When reading Ryan Skinnell’s “America’s brand new enemy: Merry ole’ England” on Feb. 28, I was concerned about the lack of research the writer had done before displaying his opinions for all to see. Skinnell put forward a number of points that were not well researched, and presented his views on various issues, but did not have the background to make them valid. When trying to get others to see the same point of view as you, I find it necessary to actually look at the facts — a concept I learned in English 155 — and as Skinnell is a graduate student, I was a little troubled.
To start, Skinnell raises the problem of England not being democratic because they still have a queen. Well, let’s have a little history lesson. Since the 18th Century, the monarchy in England has been a constitutional monarchy, meaning the Queen is bound by strict rules and remains politically impartial.
When the Euro system of currency was introduced in 2002, only 12 countries adopted it, so the sentence “when the whole of continental Europe agreed to come together under the banner of a single monetary measure, the Euro, only England stood apart” was completely wrong. In a continent of 46 countries, 34 did not take on the new currency, and therefore, England did not defiantly stand apart from Europe. It was for financial reasons that England didn’t take on the Euro, granted, but who in their right mind would take on a currency that would make their country into a weaker nation?
Citing the Civil Partnership Act, which allows homosexual couples to register their commitment to each other and receive benefits, as a personal attack against the United States was unjustified and misrepresented. At least some nations are moving in the right direction.
And, finally, England “could much more easily get a nuke to the East Coast?” Yes, England does have the money and the technology, but they lack a reason. It would be the most stupid move to make, because for to begin with, we would nuke them right back, and don’t try and kid yourself that the United States hasn’t got nukes — if England has them, then we will have three times as many!
(Editor’s Note: The column in question was intended by the writer to be a cynical and humorous take on U.S. foreign policy. The points made were not meant to be taken seriously.)