Sorry, that was a bit unfair. Or maybe not. But you see the problem?

Yes it was quite unfair.

Would this be reciprocal? I can't see these countries agreeing to that. What about South Africa? Other commonwealth countries?

I was commenting about a proposal I read about last year sometime; the common language, accounting practices and law, along with similar standards of living were cited as being factors that could prove beneficial to the potential success of such an arrangement. I could see this working, as for others in the Commonwealth - I'd have to give it further thought.

Accounting practices? Seriously?

As far as law is concerned, most of the countries of the Commonwealth have a common-law system. The United States fulfills the criteria too. Why not the USA?

Where did you see this proposal?

English speaking countries, with a common-law system include:

Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Cook Islands
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana
Ireland
Jamaica
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Singapore
Trinidad and Tobago

I know nothing of their 'accounting practices'.

Off the top of my head, I don't recall. I read quite a lot about a variety of subjects but I'm quite sure you could find numerous pieces on Google. And you're quite right, the USA would fill that criteria but there'd no doubt be a huge cry about having the Americans on board. I'm merely saying it sounded like something that had potential that's all. You are entitled to your own opinion and I mine.

What about all the soldiers and civilians too, that lost their lives in conflicts across Europe? The EU was originally formed to help assure there would never be that loss of life again. That is what I wonder about.

Firstly, we haven't lost our sovereignty. Second, if the UK leaves the EU it will still remain a member of the EEA which means freedom of movement between member states will still apply. This referendum is not about the EEA and the UK government neither has nor will have a mandate to leave the EEA.

+1. I speak as a 65 year old man who has never been called upon to bear arms. I wonder how long ago it was that a Brit of my age could say that?

Well, broadly speaking about 100 years? Britain had no conscription until 1916, if you discount feudal duties.

Broadly speaking then a century? How old are you?

63 in a few days.

Weren't there men who were just too young to be called up in 1918/1919 but were too old to be called up for the Second World War? Not sure of what date men were called up in WWII and the upper age limit. I know that many served in active duty in both wars, but that would often be because they had senior rank in WWII or volunteered...

Edited to add, probably the above is not right, as National Service which was brought in from September 1939 included men up to age 41. So WWI and WWII caught up everyone in terms of conscription..

It's a long time since I studied WW2 but, as far as I can remember, men aged 20-21 had to register for a short spell of military training from about April 1939 onwards. Conscription for men aged 18 - 40 (41?) who weren't in reserved occupations was introduced later that year, but it took a couple of years to work through the different age groups, starting with the youngest. The upper age limit was eventually raised to 51 during WW1, but I don't know if it ever reached this during WW2. Some conscripts were also sent to the coal mines (Bevin Boys), and women were called up for various types of war service too.

The original question is a bit tricky.That's why I said about 100 years, generally speaking, if we're referring to combatants. I'm sure there were exceptions.