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

The 1976 IMF Crisis was a financial crisis in the United Kingdom in 1976 which forced James Callaghan's Labour Party government to borrow $3.9 billion ($17.2 billion in 2018 [1] from the International Monetary Fund (IMF),[2] at the time the largest loan ever to have been requested from the IMF

 

Random fact time?

 

Hardly! The UK joined the common market in 1975. The UK had no money hence for the biggest loan request from the IMF. Clearly you don't know the history of The Common Market which went on to become the EU. The UK was known as the sick man of Europe at that time

 

I said the EU, not some common trade deal.

Since their GDP is lower now than it was in the 70's, what's it called now, the dead man of Europe?

 

LOL You have no clue what The Common Market is! Why don't you explain why the UK needed to ask for the biggest loan ever from the IMF in 1975 if it was doing so well?

 

Yeah I can't read about the common market in the 70's and stuff

Why don't you explain why they were better off in 1975 than they were now.

 

Mmm, "subjugated" is a really strong term. I'm only stating the obvious fact that internationalizing does require some level of surrendering autonomy. The EU, as it stands, has a broad range of how autonomous various countries are. The UK, still maintaining it's own monetary policy is more autonomous than other nations in the EU. Greece is an obvious example of a nation almost completely at the will of other EU nation-states, in large part as a result of being in the union.

Other nations, like Norway and Switzerland, are strongly influenced by EU policy despite not being members of the EU.

 

They weren't, that is the whole point. The UK joined The Common Market in 1975 as the poor man of Europe and will leave as one of the most prosperous countries in the world. So yes, 'Brussels" did save them

 

I refer you to the GDP graph and housing costs graph again.

 

The point I have been trying to make is that the EU is not some kind of separate country. It is made up by a system of collaboration between all it's members.
I accept that the system is remote, and it is clunky, and it has it's flaws, but it is a system established over more than 40 years, and in which the UK has played a full part.
The narrative can seem like the EU is disconnected from it's constituent countries, but the reality is that the EU is a rules based system established by and welded to it's constituent countries.
It is also a fully democratic system where electors in constituent countries establish their leaders and representatives, and it is those representatives who suggest leading players, especially the commissioners, who serve for a fixed period of time (there have just been changes), and voters in countries throughout the EU directly elect MEP's in European elections. Those MEP's vote on who the commissioners might be, and are at liberty to reject the names put forward by the heads of the individual governments.
All the players in this labyrinthine drama can be removed democratically one way or another, and all have to work a fixed term or periodically stand for re-election.
In short the EU is not undemocratic, and it does not dictate to individual nations against their will. Greece for example got into a terrible mess, but Greece agreed to accepting help in the form suggested by the EU structure that it was an active participant in.
So 'subjugation' may be a strong term, but so is 'surrendering'. Countries join the EU willingly, with their eyes wide open.

Sorry about such a dense and very probably boring post.

 

Why don't you explain why the UK had to apply for the biggest loan ever from the IMF in 1976 if the UK was doing so well before they joined The Common Market. You keep ignoring that.

BTW A GDP of 5% is not much use if you have have to pay interest on debts at 18% and inflation at 20% when you owe a huge sum of money.

 

So what?

The only argument you could possibly have is that somehow the country did better as part of the EU.

It clearly did not.

 

We went in as one of the poorest countries in Europe and are coming out as one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

 

That's not what the GDP graph shows.

 

That is the point. The UK joint because it could not afford anymore to stay outside the EU.
Flat out broke.
40 years later it is one of the riches country in the world and the EU and was once one of the most powerful countries in the EU, with very special perks. When the UK joint it was just the Western Countries, a small group, now its all of Europe, 500 million people.
They are throwing it away, just like that.
Going back to the 70s.
Mind boggling.

 

Really.

Show me on this graph where you got richer.

 

Why don't you explain why you think that GDP growth rate shows how rich a country is?

The UK has the fifth largest GDP in the world

 

What I was referring to was what has been put to the UK prior to Trump's visit here. A UK leaving the EU on No Deal has to take what it can get. Frankly I suspect it is in the US's interest to get the UK to leave the EU and there is indeed evidence of illegal interference from the US in the vote - a bit more real than your concern over Russia in US elections.

 

Oh God an american who thinks Britain is still an imperialist power. You forgot France, Spain, Germany, Holland and just about everyone else.

 

I have essentially zero concern about Russian interference in our elections.

 

France and Germany, at least, certainly are imperial powers.

 

Your graph is showing the result on the UK on the American created Depression from 2008. That is something the UK is going to have to continue dealing with whether it is in the EU or out. Indeed would have been far better to deal with in the EU acting with Diem 25, than out subordinate to the US.

The only reason I have found for leaving the EU is to allow Labour under Corbyn to put in the Monetary policies it wants while still working in relationship with Diem 25

 

Yes, and as he was talking about the past, the others too.

 

The 'sick man of Europe' refers to the state of the UK during the late 1960s and early/mid 1970s. Has nothing to do with the British Empire, so that argument [They built ...] doesn't make sense here and is not even correct.
Before the British Empire there were the Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire; two global powerhouses.

 

As has been said elsewhere, messing around with Ireland is likely not to please the US

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-well-block-uk-trade-deal-us-politicians-warn