Could Boris Johnson be the UK's last prime minister?

No one in Ireland wants a border!!!!Time for Irelands reunification!!!

 

I mentioned that particular referendum because you mentioned a referendum in post 41 on this thread.
If you are suggesting a referendum as in: 'Perhaps folks in ireland would be served by allowing them to decide by referendum' but then ask about a previous referendum ''Which means what?' would your suggestion of a new referendum in Ireland have a 'meaning'?

 

Sorry you are confused. Of course the referendum that you've cited would then indicate that should the Irish be offered a choice, and become part of the UK that they in fact could, under the agreement from good friday. The option is certainly there. Why not take it?

 

While Boris Johnson can at times appear entertaining and even likable, he is ultimately going to be remembered for turning whatever remains of the UK after his tenure into the kind of cute and entertaining poodle the US/Israel would like to see at the helm in Downing Street. And those proud Brits who wanted nothing with the EU because they wished to preserve their sovereignty and heritage, can be found wondering how they ended giving up their sovereignty to a group who ultimately get their cues from those at the helm of a project which Britain's Balfour Declaration in many ways jump started around 100 years ago.

 

As of this moment the UK is a completely sovereign country. Being in the EU for the past 40 years or so has not reduced the UK's sovereignty at all.

 

I didn't intend to suggest otherwise, although sovereignty is relative and not as absolute as you make it to be. That said, fears of losing that sovereignty (however overblown and exaggerated) helped fuel the passions of the Brexit crowd.

 

Well it certainly has reduced it some. There's no path to a more unified Europe that doesn't require some loss of sovereignty on behalf of the nation-states within it.

 

Except that the EU had already agreed that with the UK there would be no more integration.

 

You say 'some'.
Can you give any examples where UK sovereignty has been reduced by the actions of the EU, the EU which the UK is a full and functioning part of?

 

My claim is simply that the UK surrendered some sovereignty as part of the EU.

Well, I feel like it's odd that I have to point it out, but obviously the UK surrendered some level of control over it's trade, border controls, and even some fiscal policy.

There's no way you didn't already know that.

 

How can the UK be surrendering control from itself to itself?
When you use the word 'obviously' it might mean it would be easy for you to cite an example.
Can you?

 

I already did, buddy. The UK surrendered control of trade policy to the EU. That's the only way the EU could even conceivably work. The American States had to do something similar centuries ago.

 

The EU model is very similar to the US model of states.

edit : Just seen you last post

 

More than what you actually lose in the way of the details you have to negotiate as part of a larger "union" was perhaps a deeper question of perception and identity. For those in "the continent", the feeling of being "European" must often come more easily than for many Brits. To be sure, I would have preferred the UK to be part of an independent EU --but not in the role it often took as an entity seeking its leverage based on its "special relationship" with the US. Regardless, however, from this outsider's view at least, it does appear that the UK has basically fallen prey to the same forces that have increasingly taken hold of power in Washington. And so with Brexit, they can now more freely ignore whatever those pesky Europeans might have in mind against their agendas --agendas which prefer they remain unconstrained by any notion of international law and multilateralism. And so the irony about sovereignty I wanted to allude to in my initial post: voting for sovereignty because of what were at best trivial constraints and mostly a "feeling" on the issue, and actually ending up losing your sovereignty in ways were the examples will come more readily and becoming a full blown house pet of certain forces which have quite effectively taken hold of power in Washington.

 

Err 'buddy' the UK is part of the EU.
Do you understand that?
I repeat, how does a country surrender something to itself?

 

Many Americans criticize the EU as dictatorial but fail to recognise that the EU works in a similar way to the US. The problem with the EU was that there is not enough impetus to progress the project and too many countries were invited in that did not have the strength to keep the project going. The fall of the iron curtain was bad news for the EU (common market) due to the introduction of many poor countries with low wage economy and easy movement of people; there should have been a second tier EU in which countries from that tier are not promoted until they are financially stable and have a similar economy

 

Your analysis is pretty much spot on.

 

Holy s***, you're right. My home state of New Mexico is a member of the United States, and clearly it has control of its own policies, and is therefore a sovereign state.

Let me ask you this, if we gave the UN control over the monetary and fiscal policies of every nation on Earth, would all of those Nation still in fact be sovereign, as a result of being members of the UN?

 

You have answered your own question. It would be a sovereign decision if any country freely agreed to give the UN anything, so within the UN they would be sovereign according to the new circumstances they agreed to.
The example you gave above is actually quite the reverse to the way you frame it, the UK shifted it's trade policy by joining in order to better trade with all the other EU countries. That was a sovereign UK decision. New rules within that system are subject to veto by member countries if they don't like them, i.e.individual countries exercising sovereignty. If the UK was as supplicant as you seem to think, how come it still has the pound and not the euro?

 

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. If every nation on Earth surrendered their monetary and fiscal policies to the UN, would they still be sovereign states? Is New Mexico a sovereign state?

 

I assume out of total ignorance that New Mexico has control of some of it's stuff, and agrees that the wider United States has control of other stuff.
I might be wrong in that new Mexico was invaded sometime in the past by the greater United States and forced into subjugation, my knowledge of the history of New Mexico is very scarce in this area.

 

Precious little. The UK or possibly England and Wales will be surrendering far more of their sovereignty in this supposed trade deal they are intending having with the US. Some loss of sovereignty. The NHS which is free at the point of need the US would like the people in Britain to be paying the massive price for medicines which the US does. In food there are all sorts of things. We are to eat beef with hormones in it and not be told this is the case. Same with GM. We are to lose our right to knowledge on these things. The US also wanted the right to give information about any of us it chooses to another country of its choosing. The UK has left being one of the top dogs in the EU to having to give others like the US whatever they want. Those things I mentioned and there were more were on the sort of things the US would need from us for a trade deal.

The UK had its say in what it did. You believe every country should just build a wall around them and do no business with anyone else. The UK did not even belong to Schengen.

 

Oh how did the UK survive before Brussels saved them, I wonder.

 

I seem to remember it was the US who was nagging the EU to bring them all in suddenly.

 

As the 'sick' man of Europe. That is what we were known as.