The United States and Britain should finally become one country...

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
A question for the historians.

What is the legal standing of the Declaration of Independence?

We all hear about the American point of view, but was Independence actually granted by the Crown?

I am wondering if legally speaking, the Americans are still a colony.

I'd guess that anything won on the battlefield carries infinitely more weight than what some lawyer can argue in a court.

Especially after almost 250 years. Any claim would have to have lapsed.

Legal standing has no standing after a war in which the standing authority lost.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
A question for the historians.

What is the legal standing of the Declaration of Independence?

We all hear about the American point of view, but was Independence actually granted by the Crown?

I am wondering if legally speaking, the Americans are still a colony.

Great Britain recognized the independence of the US in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Treaty of Paris

Why, you want to fight the Revolutionary War again and the UK become a colony of the US.

a reply to: Blaine91555

a reply to: SprocketUK

So sort of legal then. But I am sure the purchase of Manhattan Island would not stand up in a fair trading court. That throws suspicion on a a few other deals. Louisiana purchase?

Hmmm, however there is a technicality, if the premise of the discussion is The United States and Britain should finally become one country...

And from brushing up on a little history, we find that Britain only had 13 colonies.

Therefore Britain is not entitled to ALL of the United States .

When we break up the United States only a portion is British.

France, Spain and Portugal are entitled to claim some states too.

Alaska of course, is returned to Russia.

I wonder what the map would look like?

a reply to: paraphi

Fair enough I will concede you are 60 to my 40 percent correct (you make the stronger argument) and you are of course correct as to Sterling.
Imagine them using the Malian Franc - made me chuckle not sure why but hey, also I suppose they could try to throw there lot in with the US as many nations around the world have often informally when there own currency became worthless but they instead reverted to buying and selling using US dollars.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

You certainly have a bizarre interpretation of the law.

Nation-states should be smaller than they are, not bigger. I think that's the future conflicts honestly, "are the commonwealth/confederation-of-small-states types better than the megalith super-states or vice versa?" Of course you're going to have a United Europe, larger more powerful China and perhaps a united/continental South American country a century from now or so, but is it really the way to go?

a reply to: IndyFront

A global community is the unavoidable outcome, but it's far in the future. The problem is not the idea of a no borders world, it's trying to do it a century or two too soon. It's like throwing a dozen cats and dozen dogs into a pen and expecting them not to fight. It's just foolish at this point.

a reply to: Blaine91555

You certainly have a bizarre interpretation of the law.

Just imagine Brexit X 50.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: IndyFront

A global community is the unavoidable outcome, but it's far in the future. The problem is not the idea of a no borders world, it's trying to do it a century or two too soon. It's like throwing a dozen cats and dozen dogs into a pen and expecting them not to fight. It's just foolish at this point.

Hell, technically we already have a global community. Only problem is its largely been usurped by tyrants over the past few decades...

a reply to: Whatsthisthen



You want to see a country come together in unison to stop something from happening, you ain't seen nothing until you see what we would do. We may bicker, but we are team players.

The occasional nonsense about a State separating itself from the US is just hyperbole. We are a strong union and sole remaining super power. We and perhaps China are the only two who could close our borders and still have all the resources, both natural and man made, we need to keep on keeping on.

The British Empire had to spread to colonies just to supply their needs. If you want to get technical, the other countries that were here were squatters on Native American lands. Heck, between Spain, the British Empire and the French both North and South America were filled with squatters stealing land and resources from the local residents. All of them had delusions of ruling the world and the British got their hats handed to them, they surrendered and signed a Treaty. Which is the law by the way. The US belongs to the US.

I must be terribly bored today if I'm in this conversation.

The US constitution is a set of laws.

The Declaration of Independence is a Declaration of War.

They are not the same thing and you joined them together.

a reply to: IndyFront

As far as commerce, yes we are global. That's quite different from an open borders world.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I must be terribly bored today if I'm in this conversation

The thread premise is on the silly side, but fun idea to explore.

Just thinking all the things the US would have to change when they rejoined the UK. These would be good changes, mind.

1. Guns would be licensed. Military grade weapons would be phased out. Less people would be killed.
2. Police would be retrained and possibly disarmed, going to face dangerous criminals with wit and the belief that life is precious. Less people would be killed.
3. Food labelling would inform Americans of all the crap they are eating. Less people would die of ignorance.
4. Race relations would be improved by (er) just treating everyone the same.
5. Universal healthcare, free at the point of delivery would save countless lives and reduce the cost of healthcare by removing the profit motive.
6. Chocolate would be nicer.
7. Er, you get my drift here?

a reply to: paraphi

8. Beer would be nicer.
9. Your cars would be much better.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
8. Beer would be nicer.

Oh, I don't know. I've been to the US on several occasions and there's quite a rich micro brewery environment. American beer is more than just Miller, Coors and Bud.

a reply to: paraphi

I've never been. I just posted that out of pure prejudice and wilful ignorance. I take it back then.

You can have Scotland.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: EternalSolace
United under the US' constitutional declaration of independence. Solidified by Britain's law and freedom. Finally joining America and Britain in an epic solidarity of which the world has never known...

If we're gonna do this you guys need to start spelling Colour and Aluminium properly, and everything else.

Oh and Constantine, you're saying it wrong, I'll give you a clue, it ends with the same sound as Valentine...

I'll glady relearn how to spell colour and aluminium if you'd learn how to properly use, store, and defend your family with a firearm.

Like a store (cupboard, room etc) or shop?

Us United Statesians get picked on a lot for our use of the English language. Whenever it happens, I remember this picture: