> Not even close. It's actually bang on the money. Two words: Common Law. I would suggest, strongly, that the UK does indeed have vastly more in common with

> Not even close. It's actually bang on the money. Two words: Common Law. I would suggest, strongly, that the UK does indeed have vastly more in common with the US, at the most fundamental level. Our freedoms, law, government and society at large are based upon it, and this makes our countries much closer than any European nation based upon Civil Law will ever be. It's not just down to legalities, it shapes our entire attitude to how a society should run, and how the laws of the land are made and changed over time. In all these things, the UK and US are almost entirely the same. Common Law is central to the fundamental philosophy, and political and judicial processes which make our societies run. Most European countries have Civil Law. It's very different, and I would argue that much of the friction between EU institutions and UK law (and public) is because it's trying to impose the Civil Law framework onto a Common Law system, and it's not really compatible. Much of the time, in the UK, we look at the actions and attitudes of EU political figures with disbelief. Because they make little sense, for people used to Common Law. In Civil Law, it's more understandable. The public's expectations are quite different in both systems, and this is a fundamental disconnect which can't be papered over. It's one of the reason many in the UK, including myself, feel that the rules-based EU is fundamentally undemocratic and unfit for purpose. Because from our rather less hidebound and laissez-faire point of view, this is absolutely the case. We're much more used to the "whatever is not specifically forbidden, is allowed" point of view. And when it comes to the law, we're used to our juries and judges being able to interpret and shape the law in new ways by common sense, rather than being rigidly stuck to the letter.