Does Britain still seek membership in a strong union?

The huge assumption being made here is that the USA is a country. In fact, I would say that the majority of the people on this planet see the USA as a country and the member states as divisions or territories of it. I can't blame anyone for thinking that. It's pretty much the only view that is taught in American schools, much less in other countries.
Let's look at it like this. Does anyone think the EU is a country? I believe the UK wants to leave the EU because they do not feel like their sovereignty as a nation is respected. Is that basically the gist of it? The US Constitution is a document that guarantees the right of each state to govern itself.

The USA is not a country. It is a union that makes it possible for the member states to participate in world politics as a group. We have the power of a large nation with the individual freedom of small countries. I know some people think this is some kind of idealistic fantasy, but it's the whole point of the US Constitution. Each state makes its own laws and no state is expected to abide by the laws of another state. I know this is difficult for some of you to understand because all you have ever known is the top down approach to government (monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies etc.).

I agree, for the most part, with everyone who posted thoughts on their distaste of America. We do have a failing economy (because we allowed a central bank to take over our money supply, the FED). We do have a civil rights problem (thanks to our 7 media companies that people keep listening to for some reason). The federal government is sticking is nose into everyone's business because we have forgotten that our state governments are the ones that should be handling issues like abortion or gay marriage. The feds have no business telling states what they can and cannot do. Nevertheless, it's happening. I don't know how to change it other than sharing this information in the hopes that it will open one or two eyes to the true nature of the USA.

The grass truly is greener on the other side, but I have to ask, if this experiment in self governance that our founding fathers labored over is finally failing after over 200 years, how hard could it be to steer it back on track. The problems we are dealing with are not inherent in the system, they are aberrations that were introduced with subversive intent by communists and capitalists who sought to take over in the aftermath of a collapse. Race war would destroy the US. Economic collapse would destroy US. And general distrust of the government could spark a revolution similar to that which led to the formation of the Soviet Union. Which, by the way, could have been a utopia if Lenin's dream had not been replaced by Stalin's ambition. Just sayin'

So yeah, I may be a dreamer, but it's a realistic dream that could be realised if people really understood state sovereignty and the value of self governance.

Lose the Queen as our head of state? :sick:

CableSteele wrote: The USA is not a country. It is a union that makes it possible for the member states to participate in world politics as a group. We have the power of a large nation with the individual freedom of small countries. I know some people think this is some kind of idealistic fantasy, but it's the whole point of the US Constitution. Each state makes its own laws and no state is expected to abide by the laws of another state.

This kind of argument could probably be made for pre-Constitution America, and at a huge stretch pre-Civil War America, but definitely not post-Civil War. The U.S. has a federal (in other words, national, singular) government that makes laws at a national level, affecting the whole nation. The U.S. is a textbook case of a federal republic - like Germany, or Mexico, or Russia. All of which have separate and distinct states with their own identities (would you believe there is a Tibetan Buddhist-majority region of Russia right next to restive, Muslim-majority Dagestan?), but are ultimately under a unified national government, with a unified national military, foreign policies, and so on.

Even in the rather loose union of states that preceded the current U.S. Constitution, you could still also make a compelling argument for calling it a country, since the dictionary definition is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." So no, calling the United States a country is not a huge assumption. It is an extremely simple fact, unless we're changing the definition of "country" and deciding that these other countries, which are definitely countries, are also not really countries.

Adi wrote: This kind of argument could probably be made for pre-Constitution America, and at a huge stretch pre-Civil War America, but definitely not post-Civil War. The U.S. has a federal (in other words, national, singular) government that makes laws at a national level, affecting the whole nation. The U.S. is a textbook case of a federal republic - like Germany, or Mexico, or Russia. All of which have separate and distinct states with their own identities (would you believe there is a Tibetan Buddhist-majority region of Russia right next to restive, Muslim-majority Dagestan?), but are ultimately under a unified national government, with a unified national military, foreign policies, and so on.

Even in the rather loose union of states that preceded the current U.S. Constitution, you could still also make a compelling argument for calling it a country, since the dictionary definition is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." So no, calling the United States a country is not a huge assumption. It is an extremely simple fact, unless we're changing the definition of "country" and deciding that these other countries, which are definitely countries, are also not really countries.

I must admit, Adi, I had you figured for a democrat. I would never have expected you to acknowledge that the US is a republic. Do you remember the republic as it was presented in the Star Wars Prequels? All of the member states were pretty much autonomous, but the Federal republic (or rather, individuals such as Palpatine) were working to take away the rights of the member states and bring it all under one roof. That's basically what I think is happening in the US right now.

According to the US Constitution, there are certain powers granted to the Federal Government and all powers not expressly stated are reserved for the states. That means pretty much all aspects of personal life are handled by the states. The federal government is only supposed to be responsible for military and international trade. But hey, the president was never allowed to declare war without the consent of congress and George Bush managed to bend that one far enough that Obama didn't even have to ask when he decided to bomb the "bad guys." I'm not sure which of those two is a better candidate for emperor, but the shoe certainly fits both of them.

The dictionary definition of country would fit the EU, so do you consider the EU to be a country? I would under certain circumstances. Economically, the EU operates as a single country through control of the Euro, but I really don't think anyone calls the EU a country. It is clearly a union of states.
I am also impressed that you see the connection to the civil war. Most liberal folks I know believe that the civil war was just about slavery and they disregard the part about states' rights and the limits to federal power in a union of states. Slavery was certainly a central factor with regard to the economies of the 11 confederate states, but the real cause of the civil war was the need to preserve the union. Post-civil war mentality generally involves the notion that states are not allowed to secede at will. Only in the case of extreme oppression and revolution can states legally secede from the union, but that does not mean that they are not self-governing, independent, sovereign states.

I still maintain that I would love to see England, the country that ruled over the original 13 colonies for so many decades, join the USA as a non-contiguous member state (like Alaska and Hawaii) but with it's current government still in place. I thought that the monarchy is just an ornamental figure now anyway. I mean, isn't parliament pretty much in full control of England at this point? Maybe they could join the US but with a provisional constitution that specifically allows them to secede at will. With Scotland and Wales, that would be three new states that would have direct influence over US policy instead of just being like a little brother that the US never listens to.

CableSteele wrote: The dictionary definition of country would fit the EU, so do you consider the EU to be a country? I would under certain circumstances. Economically, the EU operates as a single country through control of the Euro, but I really don't think anyone calls the EU a country. It is clearly a union of states.

No, it would not fit the definition at all. The countries within the EU are sovereign and independent (no matter what you think of the EU, its member states are, by the book, independent powers — a couple of them even have nuclear weapons!) U.S. states are not sovereign or independent: please see Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution, which has been there since the beginning. The EU is a largely economic union that has a common currency, a bunch of treaties and common regulations and laws (which do not necessarily supersede local/national laws), but it misses one extremely important criteria for being a country: it is not a nation. It meets none of the criteria for being considered a single nation, like a single government (that actually makes and enforces laws), single military, single citizenship, etc. Its decision-making bodies, like the European Parliament, the European Commission, etc. are marked by international decision-making. "EU citizens" are citizens of the Netherlands, or Spain, or (for now) the United Kingdom. When you go abroad your nationality is not marked by immigration as "European Union-ian," it is marked as "Dutch" or "German" or "British", because those are the nations people belong to.

By this logic, if the EU is a "country" then the United Nations (which has some of, though not all of, the "country-like" attributes of the EU) is also a country, and therefore there are no countries in the world except those that aren't in the United Nations. Also, comparing the American political affairs in the 21st century to the Star Wars prequels misses the mark on history by a fair margin. The federal government has been a strong government since the end of the Civil War, and in its modern form (mostly the strong presidency) since the World Wars. Also, for what it's worth, Congress gave its explicit approval to the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan, as well as (less recently) the first Gulf War, the Vietnam War and so on — every single armed conflict the U.S. has had direct, open involvement in since WWII. Congress also passed acts funding the Korean War and extending the first Gulf War, and funding the U.S. interventions in Bosnia (1992/1993), Liberia (2003), Haiti (2004) and Libya (2011.) President Bush II and President Obama did not depart from 20th century norms in how they went about war-making, for better or worse.

Lastly, what does my specific political affiliation or political leanings have to do with anything? The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. Anyone who thinks it is a democracy needs to brush up on their knowledge of civics and politics. A Republican is not necessarily someone who thinks the U.S. is a republic, and a Democrat is not necessarily someone who thinks the U.S. is a democracy. They're just names that happen to appeal to people (and the Democrats are the direct successors of the old Democratic-Republican party, so that one might as well just be shorthand.) No doubt if it wasn't those names, it'd be names like the "Freedom Party" or whatever. When it comes to history, I am affiliated with one thing only: facts and evidence, not political ideology or agendas.

Adi wrote:

CableSteele wrote: The dictionary definition of country would fit the EU, so do you consider the EU to be a country? I would under certain circumstances. Economically, the EU operates as a single country through control of the Euro, but I really don't think anyone calls the EU a country. It is clearly a union of states.

No, it would not fit the definition at all. The countries within the EU are sovereign and independent (no matter what you think of the EU, its member states are, by the book, independent powers — a couple of them even have nuclear weapons!) U.S. states are not sovereign or independent: please see Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution, which has been there since the beginning. The EU is a largely economic union that has a common currency, a bunch of treaties and common regulations and laws (which do not necessarily supersede local/national laws), but it misses one extremely important criteria for being a country: it is not a nation. It meets none of the criteria for being considered a single nation, like a single government (that actually makes and enforces laws), single military, single citizenship, etc. Its decision-making bodies, like the European Parliament, the European Commission, etc. are marked by international decision-making. "EU citizens" are citizens of the Netherlands, or Spain, or (for now) the United Kingdom. When you go abroad your nationality is not marked by immigration as "European Union-ian," it is marked as "Dutch" or "German" or "British", because those are the nations people belong to.

By this logic, if the EU is a "country" then the United Nations (which has some of, though not all of, the "country-like" attributes of the EU) is also a country, and therefore there are no countries in the world except those that aren't in the United Nations. Also, comparing the American political affairs in the 21st century to the Star Wars prequels misses the mark on history by a fair margin. The federal government has been a strong government since the end of the Civil War, and in its modern form (mostly the strong presidency) since the World Wars. Also, for what it's worth, Congress gave its explicit approval to the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan, as well as (less recently) the first Gulf War, the Vietnam War and so on — every single armed conflict the U.S. has had direct, open involvement in since WWII. Congress also passed acts funding the Korean War and extending the first Gulf War, and funding the U.S. interventions in Bosnia (1992/1993), Liberia (2003), Haiti (2004) and Libya (2011.) President Bush II and President Obama did not depart from 20th century norms in how they went about war-making, for better or worse.

Lastly, what does my specific political affiliation or political leanings have to do with anything? The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. Anyone who thinks it is a democracy needs to brush up on their knowledge of civics and politics. A Republican is not necessarily someone who thinks the U.S. is a republic, and a Democrat is not necessarily someone who thinks the U.S. is a democracy. They're just names that happen to appeal to people (and the Democrats are the direct successors of the old Democratic-Republican party, so that one might as well just be shorthand.) No doubt if it wasn't those names, it'd be names like the "Freedom Party" or whatever. When it comes to history, I am affiliated with one thing only: facts and evidence, not political ideology or agendas.

I remember JFK saying that we live in a democracy and almost every democrat I talk to calls it a democracy and they get upset if I call it a republic. But anyways, I was just trying to compliment you on your knowledge of politics and civics.

From what I can tell, the Republic in Star Wars shares many similarities with the US Government. Every member state has equal representation at the federal level and everything seems to be held together with red tape. The Chancellor convinces the senate to pass laws that give him more powers than was originally intended for him to have. Of course, in our case it's the President and it has been getting worse and worse for the past 50 years. Just have a look at the history of Executive Orders. There's a lot to take in, but it's worth it if you want to see behind the scenes of what the office of President has really accomplished over the past 20 or so years.

CableSteele wrote: Of course, in our case it's the President and it has been getting worse and worse for the past 50 years. Just have a look at the history of Executive Orders. There's a lot to take in, but it's worth it if you want to see behind the scenes of what the office of President has really accomplished over the past 20 or so years.

(emphasis mine) Okay. I will have a look at the history of executive orders.



Umm. Did I miss something, or does reality not actually reflect what you are saying is true?

I meant look at the actual text of some of the executive orders that have been signed into law. Here's a few interesting ones:
G. W. Bush: 13224, 13228, 13231, 13232, 13234, 13239, 13253, 13254(extra interesting), 13262, 13338
Obama: 13491, 13492, 13493, 13500, 13517, 13524, 13529, 13536, 13541, 13546, 13556, 13567, 13572, 13573, 13574, 13575
These are just a few that are worth taking a look at. There's not just one or two that indicate a huge conspiracy or hostile action against the people or anything like that. They all kind of whittle away at the barriers to a dictatorial President. If you understand the powers that the President has right now, not by authority of the Constitution, but by authority of executive orders going back before FDR, you can see why some people are terrified of certain presidential candidates. It's not a mirror image, but it does sound a lot like Palpatine's plot except that he was one man and this is spread out across several Presidents.

All this to reiterate my original point, England, Wales, and Scotland should consider joining the US if they want to be part of a strong Union. I know it's not perfect, but it's the most effective and people friendly federation I know of in history. If they want to be guaranteed in their sovereignty as a state, the USA already has a track record of protecting state sovereignty but it is changing before or very eyes thanks to 21st century politics. I think the USA could benefit from their presence as well. There a lot of lucid voters in the UK that are more knowledgeable about politics than many Americans. Maybe with their help, we could steer the US back towards the ideals that the founding fathers espoused.

CableSteele wrote: I meant look at the actual text of some of the executive orders that have been signed into law.

OK. I will look at the actual text of the ones you bolded.

13254

This established the USA Freedom Corps, a volunteer service. It was dissolved in 2008 and no longer exists. What's the problem here?

13524

This added some additional immunities and privileges to Interpol, which sounds scary and spooky and sinister, I know, but it really isn't when you look at what it and what Interpol actually does. It's also just an extension of an executive order Reagan, High God of Conservatism, issued in 1983 which made similar provisions that, in the last 33 years, have not ended the world. Interpol is not a global police agency with the power to arrest. It issues advisories and facilitates cooperation between police agencies across international boundaries, but it is not the police arm of the New World Order™ as Alex Jones probably says.

13556

This executive order establishes a program for managing, organizing and safeguarding unclassified information in executive branch departments. Of note is that the executive order text explicitly says that no alterations are made to FOIA access. In other words, you can file an FOIA claim and access unclassified information exactly like you could before. Hardly the stuff of moustache-twirling villainy. It's really just some organizational bureaucracy, since it's what bureaucrats do best.

13567

This establishes provisions for "periodic reviews" of the remaining prisoners in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Upon looking into what this actually did, it classified prisoners into three categories: a first group that should be tried for crimes against the United States, a second group that should be released, and a third group that should be detained indefinitely. Seeing as I really think the prison at Guantanamo Bay ought to be closed (or all its prisoners, at least, put on trial or released), it's troubling that the third group even exists, but it's still hardly Palpatine-esque UNLIMITED POWERRRRRRR madness. And also, by the time this executive order was passed, over half of the prisoners at Guanatamo Bay had already been released. These reviews also weren't even done until years after the order was issued. So this probably served a more symbolic purpose than a practical one — you know, typical politicians giving the appearance of doing much about something while actually doing little.

---

I get that you are distrustful of your government. I am too. I distrust all governments. A healthy amount of distrust is good. But comparing current American politics to the (awful) Star Wars prequels is InfoWars-level conspiracy stuff. It's not just hyperbolic, it's just plain wrong, and I definitely am not a fan of the U.S. government at all. You have to be really willing to stretching or making up the facts to suit your narrative in order for that view of things to make much sense. And even in that case, that narrative is not grounded in "reality" or "facts" or "things that are actually true." It's just a narrative. But then, in the post-facts world, I suppose narrative trumps facts, no pun intended. For my part, I will always consider this one of my credos: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." (John Adams)

Isn't it awfully presumptuous to think ANY country would want to join the United States and be forced to adopt our laws and government? That England, for instance, would want to give up its centuries of complete sovereignty to live under the heel of Washington? Give up the NHS? Abolish institutions that have existed for a thousand years? Suddenly have to tolerate the level of gun violence we see in America? etc.? If you are as distrustful of the U.S. government as you say you are, why would you ever want any other country to be beholden to it? Do you really think we have it "best" here? Have you ever gone overseas, visited other countries? We really don't have it "best". We have it "average" here. It ain't great and it ain't complete rubbish. It's just middling, at best, by western standards.

Isn't it awfully presumptuous to think ANY country would want to join the United States and be forced to adopt our laws and government? That England, for instance, would want to give up its centuries of complete sovereignty to live under the heel of Washington? Give up the NHS? Abolish institutions that have existed for a thousand years? Suddenly have to tolerate the level of gun violence we see in America? etc.? If you are as distrustful of the U.S. government as you say you are, why would you ever want any other country to be beholden to it? Do you really think we have it "best" here? Have you ever gone overseas, visited other countries? We really don't have it "best". We have it "average" here. It ain't great and it ain't complete rubbish. It's just middling, at best, by western standards.

Presumptuous and incorrectly so, if everyone from Britain I've ever spoke to is an indicator, as their reaction to this whole idea is to laugh like they've lost their minds and end it with a big old "eff off"