism should be banned worldwide! And all monarchies need to become democracies.

[Galloism]

Monarchism should be banned worldwide! And all monarchies need to become democracies.

What about democratic monarchies?

[Soviet Papyrus]

Let's just nuke every single monarchy in the world.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I'll break out the earl gray
And I better get a snazzy uniform

Earl Grey. Good Lord, this endeavour isn't going to work if you're not willing to put a little effort in.

[Dooom35796821595]

Let's just nuke every single monarchy in the world.

Great Idea. Exept for the part about a monarchy being a nuclear power that would retaliate with nukes. How about we just ban filthy communism? since, unlike monarchies have been proven to be impossible.

[Novus America]

It can never happen because british law states no civilian including police can legally own fire arms, unless they belong to a hunting club and they may oonly have a shot gun and shotguns make up a very small percentage in the US and only the rich will be able to afford to join the hunting clubs, and the better question is how will you deal with US military separatists who WILL oppose british rule, how will you deal with the South and parts of the Mid-west? The only way to make the US a dominion of any nation is by conquest which aint gonna happen anytime soon, its more likey that the UK will take the UK than this scenario.

1) Adoption of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II will not mean an adoption of British gun laws. After all, Canada, Australia, and the other monarchical Commonwealth nations, have total control over their own internal and foreign policy affairs. All that would happen would we'd be like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We'd share a common head of state, but still be completely sovereign political entities, in charge of our own foreign policy and military. The only difference is the replacement of the Presidential-Congressional system with a Monarchical-Parliamentary system.

2) If this would happen, it would via popular referendum, in a similar fashion to how Australians vote every so often on whether to keep the monarchy, or become a Commonwealth republic. Separatism and rebelling would be the epitome of anti-democratic action, and I find it unlikely that it would happen. Its just like most political ventures like legalization of gay marriage, the election of the Obama administration, or any other political decision that had the South up in arms and threatening sucession again. A few people would make a fuss, but then it would die down.

3) With that said, as political figures, Her Majesty the Queen is very popular, so I doubt a revolt would occur.

I'm curious as to why more people said yes than no.

Well, at least in my case, it is because in my opinion I find the whole Presidential system of governance to be rather silly, and not good for democracy. Monarchy is better for democratic governance and stability, and a parliamentary system is better than a presidential system, in my opinion. Not to mention the economic, national, social and political benefits to our entering the Commonwealth of nations, and adopting the monarchy.

Overall, I just find it to be a better system, so I voted yes.

Cause giving the house majority near absolute power is a good idea?

[Anollasia]

It can never happen because british law states no civilian including police can legally own fire arms, unless they belong to a hunting club and they may oonly have a shot gun and shotguns make up a very small percentage in the US and only the rich will be able to afford to join the hunting clubs, and the better question is how will you deal with US military separatists who WILL oppose british rule, how will you deal with the South and parts of the Mid-west? The only way to make the US a dominion of any nation is by conquest which aint gonna happen anytime soon, its more likey that the UK will take the UK than this scenario.

1) Adoption of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II will not mean an adoption of British gun laws. After all, Canada, Australia, and the other monarchical Commonwealth nations, have total control over their own internal and foreign policy affairs. All that would happen would we'd be like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We'd share a common head of state, but still be completely sovereign political entities, in charge of our own foreign policy and military. The only difference is the replacement of the Presidential-Congressional system with a Monarchical-Parliamentary system.

2) If this would happen, it would via popular referendum, in a similar fashion to how Australians vote every so often on whether to keep the monarchy, or become a Commonwealth republic. Separatism and rebelling would be the epitome of anti-democratic action, and I find it unlikely that it would happen. Its just like most political ventures like legalization of gay marriage, the election of the Obama administration, or any other political decision that had the South up in arms and threatening sucession again. A few people would make a fuss, but then it would die down.

3) With that said, as political figures, Her Majesty the Queen is very popular, so I doubt a revolt would occur.

I'm curious as to why more people said yes than no.

Well, at least in my case, it is because in my opinion I find the whole Presidential system of governance to be rather silly, and not good for democracy. Monarchy is better for democratic governance and stability, and a parliamentary system is better than a presidential system, in my opinion. Not to mention the economic, national, social and political benefits to our entering the Commonwealth of nations, and adopting the monarchy.

Overall, I just find it to be a better system, so I voted yes.

Yeah, I don't like US democracy but I'm not really a fan of monarchy either. If monarchy, then at least constitutional monarchy but I would be completely against absolute monarchy.

[Novus America]

1) Adoption of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II will not mean an adoption of British gun laws. After all, Canada, Australia, and the other monarchical Commonwealth nations, have total control over their own internal and foreign policy affairs. All that would happen would we'd be like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We'd share a common head of state, but still be completely sovereign political entities, in charge of our own foreign policy and military. The only difference is the replacement of the Presidential-Congressional system with a Monarchical-Parliamentary system.

2) If this would happen, it would via popular referendum, in a similar fashion to how Australians vote every so often on whether to keep the monarchy, or become a Commonwealth republic. Separatism and rebelling would be the epitome of anti-democratic action, and I find it unlikely that it would happen. Its just like most political ventures like legalization of gay marriage, the election of the Obama administration, or any other political decision that had the South up in arms and threatening sucession again. A few people would make a fuss, but then it would die down.

3) With that said, as political figures, Her Majesty the Queen is very popular, so I doubt a revolt would occur.


Well, at least in my case, it is because in my opinion I find the whole Presidential system of governance to be rather silly, and not good for democracy. Monarchy is better for democratic governance and stability, and a parliamentary system is better than a presidential system, in my opinion. Not to mention the economic, national, social and political benefits to our entering the Commonwealth of nations, and adopting the monarchy.

Overall, I just find it to be a better system, so I voted yes.

Yeah, I don't like US democracy but I'm not really a fan of monarchy either. If monarchy, then at least constitutional monarchy but I would be completely against absolute monarchy.

Problem is most constitutional monachies give the parliament virtually unchecked power.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Given just how much larger, wealthier, and stronger the US is as compared to the UK, a political union of any sort would be tantamount to an American annexation of the latter. The only way to keep the British government and laws British would be to restrict America's ability to make laws and vote. Which means rebellion.

There is also the issue of the guns, which Americans won't be willing to hand over. And also the issue of the dollar vs the pound, the military, different laws, etc.

The US doesn't really gain anything from joining the UK in any form.

we don't have much to lose from associating with our fellow british colonies, rwanda and mozambique in the commonwealth at least. I don't think we do, anyway...do we? I mean sure half of them are kleptocratic shitlordships, and the other half are run by demagogic idiots. But those easily describe our allies elsewhere.

What do we get out of joining the Commonwealth that we don't already have?

[Cetacea]

we don't have much to lose from associating with our fellow british colonies, rwanda and mozambique in the commonwealth at least. I don't think we do, anyway...do we? I mean sure half of them are kleptocratic shitlordships, and the other half are run by demagogic idiots. But those easily describe our allies elsewhere.

What do we get out of joining the Commonwealth that we don't already have?

Style - you get to hang out with people of true Nobility rather than the vulgar mass of Nouveau riche

[Communist Xomaniax]

What do we get out of joining the Commonwealth that we don't already have?

Style - you get to hang out with people of true Nobility rather than the vulgar mass of Nouveau riche

That's not really style, that's just being around people we have to pretend are still important.

[Old Tyrannia]

Monarchism should be banned worldwide! And all monarchies need to become democracies.

How do you go about banning a form of government worldwide?

Let's just nuke every single monarchy in the world.

"In recent news, the United States is at war with the entirety of the European Union and the Arab League after launching unprovoked nuclear attacks on a number of members of those organisations. It has been pointed out that almost all of the countries attacked by the US were in fact US allies, causing the US' remaining allies- at this point, basically Israel and South Korea- to be less than willing to come to America's aid in the new war. Meanwhile the burnt out remains of Thailand and Cambodia have been occupied by the People's Liberation Army and Indonesia has laid claim to the less-irradiated parts of Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand whilst people have began fleeing America's major cities in the thousands in anticipation of the inevitable retribution of the UK's two remaining Vanguard-class nuclear submarines, the crews of which now have nothing to lose and a deadly grudge against America for murdering everyone they ever knew and loved."