Didn't read the letter? Apple is allowed to brief the White House but can't talk to Congress.

Don't be silly, the aristocracy would be instantly abolished once the new States are under the Constitution.

My question is whether or not England comes in as one single State, or if it should be broken up a bit. Will it be the States of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England, or ...I dunno, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria?

Where's AniMoJo? I want his input on what we'll call where his home.

A. The UK does have oil. Plenty.

B. Agreed. I too remember the indignity Dolly Madison was forced to endure as she rescued priceless works of art from the White House as the filthy Brits set it aflame. We should have taken it quietly in '44, but that's in the past. States 51-54 are the future.
3. This is the best damn idea you've ever had!

In civil suits, yes. I don't think this is a civil suit. The IPT hears complaints against the government, and I don't think they're considered lawsuits (but may be wrong). I expect that the proceedings are secret though, so's the FISA court here. But this is an American company.

Now, note the second paragraph of the letter where they point out that Apple was told they could talk to the White House, but not Congress. That's a problem. Congress has oversight and investigations powers. They can call the AG into a hearing and won't take, "The UK told Apple to tell me not to say", as an answer. There are things the AG doesn't have to tell Congress, but I don't think this is one of them. Nobody in the Federal government is a party to the argument, it isn't diplomatic exchanges between heads of state, it isn't private executive communication, it's a formal report from a private American company about what another government is trying to make them do. Congress is already allowed to investigate dealings between American companies and foreign governments. They've passed laws about it.

Apple isn't charged with any crimes but would be if they spoke to Congress. If Congress wants to talk to them, and Apple won't, Apple will be charged with a crime. Congress wants to talk to them. Ouch.

Note the word "subsidiary".

USA is an initialism. Did you mean these United States of America?

Can the US pass and enforce a law that requires UK companies to violate UK law within the UK? A law that says, "you can't talk to Parliament"?

That's what these members of Congress are complaining about. The UK telling Apple and the White House that they can't talk to Congress about something.

You could restate #2 as, "the return of oil production assets to their rightful owners", as Chavez stole them all.

Ah, so you think international relations includes some notion of "rights"? It's a state of nature out there. There are agreements that stand so long as all sides want them to, and that's about as close as it gets to things like laws and rights.

International relations are entirely amoral. The answer to your third question is then simple. Might.

Because we're playing an iterated game? Put American companies into a bind where their only choice is whose prison to live in, and what happens next?

Or because they have a point. Absent a treaty, the UK can't tell the White House to hide something from Congress. That is what has happened here, according to the letter.

Hah!

This is unrelated to the topic at hand, but that thing you said there needs to be seen as a warning. If we push the tax burden too much to one side, that argument will be made, and it will have traction. If one party keeps pushing for lower taxes, and the other keeps pushing for higher taxes only on the rich, at some point we'll end up with only 10% (or less) of the population paying for everything. They will have a valid grievance that the rest of the population is simply robbing them. That can end either with everyone paying taxes again, or a lot fewer voters.

I don't know if people are more likely to vote to pay more taxes or vote to not vote anymore.

Did you read the letter? At first, I figured they were just making some election-time noise, but there's a real issue there about putting Apple under an NDA that violates Congress' authority. Congress gets to ask Apple about this, so Apple is in a bind. They can't follow both rules as the UK order puts them in contempt of Congress.

The administration can go to the Court and argue that this is a foreign affairs issue, and Congress doesn't have the authority they've claimed in the letter, but does the administration want to? Would they bother, knowing that the Court has already upheld Congress' oversight and investigations authority when it comes to US companies operating overseas?

Congress will probably get its way. Either Parliament bends, or Congress compels the White House to share the details with an oversight committee.

I think citizens on both sides of the ocean benefit from this being brought into the light.

Unions have an important role, but like any other institution created to fix something, once that thing is fixed, they refuse to go away. If you read "The Jungle", you know why unions were necessary. Sinclair did a damn good job getting that message across.

But the union movement got what it wanted. Now we have OSHA, NLRB, FDA, EOC, and a load of other letters making sure workplaces are safe, pay is fair, and employees are treated well. Yet, unions remain. And sometimes, go too far.

You mean the ones who grew up with strict memory and CPU cycle limitations? Who excelled in crazy live-in-the-office environments before the word "crunch" entered the lexicon?

Could go well.

Did you forget to include violence, or did you just assume that the union would take care of that?