I know this would be a nightmare scenario for many of you guys to be teamed up with America and all its issues but I thought this was a cool concept nonetheless. Hope everyone is doing well!
NO - world war three is the only possible result of this mad suggestion. By far the most stupid load of rubbish you have tried to get your demented brain around ( and that's saying something !)
@@c_n_bThat's stretching it can't happen. If all the Anglo-Saxon nations united the US would still be in command of it all not because of the govt. or military but the super giant corporations that control the US the whole of it . The US is basically just a small group of giant corporations not a Republic anymore . They say the US govt.does ,period !
@@c_n_b Free speech? You must've slept through April and May when college students on 100+ campuses across the nation we're beaten and arrested by police, under orders from Democrats and Republicans, for protesting the g-cide.
Its the reason the UK is a surveillance state currently. You Americans in my opinion have that right. Their government are more scared of the people, that's how it should be in my opinion. What we got in the UK is a nanny state where the people are virtual slaves that need hand holding in every way. Little children dressed as adults.
@@charlesfrancis6894 I think it also exists in terms of ‘pop culture’ - ie modern shared media culture. Music, podcasts, community forums and platforms like “X” etc etc etc..
Those who postulate this idea would do well to bear in mind President Woodrow Wilson's statement to the British Parliament in 1918 “You must not speak of us who come over here as cousins, still less as brothers; we are neither. Neither must you think of us as Anglo-Saxons, for that term can no longer be rightly applied to the people of the US. Nor must too much importance in this connection be attached to the fact that English is our common language… no, there are only two things which can establish and maintain closer relations between your country and mine: they are community of ideals and interests.” So, if ideals and interests diverge?
According to The World Factbook, Canada has the longest coastline in the world, Australia is 7th, USA 8th, New Zealand 9th, UK 12th and Ireland 64th. That’s without all the overseas territories and islands so I’d say the coastline would be pretty amazing in both diversity and size.
There is a reason the British Empire fell apart, there was a lack of concern for regional differences, Western Australians would want the benefit from their resources, south island of NZ would feel ignored, question of guns rights/control, UN influence would be reduced from 5 votes to 1, the Angloshere countries usually vote the same way in the UN. Good intellectual exercise, but not workable.
@@fyrdman2185 British empire stated falling apart in1776, in 1834 independence movements started in Canada, solve diplomatically but reduced the influence, reduced farther over the decades in Australia and India. It did not start in 1918 or 1945 after the world wars, it stated decades, centuries earlier. American power replaced British power during ww2, but British power was in decline since the US revolution.
@@CrDa-i7e Not it did not, 1776 made Britain more powerful seeing as how Britain went on to focus on India and more profitable ventures. Britain peaked during the Victorian era, it did not collapse there. Also everyone in the commonwealth wanted an Imperial federation.
No one will give up their autonomy, the general concepts though are happening through treaties, especially AUKUS. Canada and New Zealand have wanted to join but have not been accepted yet and Japan seems to be the first that might, but each will still have independent Governance
Bad idea. We already have enough problems atm, I think we ought to solve those issues first which has been plaguing us, like immigration, crime, demographic change etc. Besides I don't feel kinship with any of the other "Anglosphere" countries, we're separate and have developed a separate identity after all these years.
Bring it on. Geopolitically it would bring huge economic and security advantages. It is time for like minded nations to unite; the old desires for independence seem out of step with the modern world and the challenges we face with the rise of China and the BRICS conglomerate. United we stand; divided we fall.
@@stephenhill8604Id prefer to call it the Anglo Empire. Calling it American empire would be inaccurate as America is either north or south continent which could mean any nation in the Americas.
Agnostic means you’re undecided. The symbols probably just help to differentiate between the two, just like how other religions use symbols to differentiate to eachother.
Economic and military alliances between the 5 countries does exist, to be one country, I believe would be a bad idea. Although we share a language, the union would have to give each state/province considerable autonomy to control regional concerns, with the federation government being only an umbrella. The regional differences in the US would be greatly increased if you include the regional differences of UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. There would probably be 8-12 political parties, and a huge disagreement upon the power of the head of state. The union would not last.
I was randomly daydreaming about this very thing happening just the other day! And suddenly someone produces a video on it. Wow - that’s pretty cool. Yeh def. It’s gotta happen. 🤞 (In terms of (shared) popular media and culture… we’re pretty much already there!)
We are linked to Canada,Australia and not forgetting New Zealand are I feel Anglophiles , sorry to say I don’t class Americans as Anglo . Allies we might be but the Average British people feel closer to the commonwealth countries
Canzuk. This idea is not new and polls suggest that most citizens and quite a lot of politicians of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK would support an economic and military union of some sort and we already share a nominal head of state. How the USA would fit in is unknown, Americans don't know as much about these other English speaking nations as the Canzuk countries do , in many ways our ties are closer and much as we like the US we would not want to be governed by it. I do like the idea of Canzuk and maybe in time the US could join too, meanwhile we would be very close allies.
I'd said it pretty much has as much as it can. That is close friends with close cooperation/integration with military and intelligence resources! Since there is no chance of agreement on who get to run it and under what system.
The only way this is going to happen is if the United States has the biggest role in governing but also agrees to have the King as ceremonial head of state. as the other 4 nations are constitutional monarchies. republic and monarchy tied together aren't compatible unless they are autonomous which defeats the purpose of uniting. the only other alternative is the commonwealth abolishing the monarchy and then joining as states within the US becoming the 51st 52nd 53rd and 54th state. the US is very unlikely to want the other powers to have a say in this. its far more likely the 4 monarchies will unite without the US with the capital being somewhere in Canada.
an alternative would be for each country to be broken up alony local county lines and in each county a council if formed, from their neighbouring countys within a pre-difined radius of some natural geographical feature IE the grand cannion or niagra falls (for example) come together and form local parties wio put forward their candidates (form amoung their number) for Parlament (local Member of Parlarment) they get sent of to where ever the government building has been decididly put and persent their case for budgeting raising issues of their local population and so on. I think it would work if it was persented to every member nations citicans in plain and persice language that they could understand. I mean we cant go into the space age and still be so divided.
It already exists in a military sense with the 5 eyes. 👁️ 👁️ 👁️ 👁️ 👁️ But I would be opened to the idea if America doesn’t dominate it. For that to happen perhaps it would be an idea if America broke up into smaller countries and then we joined together as one country or a giant trading bloc or commonwealth. At the end of the day, we are separate countries for now but we come from the same people, the mother country called Britain. So, it makes sense to align ourselves with each other, combining our strengths and weaknesses to make us all better. It’s like, whenever I talk to an American or Canadian or Australian or New Zealander as a British person I feel at home talking with them. We have all fought in battles together and spilt blood for freedom. I also like the flag design and could easily imagine that flag flying proudly over our national institutions but we would need to come up with a national anthem. And I agree the capital could be in a neutral country but that doesn’t mean it has to be in North America because of the larger populations living there. It could be in New Zealand.
Forming an acceptable government would be a huge problem, and the present issues in the USA regarding 'Trump', have revealed a potential situation where the USA could conceivable become the disunited states of America. The ever present 'straw man' and 'rabbit holes' that have enabled that man to evade his just deserts is staggering to the average person. Any government of multiple nations, that could work effectively, and avoid 'trumpianism' is a concept that is presently ethereal.
Last time I checked, many people still support trump so your comment is one sided and biased. The way you should look at uniting a nation is democracy. You always will get competing interest in any nation. The questions is how do you serve those competing interests without blowing apart that united nation.
@@MrLeighman my comment is definitely one sided, and certainly biased, against anyone with the same dubious attributes as Mr Trump, from ever being a head of state anywhere. Yes, a lot of people do still support him. One possible answer to your question might be that you don't allow the leader to buy favours, to buy justice, to ignore the separation of powers, to favour family members with positions of power, to abuse his/her authority etc, etc.
@@user-man-now80 Fair enough . I respect your right to be biased and have your own opinion. But it is just that, an opinion amongst many opinions and not necessarily based on first hand knowledge and fact. You can not build a nation on your opinion alone, that is my point. Otherwise what you get is authoritarianism.
@@MrLeighman No ! It's based on the fact that he has a criminal record. He could be given a jail sentence. He abuses women and has a huge debt outstanding to one of his victims, given in a court of law. He faces another judgement in October for financial irregularities. He is a persistent liar. Last year he encouraged an attempted storming of the House of Representatives. The list goes on. It Isn't my opinion alone. You need to get in touch with reliable news agencies and forget social media sites.
@@user-man-now80 Using the word fact in my opinion is fighting talk. Do you know of the many irregularity's in the voting system that caused the riots in the last US election? - have you bothered to look into it. Did Trump actually encourage the storming of the house or did he encourage protests - there is a difference. Did trump physically abuse a woman or verbally abuse a woman - there is a difference. If you are going to use facts, be very careful to get yours straight and not use heresy. I daresay you were not there and so you don't know all the facts which is impossible for anyone to know. Also, show me one politician who is a saint and I have a bridge to sell you. It is just a matter of the degree of their integrity. I love your righteous indignation, you sound like you have a stick up your arse.
It would work far better if they were to be in a far closer group of trading nations with agreements on human rights, military preparedness free travel areas as a brotherhood etc a bit like the UN but with teeth and willing to co operate within a broad base. Associate members could include Singapore, and other smaller independent nations who feel they are overlooked . It could counter Chinas increasing belligerent imperialist sabre rattling.
It would be better suited to stick all the commonwealth countries that want to joint up together as a 3rd superpower to balance out USA and China, they would have a tie breaker status and be able to dictate better terms with both sides. If they glom onto the USA they will be beholden to them. They wouldn't have to get involved in every squabble the US jumps into but they could all show up together in force whenever they need to step in. Forming a single country is not practical, but joining together under a closer commonwealth just makes sense given globalization. They can also make plans like trading refugees for Caribbean islanders for bilateral benefit (rather than deporting them to Rawanda! WTF?!?) . They can ship oil and goods from Vancouver to AUS and NZ, and then take Asian goods along with the NZ and AUS goods back to Canada. They can establish free trade zones specifically for commonwealth countries in major ports.
Dutch and Danes speak better English than the English (let alone the Americans) do, There was a game between Germany and England where England beat them 5-1. The German commentator interviewed Owen, Gerrard, Beckham and the manager Sven-Göran Eriksson (Swedish). He couldn't understand the first 3. (Scouse, E.London) but had no problem with Eriksson .
We in Ireland fought against integration with the UK ( England at the time) for hundreds of years so no that would not work for us. Also I've never felt any affiliation with the USA. Too many guns, lack of healthcare, anti- intellectualism and lack of education.
Aussie here and it's not something that I want, I don't feel like losing my freedoms just so I can go into some federal mashup of union states. I am not Anglo either, I'm a white Australian lad, the term Anglo is very old and should only refer to people in the British isles. It's like Brexit, those in Britain voted to leave the EU which I agree with, so I would never accept our four countries merging together into one nation which is a WORSE idea than EU for me. Not to mention we have sooooo many differences at this point it wouldn't work no thanks
Anglo would refer anyone from Britain and people descended from Britain which would include people from the US and the commonwealth. But I do agree that this union of states is something which is undesirable for me but to "losing your freedoms"? Mate you're Australian, you're one of the least free countries along with Britain atm.
@@fyrdman2185 No it refers to the people of Great Britain alone, no one in Australia refers to themselves to as Anglo because their ancestors happened to come from Britain (many people in Australia are also descended from Dutch too), we are European and our nationality is Australian. Very few people in Britain even use the term anymore, yanks seem to be obsessed with the word though
@@CelticComradeLad People from Australia use it all the time I see, they keep referring to themselves as Anglo-Celtic. And there aren't that many Dutch descended people in Australia, there are more Southern Europeans than anything. And Americans are not obsessed with it, they just recognize that the founders of America were Englishmen, from the Pilgrims to the Founding Fathers to the later Frontiersmen were all Englishmen.
@@fyrdman2185 It doesn't matter whose ancestors were Anglo, that doesn't make people living in these modern countries Anglo. That's like claiming everyone is African because all of our ancestors came from there. Where are you hearing people using the very antiquated Anglo and Celtic terms in Australia? Never heard anyone use either of those terms to describe themselves, just heard Australian, white, or European.
@@fyrdman2185 Even the whole British isles don't use the term to describe themselves, 2 of the countries in the UK has Celtic ancestry and England has Anglo Saxon, a term that is a rarity even from an Englishman's mouth.
It is not talked about, but just looking at a map, the USSR appears to be much larger by land mass than the British empire ever was. Obviously it was nearly all worthless and barren, but larger nonetheless
Absolutely has to be done ... under the condition that the house of Hanover will be reinstituted to govern it again since such an empire needs a proper emperor; therefor it should be prince Ernst August instead of the old Charles guy. /EndOfIrony But seriously, the U.S. decided to disconnect from Britain for a reason and is proud about and look how divided the U.S. alone is nowadays. This country barely sticks together as one nowadays; imagine it being part of an even bigger empire with even more cultural diversity (and more borders to build walls around - a bit more difficult with all that surrounding water - ok, above wasn't really the end of irony). I bet, such an empire wouldn't survive a decade without civil wars and/or wars for indepence breaking out.
Its not really their native language. English is only a co-official language with Irish Gaelic. Theres lot of others which could be included based on language alone. Many countries have lot of tribal languages but use english as lingua franca in Africa for example. South Africa, Zambia, South sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone or Liberia. English is also the most common language in Singapore?!
@@InquisitiveBaldMan I don't understand your reasoning. English, as you say, isn't the native language because it arrived in the RoI after Irish Gaelic but English also arrived after the native languages in the countries you mention and those included in the video as Anglophones so what is the difference? New Zealand for example, the co-offical languages are English and Maori, English arrived later, exactly the same situation as the RoI.
@@iangt1171 Because the Irish are not British. Although I don't agree with America being included in the Anglosphere at least America has a large English diaspora. It was founded by Englishmen.
Yes agreed. I am from the England. Lets do it. I want to be able to move around visa free. I want a little cabin in the Rockies or perhaps a beach hut in Sydney bay, England can keep it's drizzly weather.
As an instrument of defence against the rising tide of degenerate cultures, The Anlosphere would be essential.A refuge for our values and culture. But let us be clear for a moment, there can be NO french territories in any part of Britannia!
When I was a spotty high school kid in London in the 1990s I was called “Tory boy” in my politics class because I hated Europe and kept arguing that it was originally about trade why did politics have to come into it. And I said then and I still say now - we fought alongside Canada Australia New Zealand and America in BOTH world wars - I’d rather be United with THEM than Europe - we’ve got far more in common. And it’s still true today. But america has got to sort out its cray gun laws first 😂😂😂❤🎉🎉🎉
I know this would be a nightmare scenario for many of you guys to be teamed up with America and all its issues but I thought this was a cool concept nonetheless. Hope everyone is doing well!
Only if we can all have America's free speech, Australia's sun, Britain's pubs, and Canada's.... maple syrup?
NO - world war three is the only possible result of this mad suggestion.
By far the most stupid load of rubbish you have tried to get your demented brain around ( and that's saying something !)
@@c_n_b 🤝 deal
@@c_n_bThat's stretching it can't happen.
If all the Anglo-Saxon nations united the US would still be in command of it all not because of the govt. or military but the super giant corporations that control the US the whole of it .
The US is basically just a small group of giant corporations not a Republic anymore .
They say the US govt.does ,period !
@@c_n_b Free speech? You must've slept through April and May when college students on 100+ campuses across the nation we're beaten and arrested by police, under orders from Democrats and Republicans, for protesting the g-cide.
You might want to look up CANZUK.
Canada
Australia
New
Zealand
United
Kingdom.
What he said.
Yeah, I'm a big supporter of the CANZUK idea!!
that would mean the Americans would have to eat beans on toast and jellied eels for breakfast..it'd never happen
4 of us already share a head of state, English is an official language of India
No thanks. I'm perfectly happy not worrying about my nieces and nephews coming home from school in body bags.
Imagine the UK with a 2nd Amendment.
Few shootings is not comparable to Britain's stabbings, grooming gangs, near tyrannical speech codes etc.
Its the reason the UK is a surveillance state currently. You Americans in my opinion have that right. Their government are more scared of the people, that's how it should be in my opinion. What we got in the UK is a nanny state where the people are virtual slaves that need hand holding in every way. Little children dressed as adults.
@@MrLeighman I can't begin to fathom why you've replied to my post? Your points are utterly irrelevant to my assertion.
@@mikefraser4513 Given our population density...it would be a bloodbath.
In a military sense it already exists.
@@charlesfrancis6894 I think it also exists in terms of ‘pop culture’ - ie modern shared media culture. Music, podcasts, community forums and platforms like “X” etc etc etc..
No
Those who postulate this idea would do well to bear in mind President Woodrow Wilson's statement to the British Parliament in 1918 “You must not speak of us who come over here as cousins, still less as brothers; we are neither. Neither must you think of us as Anglo-Saxons, for that term can no longer be rightly applied to the people of the US. Nor must too much importance in this connection be attached to the fact that English is our common language… no, there are only two things which can establish and maintain closer relations between your country and mine: they are community of ideals and interests.”
So, if ideals and interests diverge?
The crazy thing is, the UK is a small country yet we had so much influence on the world
More people there than australia and canada combined
So much influence? Brutality can do that for a country.
@@brendandunleavy1399 There's always 1 Muppet
Unfortunately that influence is mostly negative nowadays.
@@brendandunleavy1399Yes, what did the Romans ever do for us?
According to The World Factbook, Canada has the longest coastline in the world, Australia is 7th, USA 8th, New Zealand 9th, UK 12th and Ireland 64th. That’s without all the overseas territories and islands so I’d say the coastline would be pretty amazing in both diversity and size.
In brief an atheist is a person who believes that there is no god. An agnostic believes that there is no proof either way.
The Americans wouldn’t join because they would reject the King
Not so. They've just given Fat Arse 45, Kingly powers
@@peterrauth118 who did?
Not sure that America could be involved without ruining it, that said. The benefits are overwhelming
There is a reason the British Empire fell apart, there was a lack of concern for regional differences, Western Australians would want the benefit from their resources, south island of NZ would feel ignored, question of guns rights/control, UN influence would be reduced from 5 votes to 1, the Angloshere countries usually vote the same way in the UN. Good intellectual exercise, but not workable.
@@CrDa-i7e The British Empire fell apart due to Britain being involved in the World Wars, it has nothing to do with what you just said.
@@fyrdman2185 British empire stated falling apart in1776, in 1834 independence movements started in Canada, solve diplomatically but reduced the influence, reduced farther over the decades in Australia and India. It did not start in 1918 or 1945 after the world wars, it stated decades, centuries earlier. American power replaced British power during ww2, but British power was in decline since the US revolution.
@@CrDa-i7e British power was still rising until the 1870's, when Germany unified as a competitor in 1871 and the US overtook the British GDP in 1875
@@CrDa-i7e Not it did not, 1776 made Britain more powerful seeing as how Britain went on to focus on India and more profitable ventures. Britain peaked during the Victorian era, it did not collapse there. Also everyone in the commonwealth wanted an Imperial federation.
All the government meetings would just be people sat around talking about how they say some things a bit differently
YES unite us, united we stand divide we fall,
No one will give up their autonomy, the general concepts though are happening through treaties, especially AUKUS. Canada and New Zealand have wanted to join but have not been accepted yet and Japan seems to be the first that might, but each will still have independent Governance
Bigger than Russia?. Thats not a bad thing..
NO WAY!! NEVER!!!
Bad idea. We already have enough problems atm, I think we ought to solve those issues first which has been plaguing us, like immigration, crime, demographic change etc. Besides I don't feel kinship with any of the other "Anglosphere" countries, we're separate and have developed a separate identity after all these years.
Bring it on. Geopolitically it would bring huge economic and security advantages. It is time for like minded nations to unite; the old desires for independence seem out of step with the modern world and the challenges we face with the rise of China and the BRICS conglomerate. United we stand; divided we fall.
Americans would hate it as they would have to use Metric instead of measuring things in football fields and pound sterling🤣🤣
Well, not entirely true, we do still use imperial in some areas.
I believe that was known as the British Empire.
I think American Empire is more realistic these days. However, ‘Anglo-sphere’ is a slightly less controversial term perhaps?
@@stephenhill8604Id prefer to call it the Anglo Empire. Calling it American empire would be inaccurate as America is either north or south continent which could mean any nation in the Americas.
@@deanmadnut2614 yep. Using the word Anglo is much more suitable.
@@deanmadnut2614 The US empire
@@CelticComradeLadthe best possible name would be the Revived British Empire
❤it's a nice dream and one day it could become as a necessary thing for all english speaking countries if only as a defence
Agnostic means you’re undecided. The symbols probably just help to differentiate between the two, just like how other religions use symbols to differentiate to eachother.
Economic and military alliances between the 5 countries does exist, to be one country, I believe would be a bad idea. Although we share a language, the union would have to give each state/province considerable autonomy to control regional concerns, with the federation government being only an umbrella. The regional differences in the US would be greatly increased if you include the regional differences of UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. There would probably be 8-12 political parties, and a huge disagreement upon the power of the head of state. The union would not last.
I was randomly daydreaming about this very thing happening just the other day! And suddenly someone produces a video on it. Wow - that’s pretty cool. Yeh def. It’s gotta happen. 🤞
(In terms of (shared) popular media and culture… we’re pretty much already there!)
We are linked to Canada,Australia and not forgetting New Zealand are I feel Anglophiles , sorry to say I don’t class Americans as Anglo . Allies we might be but the Average British people feel closer to the commonwealth countries
That is true but the rest of the commonwealth and Britain itself is becoming less Anglo by the minute.
@@fyrdman2185 well I would put a stop to that if I had my way
Canzuk. This idea is not new and polls suggest that most citizens and quite a lot of politicians of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK would support an economic and military union of some sort and we already share a nominal head of state. How the USA would fit in is unknown, Americans don't know as much about these other English speaking nations as the Canzuk countries do , in many ways our ties are closer and much as we like the US we would not want to be governed by it. I do like the idea of Canzuk and maybe in time the US could join too, meanwhile we would be very close allies.
SIZE? Australia is actually SLIGHTER larger ( if you take the lakes out) of the contigous United States.
Atheist: "No".
Agnostic: "I don't know" or "I can't decide".
Got that OK? 🙂
I'd said it pretty much has as much as it can. That is close friends with close cooperation/integration with military and intelligence resources! Since there is no chance of agreement on who get to run it and under what system.
The only way this is going to happen is if the United States has the biggest role in governing but also agrees to have the King as ceremonial head of state. as the other 4 nations are constitutional monarchies. republic and monarchy tied together aren't compatible unless they are autonomous which defeats the purpose of uniting. the only other alternative is the commonwealth abolishing the monarchy and then joining as states within the US becoming the 51st 52nd 53rd and 54th state. the US is very unlikely to want the other powers to have a say in this. its far more likely the 4 monarchies will unite without the US with the capital being somewhere in Canada.
Or it doesn't include the US, just include CANZUK
an alternative would be for each country to be broken up alony local county lines and in each county a council if formed, from their neighbouring countys within a pre-difined radius of some natural geographical feature IE the grand cannion or niagra falls (for example) come together and form local parties wio put forward their candidates (form amoung their number) for Parlament (local Member of Parlarment) they get sent of to where ever the government building has been decididly put and persent their case for budgeting raising issues of their local population and so on.
I think it would work if it was persented to every member nations citicans in plain and persice language that they could understand.
I mean we cant go into the space age and still be so divided.
It already exists in a military sense with the 5 eyes. 👁️ 👁️ 👁️ 👁️ 👁️ But I would be opened to the idea if America doesn’t dominate it. For that to happen perhaps it would be an idea if America broke up into smaller countries and then we joined together as one country or a giant trading bloc or commonwealth. At the end of the day, we are separate countries for now but we come from the same people, the mother country called Britain. So, it makes sense to align ourselves with each other, combining our strengths and weaknesses to make us all better. It’s like, whenever I talk to an American or Canadian or Australian or New Zealander as a British person I feel at home talking with them. We have all fought in battles together and spilt blood for freedom. I also like the flag design and could easily imagine that flag flying proudly over our national institutions but we would need to come up with a national anthem. And I agree the capital could be in a neutral country but that doesn’t mean it has to be in North America because of the larger populations living there. It could be in New Zealand.
Trouble is, that in times of a serious conflict, the septics only ever turn up three years late.....
Forming an acceptable government would be a huge problem, and the present issues in the USA regarding 'Trump', have revealed a potential situation where the USA could conceivable become the disunited states of America. The ever present 'straw man' and 'rabbit holes' that have enabled that man to evade his just deserts is staggering to the average person. Any government of multiple nations, that could work effectively, and avoid 'trumpianism' is a concept that is presently ethereal.
Last time I checked, many people still support trump so your comment is one sided and biased. The way you should look at uniting a nation is democracy. You always will get competing interest in any nation. The questions is how do you serve those competing interests without blowing apart that united nation.
@@MrLeighman my comment is definitely one sided, and certainly biased, against anyone with the same dubious attributes as Mr Trump, from ever being a head of state anywhere. Yes, a lot of people do still support him. One possible answer to your question might be that you don't allow the leader to buy favours, to buy justice, to ignore the separation of powers, to favour family members with positions of power, to abuse his/her authority etc, etc.
@@user-man-now80 Fair enough . I respect your right to be biased and have your own opinion. But it is just that, an opinion amongst many opinions and not necessarily based on first hand knowledge and fact. You can not build a nation on your opinion alone, that is my point. Otherwise what you get is authoritarianism.
@@MrLeighman No ! It's based on the fact that he has a criminal record. He could be given a jail sentence. He abuses women and has a huge debt outstanding to one of his victims, given in a court of law. He faces another judgement in October for financial irregularities. He is a persistent liar. Last year he encouraged an attempted storming of the House of Representatives. The list goes on. It Isn't my opinion alone. You need to get in touch with reliable news agencies and forget social media sites.
@@user-man-now80 Using the word fact in my opinion is fighting talk. Do you know of the many irregularity's in the voting system that caused the riots in the last US election? - have you bothered to look into it. Did Trump actually encourage the storming of the house or did he encourage protests - there is a difference. Did trump physically abuse a woman or verbally abuse a woman - there is a difference. If you are going to use facts, be very careful to get yours straight and not use heresy. I daresay you were not there and so you don't know all the facts which is impossible for anyone to know. Also, show me one politician who is a saint and I have a bridge to sell you. It is just a matter of the degree of their integrity. I love your righteous indignation, you sound like you have a stick up your arse.
It would work far better if they were to be in a far closer group of trading nations with agreements on human rights, military preparedness free travel areas as a brotherhood etc a bit like the UN but with teeth and willing to co operate within a broad base. Associate members could include Singapore, and other smaller independent nations who feel they are overlooked . It could counter Chinas increasing belligerent imperialist sabre rattling.
It would be better suited to stick all the commonwealth countries that want to joint up together as a 3rd superpower to balance out USA and China, they would have a tie breaker status and be able to dictate better terms with both sides. If they glom onto the USA they will be beholden to them. They wouldn't have to get involved in every squabble the US jumps into but they could all show up together in force whenever they need to step in. Forming a single country is not practical, but joining together under a closer commonwealth just makes sense given globalization. They can also make plans like trading refugees for Caribbean islanders for bilateral benefit (rather than deporting them to Rawanda! WTF?!?) . They can ship oil and goods from Vancouver to AUS and NZ, and then take Asian goods along with the NZ and AUS goods back to Canada. They can establish free trade zones specifically for commonwealth countries in major ports.
No atheist and agnostics are not the same thing. Look it up.
Really? I'm not sure.
They were. Once.
NO ! Agnostic.. I am abiliavent ! Atheist, I don't BELEIVE !
Just have the Canzuk deal... with the US as EXTRA special friend.
Anglo and Celts need our own ethno-states
Other countries with English as their main language I think would be Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Jamaica, Barbados, probably some other island nations
Dutch and Danes speak better English than the English (let alone the Americans) do, There was a game between Germany and England where England beat them 5-1. The German commentator interviewed Owen, Gerrard, Beckham and the manager Sven-Göran Eriksson (Swedish). He couldn't understand the first 3. (Scouse, E.London) but had no problem with Eriksson .
We in Ireland fought against integration with the UK ( England at the time) for hundreds of years so no that would not work for us. Also I've never felt any affiliation with the USA. Too many guns, lack of healthcare, anti- intellectualism and lack of education.
Canberra, as the capital city of Australia, is nowhere near being the largest city in Australia.
An agnostic is like I dunno whereas an athiest is just no!
If this happened America would have to introduce some type of social medical system.
Too fall in line with the other countries. 🥳🥳
Didn't Cecil Rhodes have ideas in this direction?
I'm not sure the Americans would enjoy being shown up by the lower funded but higher trained allies!
Arrogant comment. To presume to know that you are better in a fight but always prepare to be better.
@@MrLeighman bigger isn't necessarily better
Enjoyed this 'what if', but .........
City proper is a horrible way to grasp the size of a city, otherwise Paris would be considered small.
What a nightmarish hypothese!
None of those three signs are not Religious what are you talking about?
Aussie here and it's not something that I want, I don't feel like losing my freedoms just so I can go into some federal mashup of union states. I am not Anglo either, I'm a white Australian lad, the term Anglo is very old and should only refer to people in the British isles. It's like Brexit, those in Britain voted to leave the EU which I agree with, so I would never accept our four countries merging together into one nation which is a WORSE idea than EU for me. Not to mention we have sooooo many differences at this point it wouldn't work no thanks
Anglo would refer anyone from Britain and people descended from Britain which would include people from the US and the commonwealth. But I do agree that this union of states is something which is undesirable for me but to "losing your freedoms"? Mate you're Australian, you're one of the least free countries along with Britain atm.
@@fyrdman2185 No it refers to the people of Great Britain alone, no one in Australia refers to themselves to as Anglo because their ancestors happened to come from Britain (many people in Australia are also descended from Dutch too), we are European and our nationality is Australian. Very few people in Britain even use the term anymore, yanks seem to be obsessed with the word though
@@CelticComradeLad People from Australia use it all the time I see, they keep referring to themselves as Anglo-Celtic. And there aren't that many Dutch descended people in Australia, there are more Southern Europeans than anything. And Americans are not obsessed with it, they just recognize that the founders of America were Englishmen, from the Pilgrims to the Founding Fathers to the later Frontiersmen were all Englishmen.
@@fyrdman2185 It doesn't matter whose ancestors were Anglo, that doesn't make people living in these modern countries Anglo. That's like claiming everyone is African because all of our ancestors came from there. Where are you hearing people using the very antiquated Anglo and Celtic terms in Australia? Never heard anyone use either of those terms to describe themselves, just heard Australian, white, or European.
@@fyrdman2185 Even the whole British isles don't use the term to describe themselves, 2 of the countries in the UK has Celtic ancestry and England has Anglo Saxon, a term that is a rarity even from an Englishman's mouth.
It is not talked about, but just looking at a map, the USSR appears to be much larger by land mass than the British empire ever was. Obviously it was nearly all worthless and barren, but larger nonetheless
You're looking at a Mercator projection map. If you looked on a globe, you can see the true relative size.
It's unnecessary, we are all close allies and it would only put a political wedge between us and our non English speaking allies.
lol
Absolutely has to be done ... under the condition that the house of Hanover will be reinstituted to govern it again since such an empire needs a proper emperor; therefor it should be prince Ernst August instead of the old Charles guy. /EndOfIrony
But seriously, the U.S. decided to disconnect from Britain for a reason and is proud about and look how divided the U.S. alone is nowadays.
This country barely sticks together as one nowadays; imagine it being part of an even bigger empire with even more cultural diversity (and more borders to build walls around - a bit more difficult with all that surrounding water - ok, above wasn't really the end of irony).
I bet, such an empire wouldn't survive a decade without civil wars and/or wars for indepence breaking out.
Why wasn't the RoI initially included in the Anglosphere? The US isn't part of the Commonealth, never has been, so why exclude the RoI?
Its not really their native language. English is only a co-official language with Irish Gaelic. Theres lot of others which could be included based on language alone. Many countries have lot of tribal languages but use english as lingua franca in Africa for example. South Africa, Zambia, South sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone or Liberia. English is also the most common language in Singapore?!
@@InquisitiveBaldMan I don't understand your reasoning. English, as you say, isn't the native language because it arrived in the RoI after Irish Gaelic but English also arrived after the native languages in the countries you mention and those included in the video as Anglophones so what is the difference? New Zealand for example, the co-offical languages are English and Maori, English arrived later, exactly the same situation as the RoI.
@@iangt1171 Because the Irish are not British. Although I don't agree with America being included in the Anglosphere at least America has a large English diaspora. It was founded by Englishmen.
@@iangt1171 I mean the whole idea is a fantasy. Sooo... "Why is Ireland not included?" ... Because it's not real... They're just making stuff up.
Yes agreed. I am from the England. Lets do it. I want to be able to move around visa free. I want a little cabin in the Rockies or perhaps a beach hut in Sydney bay, England can keep it's drizzly weather.
I'm fine with this, as long as it doesn't mean a drop in standards to American levels.
No chance if Trump would be head of state.
Trump has been the most Anglophilic president in recent history.
Oh mate,can't watch that,what's happening with the sound?
this is a bit Project 2025, white supremacist vibes
No thanks, terrible idea.
Trump head of state?? 😂
Why not include liberia and Singapore? The capital should be Gibraltar or Singapore. Or London in Canada.
No, Port Stanley
Because they were not settler colonies. We have no shared ancestry with them.
As an instrument of defence against the rising tide of degenerate cultures, The Anlosphere would be essential.A refuge for our values and culture. But let us be clear for a moment, there can be NO french territories in any part of Britannia!
For that reason I nominate Montreal as capital.
The values of these countries are imperialism, jen oh side and climate destruction.
No thanks.
@@benhodkinson6467 The Anglosphere is the heart of degenerate culture.
Ironic considering degnerate cultures nowadays comes mainly from an Anglo country (US)
Actually i believe that will happen soon..
When I was a spotty high school kid in London in the 1990s I was called “Tory boy” in my politics class because I hated Europe and kept arguing that it was originally about trade why did politics have to come into it. And I said then and I still say now - we fought alongside Canada Australia New Zealand and America in BOTH world wars - I’d rather be United with THEM than Europe - we’ve got far more in common.
And it’s still true today.
But america has got to sort out its cray gun laws first 😂😂😂❤🎉🎉🎉