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

They wouldn't be surrendering, it would be a sovereign choice, so the answer is yes.

 

Mmm.... I mean I don't want to turn this into a conversation hinging on what we each interpret to be "little," but I'm not saying the UK isn't sovereign, it certainly is.

That argument could be made, yeah.

Our trade relations with Canada are extremely one-sided, and nothing like that has occurred.

I think the British need to understand that when Trump made the infamous comments about the NHS, he had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

Sure. I think it require extremely poor negotiating from the British side, but it's plausible.

Umm... Not even close. Like, way way off.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm phone illiterate.

 

Yes it has. In 1972 Parliament passed the European Communities Act. Since then, if there has been a conflict between national law and European law, the UK courts have to give priority to European law

 

Before the UK joined the Common market, since having become the EU, it 'survived' as you put it in a different way.
I wish every question was as easy to answer.

 

Name an issue of conflict that has manifested itself and we can go from there. Just one will do.

 

That's patently ridiculous. You'd be hard pressed to find any political scientist who thinks New Mexico is a sovereign state.

 

LoL sure. They built a global powerhouse while the rest in Europe were still picking their noses.

Even today, with perhaps the exception of Germany, they maintain that competitive edge.

They don't need some drunk ass grabber clown shoe wearing fool in Brussels to tell them what to do.

 

So New Mexico was forced against it's will to give up some controls to the Greater United States. I genuinely didn't know that had happened. Which year or period of time did this take place?

 

Well at least you want to learn. New Mexico was straight up conquered in the Mexican-American War, and wasn't given statehood for generations.

As a territory, yes, New Mexico was "forced to give up it's controls" to the United States.

 

It's not about trade. A trade agreement can be done and has been done before.

This is about European countries bowing down and doing what they're told by some shadowy central government.

The validity of the EU is captured very well by it's ridiculous drunken leader.

What an idiot.

 

i have learned something. Are there any other states within the United States that have been similarly subjugated against their will?

 

There is no shadowy central government. Mainly because it isn't a government, and also not shadowy because all the EU processes are transparent.

 

Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wyoming. If you want to leave states behind: The Phillipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and countless others.

And, well, if you want to talk about the natives: All of it.

You'd be hard pressed to claim, for example, that the Navajo or Cherokee are really sovereign.

 

The comparison to US states is not really apt, however. To the extent you can make such comparisons, U would consider the system under the Articles of Confederation slightly more analogous.

 

Oh yes, it's not a government.

They're not telling people they can't leave their non-existing entity either.

 

I am aware that Aboriginal Americans were subjugated by force.
In terms of the other mainland states, am I right in assuming they were subjugated by force as a result of the American Civil War?

You are right on both counts.

 

Sorry. messed up the separation of quoting.

 

I've named two groups of states, those that were integrated as territories as part of the Mexican Cession, and those that were defeated and subjugated during and after the Civil War, yes.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I should also include the states formed out of the Louisiana Purchase. Though they weren't subjugated by force, they were formed as territories without ever having been sovereign. Oops.

EDITED EDIT: …bearing in mind that we're still leaving Natives out of the equation for the sake of simplicity.

EDITED EDITED EDIT: I'm also leaving out Alaska and Hawaii. ****, this is hard.

 

Right, that's the point I was making originally before we went off on this strange tangent. The United States under the Articles did not surrender enough sovereignty, which required our Founders to draft and squabble over our Constitution.

 

I think the tangent thing happened because there was a suggestion that the UK has been subjugated by the EU.

 

What I really would like to hear your input on is how much Brexit will help/hurt the neocons and their dastardly agendas? And how much, if at all, you see the same type of forces gaining ground in the UK? I do recall we disagreed in the past about the influence on America's decision making and policies of the pro Israel lobby but I see them extending their influence within the UK and, in particular, among the Tories who appear even more ready and willing to play their assigned role as US/Israeli sidekicks in their revised and updated PNAC like agendas.

 

At the time of UK joining the Common Market, UK was on continuous strikes, people only finding work for 3 days a week, bins not being emptied, power cuts happening all the time, population queuing for bread and had no money.

We then had our "Winter of Discontent"

 

When you leave the EU, you get a border, like russia, belarus or other non eu nations

 

Riiiight. That awful 2 year recession.

After joining the EU, they did better than eve....oh wait, no, they didn't.



Oh look at that.

Housing prices after 1992.

 

Right, well, as you alluded to our disagreement extends a bit deeper into what drives American foreign policy, so it's a bit hard to answer here without going over my opinion just a little bit. The surface answer is that the United States would, following a nasty Brexit, have more leverage over the UK, and to make matters worse Islamophobic elements in England will be strengthened following the probable dissolution of the UK. But the question is: What will American activities be going forward? A big part of my analysis is the following fact about American foreign policy: We are so overwhelmingly secure in a geopolitical context, that political and cultural concerns play a larger role in our decision making than can be allowed in most nations. I don't believe, as you do, that the JCPOA was a "trick" being foisted on the Iranians, I think that American policy makers simply adopted the most pragmatic approach to Iran: Try to end the nuclear program diplomatically, pull back on American commitments in the region and accept new commitments warily. The United States, in fact, ceded control of Iraq to Iran in 2010 and Syria to Iran in 2017.

The United States, being so secure, is hard to predict. Whereas my theory of history is typically "forces and trends" heavy, there are areas where "Great Man" theories have more credibility. US foreign policy post-Cold War is one of those areas. I think there is a genuine difference between the Trumps, Mattis', Obamas, McCains, and Boltons, and that these factions are struggling for control of American policy towards the Middle East. Whereas Obama I think genuinely did lean towards pulling back from the region (though he had a bad habit of deferring to the "experts"), Bolton has exactly the opposite instinct on every matter. Trump's opposition to the JCPOA was, in my view, almost entirely borne of spite towards Obama, but the more militaristic actions we've seen this past year can be chalked up to Bolton's influence on the President at that point in time.

I've said for a few years now that I don't see the Americans going to war with the Iranians. Well, we've gotten much closer than I expected, but I still don't think it's going to happen. I think that US-Iran relations will cool again, and that increased US influence over England will have little effect on your country.

In the long-term, I'm bullish on Iran. You're going to have to worry about England about as much as you worry about Vietnam. I hope I'm right.