UK diplomatic cables: Trump is a moron.

  • 77 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for joebones5000
#1 Edited by joebones5000 (2372 posts) -

I'm sure normal Americans with common sense and good judgement already know this, but even our staunchest allies clearly see that Trump is an incompetent fool. I'm willing to bet that most countries, including North Korea are all saying the same thing

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/06/politics/uk-ambassador-cables-donald-trump/index.html

Avatar image for Master_Live
#2 Posted by Master_Live (19559 posts) -

Well, he is.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#3 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

I find this very offensive. What did morons do to deserve such an insult?

Avatar image for jeezers
#4 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

That cant even get Brexit done, they dont even follow thier own vote. Thier opinion means nothing to me, they are owned by Germany. I do hope one day they can regain soverighnty, but thats not America's problem.

Avatar image for kadin_kai
#5 Edited by Kadin_Kai (505 posts) -

That’s really not surprising. I cannot think of any country which can honestly praise Donald Trump.

Not even Israel or Saudi Arabia, they are just playing Donald Trump, boosting his ego to make him support their own objectives.

@jeezers why do you think the UK is owned by Germany? Can you provide any empirical data to suggest this comment?

Avatar image for jeezers
#6 Edited by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@kadin_kai: i was joking, but its somewhat true

Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Italy first started the EU experiment in the 50s. Many more would join later i believe england joined in the 70's.

The idea of having a beauracratic system of laws that sits over your own countries laws seems rediculous to me, I think originally the banks just wanted it to get everyone on the EURO to make more money, I think its a very good thing that england kept the pound. Your basically giving up your right to run your country by your own rules. You have givin that up to be apart of this "greater community" a somewhat of a universal government even above your own. That gives up the free will of your nation, the biggest thing that pushed Brexit (its obvious to me and I'm an american)was not having any direct control of thier borders, because the EU does not allow it, So youve basically screwed yourself, by giving these other countries a say in what you can and cannot do.

Brittain does not get to decide how to secure thier borders, the EU does. So in a sense the EU gets the final say, not your own country.

It blows my mind that anyone would want to add a beaucratic government that watches over your own bearacratic government. Thats alot of beauracracy.

To think that in the 40s Germany was bombing your country, then in the 50s they join into the EU concept, and by the time the 70s roll around, england joins, now your in a coalition with them.

"Members of the Schengen border-free area

The Schengen Area is one of the greatest achievements of the EU. It is an area without internal borders, an area within which citizens, many non-EU nationals, business people and tourists can freely circulate without being subjected to border checks. Since 1985, it has gradually grown and encompasses today almost all EU countries and a few associated non-EU countries.

"While having abolished their internal borders, Schengen States have also tightened controls at their common external border on the basis of Schengen rules to ensure the security of those living or travelling in the Schengen Area."

"Due to the huge volume of EU rules and regulations each candidate country must adopt as national law, the negotiations take time to complete. The candidates are supported financially, administratively and technically during this pre-accession period."

Its hard for me to not look at this experiment as baby steps towards a one world government. People can act like im crazy for thinking that if they want but thats what it looks like to me. I would never want a beaucratic government over top of America's government, our government is way too gridlocked as it is, more beauracracy would slow things down even more.

I guess it makes sense if they all join thier millitary together, thats the main thing I see as being worth it.... Maybe.. But even that seems like something that could bring its own problems as well. Imo the EU is shitty.

Avatar image for horgen
#7 Posted by Horgen (120611 posts) -

@jeezers: It is also great not being stuck for hours in border control when you visit family in another country. some of the countries in the Schengen area have been one country for several hundred years as well before breaking into smaller countries again.

Unify laws across countries has its ups and downs. Unlike some 10-15 years ago, I can today use my cellphone abroad in lots of countries in Europe without getting a 1-2K $ bill when I get home. 2-3$ per minute of phone call isn't a distant memory yet.

And if you view EU as a peace project, it is a success.

Back to Trump though. Given the info given here and there, I am guessing his reading comprehension isn't so good. So getting him to understand the details in something is difficult, along with his language it becomes very obvious at times that he hasn't understood what he is talking about.

Avatar image for phbz
#8 Posted by phbz (4507 posts) -

@jeezers: Yes, the idea of different states united is just ridiculous. How anyone could come with such an idea is beyond me.

Avatar image for sealionact
#9 Posted by sealionact (4013 posts) -

@jeezers: I didn't read most of your post, because I saw so many stereotypic inaccuracies early on I assumed you are getting your information from 5 year old Brexit propaganda blurbs.

The EU doesn't decide how any EU country secures it's borders. As someone who travels extensively through Europe, I can tell you that no country has more stringent border controls than the UK. All borders are secured, and the amount of checks done is absolutely up to the security staff. All EU citizens have the right to enter the UK, but even then all are subject to checks and searches and the given reason for entering is suspicious, authorities can either carry out more thorough checks and searches or deny entry.

Any Non-EU citizen attempting entry without the required permits/Visas are denied entry, unless they declare themselves political refugees, in which they're handling on a case by case basis.

Same when going across from Denmark to Sweden and indeed every country retains the right to secure their borders at will.

When we do leave the EU, borders in and out of the UK will become a nightmare, but the border officers powers to deny or allow entry remain the same as when they were in the EU....they'll just have a lot more paperwork to fill out which is ironic considering that it's a common complaint that the EU is over bureaucratic.

Avatar image for micky4889
#10 Edited by micky4889 (2663 posts) -

@jeezers: The UK does secure its borders, what a load of nonsense. As an island you have to present a passport and even as an EU citizen you can be refused if you have a criminal record. If you are a non EU citizen you can and will be flat out refused entry if you don't have the right paperwork/visa. Any EU citizen can also be deported within 90 days if they don't have the means to support themselves or haven't secured work.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#11 Posted by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -
@joebones5000 said:

I'm sure normal Americans with common sense and good judgement already know this, but even our staunchest allies clearly see that Trump is an incompetent fool. I'm willing to bet that most countries, including North Korea are all saying the same thing

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/06/politics/uk-ambassador-cables-donald-trump/index.html

Coming from a place that can´t even agree to accept the democratic process and where a BJ may become PM, i would say this means as much as a year old fish does for dinner.

Avatar image for kadin_kai
#12 Posted by Kadin_Kai (505 posts) -

@jeezers: You made some excellent points, but your interpretation is not wholly correct. But thanks for your thoughtful response!

The European Union was actually founded quite recently in 1993. But way before that, the idea is unity, to stop countries in Europe from fighting each other(Europe has a bloody past).

The best way to do that is to open your borders, financially and remove barriers such as tariffs.

If all the countries invest in one another, then you wouldn’t want to go to war because it would hurt yourself financially.

Rules and laws in EU countries are not decided by Germany, each country has its own representatives and views. But when a country gets into financial trouble such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland (2008/2009 financial crisis) they needed bailing out.

The IMF, the European Central Bank and the European Union provided funds to bail out these countries. As Germany was providing the largest amount of money in the EU, (you get the perception that Germany decides the terms).

The US is the largest contributor to the World Bank and the IMF, so naturally the US has a bigger say when it comes to lending.

You’re right about Brexit, it’s the immigration issue. Economically, immigration into the UK is a good thing it has helped the UK. The vast majority of EU immigrants are hard working and tax payers. There is a net financial gain for the UK.

But, there was a wide perception that immigrants were stealing jobs, not working and just claiming state benefits. A few bad eggs ruined it for the vast majority.

The vast majority of European laws are actually good such as limits on carbon emissions, employee rights, rules for bank lending, regulation of the financial industry and etc.

The vast majority are good laws and good governance. The problem is that different EU nations are at different states of development and this is when problems arise.

A good example of this is Germany and Greece. Before Greece joined the EU, it had very high interest rates, but after it joined the Euro it took on the rate set by the European Central Bank. This made Greeks go and borrow like crazy, which in part caused it to crash by 2008.

The EU essentially wants to be the USA. A borderless land, with unity and a big population to have clout on the world stage.

Little Brexit Britain will have none of that power and clout once it leaves. It will be a small nation of 66 million, with little natural resources, little innovative capacity and a weakening military.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#13 Posted by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -
@kadin_kai said:

@jeezers: You made some excellent points, but your interpretation is not wholly correct. But thanks for your thoughtful response!

The European Union was actually founded quite recently in 1993. But way before that, the idea is unity, to stop countries in Europe from fighting each other(Europe has a bloody past).

The best way to do that is to open your borders, financially and remove barriers such as tariffs.

If all the countries invest in one another, then you wouldn’t want to go to war because it would hurt yourself financially.

Rules and laws in EU countries are not decided by Germany, each country has its own representatives and views. But when a country gets into financial trouble such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland (2008/2009 financial crisis) they needed bailing out.

The IMF, the European Central Bank and the European Union provided funds to bail out these countries. As Germany was providing the largest amount of money in the EU, (you get the perception that Germany decides the terms).

The US is the largest contributor to the World Bank and the IMF, so naturally the US has a bigger say when it comes to lending.

You’re right about Brexit, it’s the immigration issue. Economically, immigration into the UK is a good thing it has helped the UK. The vast majority of EU immigrants are hard working and tax payers. There is a net financial gain for the UK.

But, there was a wide perception that immigrants were stealing jobs, not working and just claiming state benefits. A few bad eggs ruined it for the vast majority.

The vast majority of European laws are actually good such as limits on carbon emissions, employee rights, rules for bank lending, regulation of the financial industry and etc.

The vast majority are good laws and good governance. The problem is that different EU nations are at different states of development and this is when problems arise.

A good example of this is Germany and Greece. Before Greece joined the EU, it had very high interest rates, but after it joined the Euro it took on the rate set by the European Central Bank. This made Greeks go and borrow like crazy, which in part caused it to crash by 2008.

The EU essentially wants to be the USA. A borderless land, with unity and a big population to have clout on the world stage.

Little Brexit Britain will have none of that power and clout once it leaves. It will be a small nation of 66 million, with little natural resources, little innovative capacity and a weakening military.

What on earth are you talking about here? EU was not founded in 1993 So you may want to correct that you are talking about the EURO "currency" which a few members of the EU decided to band together and make.

Avatar image for sealionact
#14 Posted by sealionact (4013 posts) -

@Jacanuk: The EU was founded on November 1st 1993 when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Euros didn't happen until 1999.

It's scary that the main reason for Brexit was not immigration, finances or EU bureaucracy but ignorance.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#15 Edited by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -
@sealionact said:

@Jacanuk: The EU was founded on November 1st 1993 when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Euros didn't happen until 1999.

It's scary that the main reason for Brexit was not immigration, finances or EU bureaucracy but ignorance.

Not really. There have been plenty of treaties what happened in 1992 was a restructure.

The European Union was founded in 1957 where it was named the EEC.

Also while the monetary union didn´t go into effect until 99, the Treaty in 92 was the initiation

Avatar image for phbz
#16 Posted by phbz (4507 posts) -

I'm sure even his wife agrees.

Avatar image for horgen
#17 Posted by Horgen (120611 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@sealionact said:

@Jacanuk: The EU was founded on November 1st 1993 when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Euros didn't happen until 1999.

It's scary that the main reason for Brexit was not immigration, finances or EU bureaucracy but ignorance.

Not really. There have been plenty of treaties what happened in 1992 was a restructure.

The European Union was founded in 1957 where it was named the EEC.

Also while the monetary union didn´t go into effect until 99, the Treaty in 92 was the initiation

What became EU was founded in 1957. The EEC was not EU, it was far more limited in scope.

Avatar image for sealionact
#18 Posted by sealionact (4013 posts) -

@Jacanuk: Really, you're just trying to argue a point. The EEC is not the EU. The EU was formed in 1993....please do some research. The EEC or Common market was solely an organisation aimed at financial and economic integration. It is absolutely not the same as the EU, which is way more of an attempt to create a United States of Europe. Of course there's been other treaties, but there has been one Maastricht treaty which initiated the European Union.

Euro started in 99....not in 92. Nothing happened in 92.

Avatar image for jeezers
#19 Edited by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@sealionact: If the idea is to make the EU similiar to the united states, I dont think its a good comparison, our states have always been apart of one country, European countries have seperate cultures and languages.

By blurring your borders and implementing this overseeing set of rules you have weakened your countries soverighnty to be apart of this other system.

Why even have a brittain, germany, netherlands, Greece, Italy, france?? Why not get rid of your flags at that point, you already got rid of your nations currency for a universal one. If you want to be the United states, then get rid of calling yourself seperate countries, the unites states is one country.

Get rid of all the seperate nations altogether, seperate laws and systems, and unite it under one government with one flag. Get rid of the words german, Italian, brittish, just call yourselves European and fly the EU flag at the point.

If the EU wants to be like the USA. You need to be one country.

Avatar image for phbz
#20 Posted by phbz (4507 posts) -

@jeezers: You guys have state laws and federal laws, the EU is similar. You have different states somewhat similar to the EU having different countries. Also, different states have different cultural identities. And the history of the US is far from being a peaceful utopia, it's not like you didn't had separatist movements and a freaking civil war. But the key work is being similar, not being the same. The EU has brought piece within its borders like never before in European history and an overall economic growth. It's still a very recent and ongoing project that in my opinion should continue, even if much has to change. And it would be catastrophic if it collapses. It's not a coincidence that both Russia and more recently the US are so heavily invested in seeing it crumble.

Avatar image for zaryia
#21 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

No shit he's a moron. A lot of his base is too.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#22 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -
@zaryia said:

No shit he's a moron.

Hey! That is incredibly, exceedingly offensive! Morons do not deserve such insults!

Avatar image for jeezers
#23 Edited by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@phbz: I hear what your saying, but comparing the EU to our federal government is alarming. Many people here do not like how the federal government functions and believe it to be overreaching at some points, luckily we do have States Rights, so different areas can still vote for representatives to represent thier state and get different things passed, but overall the federal government can overide state law. Heres an example: when states passed marijuana legalization and people started dispensaries and selling it, the feds would come in and shut it down and charge them, even though its legal by state law. The federal government is the top dog here, which means if your state overwhelmingly supports one thing but the federal government doesnt, they will do what they want. That's why many libertarians want a smaller federal government, where the FEDs should be in charge of things like the millitary, but not every single other thing. Not to mention they are not transparent with how they spend our tax money. #AuditTheFed

(minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, vary state to state) We are a very large country, this is why we must function as a republic.

I'm glad that Europe has had less conflict but i dont think that EU is completely responsible for that. Times have changed and mutual destruction is obviously a bad decision. But if your looking at the EU as being a federal government over your countries own government I say thats nothing you should want. Especially a federal government with influence from other nations than your own.

I truly want Europe to succeed, they are the biggest contributers to modern western society which has brought great things. My great grandmother and great grandfather met in london durring WW2, I exist because of Brittain, the USA only exists because of Brittain. I love Brittain, the last thing I want it to do is to dissolve. If Brittain does eventually leave the EU I'm sure America would trade openly with them. We have been strong allies for a long time.

Avatar image for Nuck81
#24 Posted by Nuck81 (7648 posts) -

Topic is about the world thinking Trump's a moron and some numb nuts deflects to make it about brexit.

Avatar image for jeezers
#25 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@Nuck81: the orange man bad conversation is less important anyway

Avatar image for baelnergal
#26 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -
@Nuck81 said:

Topic is about the world thinking Trump's a moron and some numb nuts deflects to make it about brexit.

Well, the majority of the conversation would be about how much morons deserve the insult.

Avatar image for sealionact
#27 Posted by sealionact (4013 posts) -

@jeezers: The point wasn't a comparison between the US and the EU. The point was you posted some totally inaccurate information, which is the same information that led to Brexit.

The UK determines who comes into the UK. Not the EU. The EU was formed in 1993, not 1957. It has never been the idea to unite all European countries into one as in the US, and member states uniting under trade, movement, work, pensions etc would never equate to EU countries losing their identities.

Imagine a US where you had 50 different currencies, where you couldn't move across state borders without permits or work visas. Where you'd pay a fortune to make phone calls from a state that you didn't reside in. Where trucks have to stop at every state border and have carnets stamped by authorities. Where animals would have to go into quarantine when crossing state lines.

That's what Europe was like pre EU.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#28 Edited by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

@sealionact said:

@jeezers: The point wasn't a comparison between the US and the EU. The point was you posted some totally inaccurate information, which is the same information that led to Brexit.

The UK determines who comes into the UK. Not the EU. The EU was formed in 1993, not 1957. It has never been the idea to unite all European countries into one as in the US, and member states uniting under trade, movement, work, pensions etc would never equate to EU countries losing their identities.

Imagine a US where you had 50 different currencies, where you couldn't move across state borders without permits or work visas. Where you'd pay a fortune to make phone calls from a state that you didn't reside in. Where trucks have to stop at every state border and have carnets stamped by authorities. Where animals would have to go into quarantine when crossing state lines.

That's what Europe was like pre EU.

The United States is so named because, originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy. Thus the Articles of Confederacy that preceded the Constitution and where the Confederacy that rebelled got their name from.

And the problems you cite are why the Constitution was originally written. We had a scenario that wasn't working for us, so we tried to fix it.

Avatar image for jeezers
#29 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@sealionact said:

@jeezers: The point wasn't a comparison between the US and the EU. The point was you posted some totally inaccurate information, which is the same information that led to Brexit.

The UK determines who comes into the UK. Not the EU. The EU was formed in 1993, not 1957. It has never been the idea to unite all European countries into one as in the US, and member states uniting under trade, movement, work, pensions etc would never equate to EU countries losing their identities.

Imagine a US where you had 50 different currencies, where you couldn't move across state borders without permits or work visas. Where you'd pay a fortune to make phone calls from a state that you didn't reside in. Where trucks have to stop at every state border and have carnets stamped by authorities. Where animals would have to go into quarantine when crossing state lines.

That's what Europe was like pre EU.

Well the information ive been getting is from this EU website (Pretty sure this the official EU website) and they say the origins of the EU started after ww2 in the 50's https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history_en

Avatar image for jeezers
#30 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@baelnergal said:
@sealionact said:

@jeezers: The point wasn't a comparison between the US and the EU. The point was you posted some totally inaccurate information, which is the same information that led to Brexit.

The UK determines who comes into the UK. Not the EU. The EU was formed in 1993, not 1957. It has never been the idea to unite all European countries into one as in the US, and member states uniting under trade, movement, work, pensions etc would never equate to EU countries losing their identities.

Imagine a US where you had 50 different currencies, where you couldn't move across state borders without permits or work visas. Where you'd pay a fortune to make phone calls from a state that you didn't reside in. Where trucks have to stop at every state border and have carnets stamped by authorities. Where animals would have to go into quarantine when crossing state lines.

That's what Europe was like pre EU.

The United States is so named because, originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy. Thus the Articles of Confederacy that preceded the Constitution and where the Confederacy that rebelled got their name from.

And the problems you cite are why the Constitution was originally written. We had a scenario that wasn't working for us, so we tried to fix it.

"originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy"

No, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Bay (which included Maine), New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were never seen as separate Nations, they were know as colonies under the British and became states of one country after independence.

Our states have never been separate nations, the only attempt of something of the sort was the civil war.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#31 Edited by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

@jeezers said:
@baelnergal said:

The United States is so named because, originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy. Thus the Articles of Confederacy that preceded the Constitution and where the Confederacy that rebelled got their name from.

And the problems you cite are why the Constitution was originally written. We had a scenario that wasn't working for us, so we tried to fix it.

"originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy"

No, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Bay (which included Maine), New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were never seen as separate Nations, they were know as colonies under the British and became states of one country after independence.

Our states have never been separate nations, the only attempt of something of the sort was the civil war.

Are they not teaching about the Articles of Confederation in school these days?

Avatar image for jeezers
#32 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@baelnergal said:
@jeezers said:
@baelnergal said:

The United States is so named because, originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy. Thus the Articles of Confederacy that preceded the Constitution and where the Confederacy that rebelled got their name from.

And the problems you cite are why the Constitution was originally written. We had a scenario that wasn't working for us, so we tried to fix it.

"originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy"

No, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Bay (which included Maine), New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were never seen as separate Nations, they were know as colonies under the British and became states of one country after independence.

Our states have never been separate nations, the only attempt of something of the sort was the civil war.

Are they not teaching about the Articles of Confederation in school these days?

yes they do...

first line lol "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states

Stop trying to make a comparison of something like Delawares relationship to Rhode Island as the same as Britain to Germany, its is way different. Your comparing nations that have seperate cutures, languages, government and military, to our original colonies after the revolutionary war, its a stupid comparison.

Avatar image for sealionact
#33 Posted by sealionact (4013 posts) -

@jeezers: Well, that's like saying the origins of the US started in Europe when Europeans moved there.

The US was formed in 1776, and the EU in 1993.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#34 Edited by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

@jeezers said:
@baelnergal said:
@jeezers said:
@baelnergal said:

The United States is so named because, originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy. Thus the Articles of Confederacy that preceded the Constitution and where the Confederacy that rebelled got their name from.

And the problems you cite are why the Constitution was originally written. We had a scenario that wasn't working for us, so we tried to fix it.

"originally, it was 13 different nations united in a confederacy"

No, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Bay (which included Maine), New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were never seen as separate Nations, they were know as colonies under the British and became states of one country after independence.

Our states have never been separate nations, the only attempt of something of the sort was the civil war.

Are they not teaching about the Articles of Confederation in school these days?

yes they do...

first line lol "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states

Stop trying to make a comparison of something like Delawares relationship to Rhode Island as the same as Britain to Germany, its is way different. Your comparing nations that have seperate cutures, languages, government and military, to our original colonies after the revolutionary war, its a stupid comparison.

You might want to keep reading, particularly the section on the articles. The States were called such because, at the time, "state" meant the same exact thing as "nation." And, mostly, it still does; that's why some people, such as myself, capitalize "state" when talking about the major political divisions of land within the United States and also about states-as-nations at the same time.

Here's the full text for you to peruse. You'll notice it's, essentially, a mutual defense and trade agreement overseen by an established external authority. If you read Article IX, you'll notice the United States government under this didn't even have the power to print currency without authorization from the States.

And, no, it's not quite the same relationship. Which wasn't my point at all in bringing it up; I have no idea what inspired you to think that. I was merely bringing up that, yes, such a problem as Sealionact brought up did exist at one point in the history of the United States.

It's also pretty obvious that they don't teach this at all anymore, despite what you say.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#35 Posted by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -
@horgen said:
@Jacanuk said:
@sealionact said:

@Jacanuk: The EU was founded on November 1st 1993 when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Euros didn't happen until 1999.

It's scary that the main reason for Brexit was not immigration, finances or EU bureaucracy but ignorance.

Not really. There have been plenty of treaties what happened in 1992 was a restructure.

The European Union was founded in 1957 where it was named the EEC.

Also while the monetary union didn´t go into effect until 99, the Treaty in 92 was the initiation

What became EU was founded in 1957. The EEC was not EU, it was far more limited in scope.

Does not matter if EEC was limited in the scope of what it is today.

Saying the EU was formed in 1992 under the Maastricht treaty is being careless with the truth, when in fact all it was, was a name change and an organisational change to further the plan to make one EUS.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#36 Posted by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -
@sealionact said:

@Jacanuk: Really, you're just trying to argue a point. The EEC is not the EU. The EU was formed in 1993....please do some research. The EEC or Common market was solely an organisation aimed at financial and economic integration. It is absolutely not the same as the EU, which is way more of an attempt to create a United States of Europe. Of course there's been other treaties, but there has been one Maastricht treaty which initiated the European Union.

Euro started in 99....not in 92. Nothing happened in 92.

You may want to stop trying to pretend to know EU history.

The 12 countries in the current EEC signed a treaty to further the EEC and form a more closely knitted European community, part of that plan was among other things the EURO which the UK, Norway and later Sweden who joined in 95 all turned down.

But thanks for showing up and giving us all a good laugh.

Avatar image for jeezers
#37 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@sealionact said:

@jeezers: Well, that's like saying the origins of the US started in Europe when Europeans moved there.

The US was formed in 1776, and the EU in 1993.

No... we were still under British rule... they were seen as British colonies. Not untill after the Revolutionary war were we something other than that. BaelNergal already brought up the articles of confederation, which was a ruff draft constitution to get us by while in limbo after being a newly independent nation.

The Articles of Confederation came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 states. A guiding principle of the Articles was to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. The weak central government established by the Articles received only those powers which the former colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament.[2]

Avatar image for baelnergal
#38 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

I have no idea where Jeezers is getting this stuff from, as this is just bizarre. Especially since the Articles of Confederation were ratified before the Revolutionary War ended (1783 is when the war ended) and the Constitution wasn't even thought of at the time.

Avatar image for jeezers
#39 Edited by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@baelnergal: the colonies knew they wanted out before the war ended thats why they started it... Because we had to have something in place for when we were seperate from britain. The articles of confederation was something created to get us through that period of limbo is what im saying.

We would create our official constitution in 1787

Avatar image for baelnergal
#40 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

Just getting us through a limbo period is not why the Articles of Confederation were created. I have no idea where you get that from.

Avatar image for jeezers
#41 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@baelnergal: it was only put in place as a ruff draft for what would happen after leaving Britain... Our actual constitution would be placed in 1787.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#42 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

@jeezers said:

@baelnergal: it was only put in place as a ruff draft for what would happen after leaving Britain... Our actual constitution would be placed in 1787.

1788. 1787 is when the drafting was complete, but it wouldn't be ratified until 1788.

Also, read this section in Wikipedia. The Articles of Confederation were not a draft at all, but an actual attempt at a working confederacy government.

I just... don't know where you got the idea they were a rough draft.

Avatar image for Willy105
#43 Posted by Willy105 (24836 posts) -
@jeezers said:

That cant even get Brexit done, they dont even follow thier own vote. Thier opinion means nothing to me, they are owned by Germany. I do hope one day they can regain soverighnty, but thats not America's problem.

Brexit was themselves shooting their own foot and then bickering over whether to treat the wound or not. The vote was a massive mistake by people who now regret it.

However, since you think that they would get sovereignty by leaving the EU (!?!), then you probably fell for the idea of Brexit too.

Avatar image for jeezers
#44 Edited by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@baelnergal: it was written while we were fighting for independence lol we were not an independent country yet, it was baseline of what we would build upon in the near future. Think about it.. In 4 years we would add to it with constitution. We were a brand new country who just gained independence. The articles were just there to hold us over, it wasnt an end to end all contract at that point. We were in the middle of the revolutionary war. It was the baseline of how to proceed durring and after the war. Thats what i mean by rough draft.

"The nation was guided by the Articles of Confederation until the implementation of the current U.S. Constitution in 1789."

It was only in effect for about 4-5 years after the war.

Avatar image for jeezers
#45 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@Willy105: then why do a vote at all? They should have just told thier citizens, your not allowed to leave, no vote. Instead they let them vote and then spit on the decision. How democratic.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#46 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

@jeezers

  1. We didn't add to it; we replaced it entirely.
  2. It was 6 years after the end of the war, by which point it had been in place 8 years.
  3. The Constitution was written because states were flat-out ignoring the Articles of Confederation and acting as completely-independent nations in every aspect.
  4. We were pretty much nearing the end of the war when the Articles went into effect.
  5. There was no intention at the time of the Articles being a "hold over" type document. While it is true that there was a hold-over document put in place after independence was recognized, it wasn't the Articles of Confederation.
  6. The Constitution resulted from a failure at fixing the Articles of Confederation. They eventually determined they just needed a new document, and in turn a unified nation instead of confederacy of nations, to fix all of the problems.
Avatar image for jeezers
#47 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@baelnergal: case in point

it was a failed document used durring and after the revolutionary war that only lasted untill our official constitution was created, that we still use. Of coarse they diddnt know what was going to happen in the future. This whole conversation is over semantics.

My point originally was that comparing something like the articles of confederation, a temporary document used durring the birth of america in the late 1700s, to a system like the EU that was created 2 centuries later between already built nations in europe is absolutely rediculous.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#48 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

@jeezers Except I didn't compare it to the EU. I compared it to the situation before the EU, as lined out by Sealionact.

Avatar image for jeezers
#49 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@baelnergal: bad comparison either way

Avatar image for baelnergal
#50 Posted by BaelNergal (269 posts) -

@jeezers Not really. I was pointing out that Sealionact's hypothetical about the United States had already happened in a form in American history, and that we made an effort to fix the problems. So I was pointing out their hypothetical was not that good.