Crown, i.e. an apolitical head of state

Not particularly significant, especially not in this day and age where
polls suggest a large percentage of people don't care about the
monarchy.

Look, this is NOT about personalities, it is about having a Head of State who
is not a party-politician. If you want some clapped out political has-been as
your Head of State that's fine, but it is not the British way, and (in my
opinion), thank God for that!

Culture, including literature

Someone living in a remote village in Scotland has less in common with
a Londoner than someone living in another European city. The culture of
differents parts of the UK is as different as the culture of different
parts of Europe.

That's your opinion, but a remote Scotsman is (in my opinion) still more likely
to share my language than someone from abroad.


Historical experience

Well, most parts of the UK have fought wars against most other parts,
but then the same is true of Europe.

Yes, but for the last few centuries have fought was TOGETHER, and AGAINST most
of those European countries who are now attempting to govern us.

Currency & economy

This has never been true. The economy in the North is nothing like the
economy in the South.


There may be variations in the economy, but we share a currency AND a unified
economic policy e.g. interest rates etc.

Philosophical outlook on World affairs

Really? I think we're as divided in the UK as any other European
country.

Well we still have a U.K.-based foreign policy.

Belief in fair play

Oh come on now, that's just ridiculous. For a start, we don't seem to
believe very much in "fair play" (football hooligans make wonderful
ambassadors for "fair play", don't they?). And secondly, you seem to be
trying to say that Europeans don't believe in fair play, which is
really just xenophobia.

I made the point advisedly, in an "E.U." context. All of those pettifogging
rules imposed by the E.U. (everything from the shape of bananas to the colur of
paraffin, to more serious matters like fishing quotas) we rigidly impose and
obey, since that is what we (in the U.K.) perceive to be the right and fair
thing to do. Even if it causes us significant harm, which is does. Most
patently the rest of the E.U. couldn't give a fcuk, and they are not "into"
fairness or fairplay but proudly (and who could blame them - what do they owe
us?) base their policies and enforcement of them simply on self-interest.

Freedom from all but wholly necessary governmental interference

This is just propaganda for your own political beliefs, and an attempt
at insisting that the whole of the UK shares them. Come to think of it,
most of your post is.

I admit that there is more and more governmental interference, especially under
the present Government (paradoxically, a lot of this emanates from the E.U.
anyway) and you are entitled to your opinion of my post.

That does not, however, detract from the philosophical difference that exists
between our common law-based heritage, whereby the citizen is free to do as he
pleases, except insofar as specific restrictions are imposed by statute or
common law. The European civil law-based tradition is that rights are "given"
(in documents like "declarations of human rights" or written constitutions.
That is a fundamental difference of approach and one doesn't need to be a law
graduate (which I am) to understand the nature of the difference.

Marc.