Cant say if it is necessary, but no doubt the reason is because the US officially distrusts Canada.
The USA and Canada have different procedures in allowing non citizens to visit. The fear is that a terrorist will go to Canada first and then slip across the border. This new law was passed in the Bush years and Bush in my opinion was one of the most incompetent presidents in our history.
This is really a joke. Most of the American/Canadian border is artificial. A parallel line was used. There are farms owned by either Americans or Canadians that cover both nations. There is NO BORDER you can see for the most part.
I visited Canada several years ago. There was a checkpoint but other than record our car license number that was it. At that time the Canadian dollar and the American dollar were so close in value that either currency could be used in retail in either nation. Canadian and American quarters for instance are the same size and either will work in a vending machine.
I didn't need a passport to go into Canada. Now I do. I believe that will change under Obama.
The channel/sea is a double edged sword. Yes, it is difficult to cross with an army, but it also isolates the country from foreign help. Britain came very close to starving in both world wars. The main weapons of war currently are economic ones, which might give pause to an isolated country wholly reliant on trade from far away.
The US has a perception of the 'special relationship'. The perception is that it has a special relationship with whichever country it needs support from at that time.100 years ago Britain was in a similar position of isolated supremacy. Isolated by virtue of being pre-eminent. But in reality by 100 years ago this had already changed and the new kid on the block (Germany) was challenging for the top spot. two lessons? first, the top dog has no friends and if it seeks to remain top dog, is unable to have, because that requires sharing. second, Britains proper response now is to form alliances of its own, frankly against interference from the top dog. That's what Germany did. Hopefully the coming resource war will remain primarily an economic one rather than military.
The USA has that perception of the "special relationship" for a variety of reasons. Time heals wounds. While the USA has no desire to restore the monarchy, the people of the USA are taught in school about the UK being the mother country. In law the unwritten common law of England is still the backbone of our law. Our nursery rhymes and other children's liturature is based on those in England. In most American schools the history of the British Isles is still taught. There is one year in high school devoted to just American liturature and then one year devoted totally to English liturature and a lot of English history is also taught in conjunction will that.
So many Americans particularly in The South where my family has lived for generations have English heritage. I am at least 90 % British Isles with heritage from all the countries of both islands. I am very proud of that linage. I can trace some of my heritage to the Normans that invaded in 1066. I even know they settled in the Lake District.
Part of that "special relationship" is most Americans think of the British, Canadians, Aussies and people from New Zealand as being family. Having said that there is nothing closer than being family. There is also nothing more divisive than a family quarrel.
I taught social studies. Societies have to have some things to survive. One is a common communication system. I made my post. You made a reply and then I made responded. Both of us are using English and it is both our first language and neither of us has a problem of communicating. That speaks volumes about special relationships. I'm sure that there is a special relationship between Spain and Latin America that speaks Spanish as well.
About your second part, "Britains proper response now is to form alliances of its own, frankly against interference from the top dog. That's what Germany did. Hopefully the coming resource war will remain primarily an economic one rather than military." that is the quagmire that the UK has had to get through after the change from being the British Empire to being the UK. While the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the natural cultural allies along with the British Commonwealth, the UK's economic future is with the European Union. From what I am reading it is not the Americans that are having a problem with the UK looking toward Europe. It is many British people themselves that do NOT want to give up sovereignty to Brussels. It appears to me that there is much more animosity toward Brussels then toward Washington.
The USA still needs the UK and the UK needs the USA. The USA and the UK have helped each other now for almost a century in trying to control world affairs. It is easier to see this when reading American press than
European press. London is the real cultural capital of Europe. Paris or Berlin get very little spotlight. No other nation in Europe outside the UK has any real military or political power outside the regional area of Europe.
You seem to believe that it is America that is trying to keep the UK from integrating into the European Union by playing top dog. Paris and Berlin are much more a threat to the UK than Washington when it comes to trying to control British behavior. I haven't picked up on any American opposition to the UK looking toward Europe.
I feel a little sad in that being proud of my British ancestry I saddens me to know that the once great British Empire not only will cease to exist, but the idea of an independent Britain will also fade into history.
I'm a realist though. Unless we can get a tugboat and pull Australia, New Zealand and Britain across ocean lines so there is just a channel dividing all countries plus Canada and the USA, Britain has no real choice but go European.
It is the younger British people who see America as carry a big stick playing top dog. We can thank George Bush for that. I live here in America. The disdain that many British people seem to have for George Bush is mild compared to what MOST Americans
There is no such thing as a truly independant sovereign nation today. The US may come close, but even she is complexly dependant on others. Probably the US would be able to become truly independant, at considerable cost in standard of living etc, if it really wanted. Britain could not. We would starve. It is foolish for anti-EU people to go round pretending Britain can escape the authority of external forces such as the EU by leaving the club. This would just make matters worse.
I agree with you with the exception of the part where the US would be able to come truly independent. Perhaps the USA, Canada and Mexico could pull it off together but I doubt it.
We do have one advantage in that we produce more food then we can possibly eat. So America would not starve provided our citizens could afford the food at the newly inflated prices. Most of our manufacturing has gone overseas. We have few textile factories left. Over half our automobiles are not made in America. China is bankrolling America. Except for food, it might be a close race as to which nation would suffer the most if either the UK or the USA tried to be truly independent. To say that the majority of Americans would be in poverty would be an understatement.
QUOTE=dandelion;2489105]
I would say I am a monarchist, but the current abdication of authority by the monarchy is precisely what makes me question its existence. A monarchy which tries to be wholly democratic is an exercise in self destruction.[/QUOTE] The monarchy holds the key to the UK remaining culturally independent. The monarchy represents the tradition of the UK now for almost 1000 years. To change to a republic where there is a head of state may sound nice. I hope the British will consider how the head of state is an unknown and with no real power in many parliamentary systems including Canada and Germany. We hear from their prime ministers, but rarely from their heads of state.
Here in America, the Queen's approval rate was in the 80s in 2007 when she paid a state visit to the USA. President Bush's approval rating was below 30. I'm amazed it was that high.
The Queen is still a symbol of particularly England but all the UK. All societies have to have symbols to survive. The monarchy has served the UK well in that regard.
I remember when the Queen was young and was pregnant with her youngest children.
I do understand and agree with you though that in the end, it is economics that drives the machine.
The key word was interdependence. Since the beginning of civilization we have been giving at least some of our independence to the whole in order to have the small slice we have be a bigger and better slice. I gave up ownership of the entire earth except for my small plot of ground where my house stands. My rights stop where your rights begin. That is how cilivization works. It takes an large empire to be truly independent. None exist like that of the 19th century.
