This is exactly how I saw Brexit. It was never a question of splendid isolation or unlimited sovereignty but a choice between which of two imperial structures we sat under, the continental Franco-German EU or the global maritime US. (I tend to view the EU as an empire with in an empire, which the larger American empire tolerates)
It always seemed to me that Britain, a maritime nation with geography well suited to international trade had made a huge mistake when out of despondence and declinism, we threw away our natural advantages and tied ourselves to a protectionist continental economic model which brought limited benefits and reduced our access to a global trading system built around the Anglophone world we founded.
It is often forgotten what a bizarre construction the EU really is. A modern political construct that supposedly pools sovereignty, run by a class of bureaucratic overseers whose loyalty is explicitly stated to be to the institution, not their home country, which resembles something more like the medieval papacy than its democratic cousins around the world.
It’s true America has not welcomed us with open arms into this arrangement. As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests, to draw the UK closer into its coalition of democratic, maritime, trading nations such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.
America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.
“As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests…”
Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground. This excellent article, which was part of an UnHerd link collection talks about exactly that: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/we-are-no-longer-a-serious-people
Simone de Beauvoir also complains about this tendency in her diary of her trip to the States in 1947 (“America Day By Day”).
“Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground”
Well said and to over-egg it a bit, my neighbour’s neuroses can easily become my discomfort.
“Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground”
Well said and to over-egg it a bit, my neighbour’s neuroses can easily become my discomfort.
The US will likely ask for Britain to follow its product standards (hormone-fed beef, anyone?), and allow full access for its big corporations (US drug prices? NHS privatisation?), privacy regulation (full access for all data to any US corporation?) … It is not obvious that the UK will have more say over its own destiny as an American vassal than as a leading member of the EU collective, so what price ‘Take back control!’? Are you really sure the UK will feel more comfortable aligning with Alabama than with Bretagne?
Of course we are more comfortable with Americans than the French. That much is obvious to everyone in Britain. We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.
As for alignment on those things, why not if they gave us greater access to the American markets? The Aussies, the Canadians and the Japanese all have FTAs with the US and seem to have thriving agricultural and healthcare sectors.
Totally agree. Although the US is a mix of European peoples – there are plenty of originally German, French, Scandinavian, Irish, Polish and other peoples who would numerically outnumber British settlers. But that said, it’s clearly an Anglo-Saxon culture like ours with a shared heritage in things like common law and business practices.
All this noise about food standards. Yet no one who holidays in Florida or California and eats this “dreadful food” seems to complain while they are there or suffer any adverse consequences. It’s rather like people complaining about global warming and choosing to holiday in hot countries.
Immigrants from those countries did arrive in huge waves but generally after the British had been there for 200 years. The most common ancestry in the US is English-American but nowadays is the least talked about. I suppose it lacks the glamour of pretending to be Rob Roy or Wolfe Tone.
Thanks for the update. I live fairly close to Cambridge, but this news had not yet penetrated out to the sticks 15 miles away. In fact I was in the city yesterday and no one mentioned this very exciting news to me …
Thanks for the update. I live fairly close to Cambridge, but this news had not yet penetrated out to the sticks 15 miles away. In fact I was in the city yesterday and no one mentioned this very exciting news to me …
Oh and lack of gun control in the US? School children sot down. Yes Johnson was bad but Trump in another league. Canada more like the UK but disgraceful on help for Ukraine under Trudeau.
You make two points in two paragraphs..
1. So all Americans have lost their individual European heritages? ..and adopted Anglo Saxon ideals (whatever they are? Angles + Saxons hailed from Germany fgs!). The Irish influence is alive and well. Ask Joe Biden!
And didn’t I read somewhere that the Anglo-Saxons were smashed by the French Normans? ..not to mention the Vikings in the North if England? Anglo-Saxon heritage is a myth in England. It’sa faery take in NY.
2. If you assume Brits are okay with GM foods, hormone ridden beef and chlorinated chicken you’re deluded. And if you think the only effect of global warming is nice warm weather you must be living on another planet, literally!
Immigrants from those countries did arrive in huge waves but generally after the British had been there for 200 years. The most common ancestry in the US is English-American but nowadays is the least talked about. I suppose it lacks the glamour of pretending to be Rob Roy or Wolfe Tone.
Oh and lack of gun control in the US? School children sot down. Yes Johnson was bad but Trump in another league. Canada more like the UK but disgraceful on help for Ukraine under Trudeau.
You make two points in two paragraphs..
1. So all Americans have lost their individual European heritages? ..and adopted Anglo Saxon ideals (whatever they are? Angles + Saxons hailed from Germany fgs!). The Irish influence is alive and well. Ask Joe Biden!
And didn’t I read somewhere that the Anglo-Saxons were smashed by the French Normans? ..not to mention the Vikings in the North if England? Anglo-Saxon heritage is a myth in England. It’sa faery take in NY.
2. If you assume Brits are okay with GM foods, hormone ridden beef and chlorinated chicken you’re deluded. And if you think the only effect of global warming is nice warm weather you must be living on another planet, literally!
“We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.”
I’m sorry Matt but that is delusional. Just because we speak the same language does not mean that we have the same interests.
I didn’t say we had the same interests. Of course American politicians will look out for the US’s interest just like the French government looks out for France’s. But culturally and historically we are closely related. I work with many Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, white South Africans etc. There are differences but they are very minor. I actually think we have more in common culturally with people of Indian heritage than with the French and Germans (though they are fine people and France and Germany are great countries to visit).
And don’t knock the fact that we speak the same language. British people almost never speak foreign languages which means that in Europe (aside from the European upper classes) we cannot speak to each another in a meaningful way. Whereas I can go to Denver or Dunedin tomorrow and start chatting to the neighbours.
And I think there is a level of trust between the English-speaking nations that doesn’t exist between the European ones. I think the AUKUS and 5Eyes pacts are testament to that. Also being on the same side in every war of the 20C helps.
He wasn’t saying that to be fair. There is enough common heritage generally with America and Europe to be able to do meaningful business although our hertigage is changing now that the Tories have brought in Woke.
I didn’t say we had the same interests. Of course American politicians will look out for the US’s interest just like the French government looks out for France’s. But culturally and historically we are closely related. I work with many Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, white South Africans etc. There are differences but they are very minor. I actually think we have more in common culturally with people of Indian heritage than with the French and Germans (though they are fine people and France and Germany are great countries to visit).
And don’t knock the fact that we speak the same language. British people almost never speak foreign languages which means that in Europe (aside from the European upper classes) we cannot speak to each another in a meaningful way. Whereas I can go to Denver or Dunedin tomorrow and start chatting to the neighbours.
And I think there is a level of trust between the English-speaking nations that doesn’t exist between the European ones. I think the AUKUS and 5Eyes pacts are testament to that. Also being on the same side in every war of the 20C helps.
He wasn’t saying that to be fair. There is enough common heritage generally with America and Europe to be able to do meaningful business although our hertigage is changing now that the Tories have brought in Woke.
We may be MM, but clear no trade deal with US anytime soon and we continue to do majority of our trade with EU. Plus foreseeable trade with China going to have some complications in coming years, esp if tying ourselves more to US policy.
So we’ve a dichotomy – we align more with US but tied financially to Europe. That ain’t changing quickly, and one can discern Govt recognises this reality
In what way exactly are we “tied financially to Europe” ? Did we join the Euro ? Did the EU ever implement the single market for services so that our superior financial services would dominate the EU market ? I must be missing something.
In fact, that’s the single strongest reason I had for getting out of the EU – so we are not financially tied to Europe. The last thing we need is to be on the hook when the debt mutualisation begging bowl comes round. Which it will. Tony Blair’s on record as saying that EU debt sharing is a good thing. That means us bailing out the profligates. No thanks !
42% of our total exports and 48% of total imports ties us v tightly PB. The TCA ties us. The Windsor Framework ties us. Our Businesses lobby to not digress as it’ll increase their costs etc etc
And when you do that much trade with a much larger bloc they always have leverage you don’t.
I think this is a major prob leave supporters never quite grasped and yet it’s so obvious. We’re tied and opted to have less influence too. Genius.
Clearly the outlet of doing more with China to reduce the imbalance with EU not going to be easy as we tie ourselves to the US. they will expect we align on their approach to China trade.
Separate to trade issues one other example – £480m paid to Macron to get a few more beach patrols. Good value? Who has the leverage here? Who’s tied?
I don’t think you actually understand how trade works.
By the way, you are aware that France (Mayotte is in metropolitan France) is currently turning back the small illegal migrant boats from the other Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean ? Exactly the same scenario as we have with France. Only they’re doing what they wouldn’t accept us doing.
I am aware of Comoros. Newsnight covered it some months ago making same point you are about inconsistency – which of course has some validity. Which just shows we don’t have the leverage given the other choke points France and EU hold on us to get away with the same in the Channel, even if we thought that appropriate. You kind of underlined the point for me.
I am aware of Comoros. Newsnight covered it some months ago making same point you are about inconsistency – which of course has some validity. Which just shows we don’t have the leverage given the other choke points France and EU hold on us to get away with the same in the Channel, even if we thought that appropriate. You kind of underlined the point for me.
I don’t think you actually understand how trade works.
By the way, you are aware that France (Mayotte is in metropolitan France) is currently turning back the small illegal migrant boats from the other Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean ? Exactly the same scenario as we have with France. Only they’re doing what they wouldn’t accept us doing.
42% of our total exports and 48% of total imports ties us v tightly PB. The TCA ties us. The Windsor Framework ties us. Our Businesses lobby to not digress as it’ll increase their costs etc etc
And when you do that much trade with a much larger bloc they always have leverage you don’t.
I think this is a major prob leave supporters never quite grasped and yet it’s so obvious. We’re tied and opted to have less influence too. Genius.
Clearly the outlet of doing more with China to reduce the imbalance with EU not going to be easy as we tie ourselves to the US. they will expect we align on their approach to China trade.
Separate to trade issues one other example – £480m paid to Macron to get a few more beach patrols. Good value? Who has the leverage here? Who’s tied?
In what way exactly are we “tied financially to Europe” ? Did we join the Euro ? Did the EU ever implement the single market for services so that our superior financial services would dominate the EU market ? I must be missing something.
In fact, that’s the single strongest reason I had for getting out of the EU – so we are not financially tied to Europe. The last thing we need is to be on the hook when the debt mutualisation begging bowl comes round. Which it will. Tony Blair’s on record as saying that EU debt sharing is a good thing. That means us bailing out the profligates. No thanks !
In the past I may have believed this but given how insane American liberalism is now and how ‘wokified’ most American mass culture is becoming I have to admit to being more comfortable with the French than America now.
And then other Anglosphere states like Canada, New Zealand, Australia seem even more woke than the US as well! Sad times.
But the opposition to Wokery is also strongest in the USA. Pretty soon the Woke trend will die a death and the stake through the heart will be administrated by an American. I think we are already passed peak-woke.
Woke is crucial to American hegemony. It is already used to mark out the free Western good guys from the evil autocratic Eastern bad guys. ESG in particular will be used as a strategy to combat Chinese industrial power. You will not see the end of it in your lifetime.
I sincerely hope you are right Matt. It appears to me that there are some in the Tory party keeping it going. My bet is on Miriam Cates at the moment. One of the few with her head screwed on along with Priti Patel, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman. All women for some reason.
Woke is crucial to American hegemony. It is already used to mark out the free Western good guys from the evil autocratic Eastern bad guys. ESG in particular will be used as a strategy to combat Chinese industrial power. You will not see the end of it in your lifetime.
I sincerely hope you are right Matt. It appears to me that there are some in the Tory party keeping it going. My bet is on Miriam Cates at the moment. One of the few with her head screwed on along with Priti Patel, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman. All women for some reason.
Even Australia and NZ is going more Woke so we are all losing our original heritage mostly coming in with the Tories in power. A civilisation does not last forever without a meaningful input to revive what is good in our past.
It’ll take more than woke rubbish to shut down Aussie blunt speaking and sledging. And quite right too. They’re over here next week to give us a reminder.
It’ll take more than woke rubbish to shut down Aussie blunt speaking and sledging. And quite right too. They’re over here next week to give us a reminder.
But the opposition to Wokery is also strongest in the USA. Pretty soon the Woke trend will die a death and the stake through the heart will be administrated by an American. I think we are already passed peak-woke.
Even Australia and NZ is going more Woke so we are all losing our original heritage mostly coming in with the Tories in power. A civilisation does not last forever without a meaningful input to revive what is good in our past.
Totally agree. Although the US is a mix of European peoples – there are plenty of originally German, French, Scandinavian, Irish, Polish and other peoples who would numerically outnumber British settlers. But that said, it’s clearly an Anglo-Saxon culture like ours with a shared heritage in things like common law and business practices.
All this noise about food standards. Yet no one who holidays in Florida or California and eats this “dreadful food” seems to complain while they are there or suffer any adverse consequences. It’s rather like people complaining about global warming and choosing to holiday in hot countries.
“We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.”
I’m sorry Matt but that is delusional. Just because we speak the same language does not mean that we have the same interests.
We may be MM, but clear no trade deal with US anytime soon and we continue to do majority of our trade with EU. Plus foreseeable trade with China going to have some complications in coming years, esp if tying ourselves more to US policy.
So we’ve a dichotomy – we align more with US but tied financially to Europe. That ain’t changing quickly, and one can discern Govt recognises this reality
In the past I may have believed this but given how insane American liberalism is now and how ‘wokified’ most American mass culture is becoming I have to admit to being more comfortable with the French than America now.
And then other Anglosphere states like Canada, New Zealand, Australia seem even more woke than the US as well! Sad times.
It’s almost cute how the same two issues of agricultural products are constantly dragged up! (What’s actually wrong with chlorine washed chicken anyway…?) You can exempt items in specific negotiations as I am sure the Americans also will.
However, this will not result in US law becoming superior to British, or our having to accept free movement, or even (as if we rejoined the EU) in Britain having to transition to adopting the dollar ….
Even the Americans no longer have a meaningful say over their own country under Biden. What chance would we have? I believe in Brexit with all my heart but I realise that there are two Conservative parties one of them ready to take full advantage of Brexit the other hankering after the EU and also taking on all the Woke in our schools etc. I don’t know the outcome of this but it appears like a lost ship going in circles.
Of course we are more comfortable with Americans than the French. That much is obvious to everyone in Britain. We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.
As for alignment on those things, why not if they gave us greater access to the American markets? The Aussies, the Canadians and the Japanese all have FTAs with the US and seem to have thriving agricultural and healthcare sectors.
It’s almost cute how the same two issues of agricultural products are constantly dragged up! (What’s actually wrong with chlorine washed chicken anyway…?) You can exempt items in specific negotiations as I am sure the Americans also will.
However, this will not result in US law becoming superior to British, or our having to accept free movement, or even (as if we rejoined the EU) in Britain having to transition to adopting the dollar ….
Even the Americans no longer have a meaningful say over their own country under Biden. What chance would we have? I believe in Brexit with all my heart but I realise that there are two Conservative parties one of them ready to take full advantage of Brexit the other hankering after the EU and also taking on all the Woke in our schools etc. I don’t know the outcome of this but it appears like a lost ship going in circles.
“In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.” Well. It was the US who strong armed the weak and wobbly MacMillan into seeking EEC membership. MacMillan had no concept of UK interests, ie build up the industrial and economic base as goal No 1, 2, 3, 4 and for ever. It is also worth remembering that the State Depa rtment could never care one toss for the UK constitution. To State, it was a joke. Hence the ludicrous critique of Brexit that it was all about nostalgia.
No. Yanks. Its about us Brits wanting to govern ourselves. if you don”‘t like it, shove off.
That would all change with Trump. So it appears to depend on which party is in power. We would thrive more under Republicanism but the Democrats would destroy all that is good in Britian if Starmer doesn’t do it first.
That would all change with Trump. So it appears to depend on which party is in power. We would thrive more under Republicanism but the Democrats would destroy all that is good in Britian if Starmer doesn’t do it first.
From a European point of view Brexit did at least weaken the increasingly pernicious influence of the USA and in particular their racial and gender politics
In our defense, the Woke 19th century Germans started it all! We will be permanently stained by this Marxism with American characteristics but you Brits should have never given Marx safe haven in the first place lol.
In our defense, the Woke 19th century Germans started it all! We will be permanently stained by this Marxism with American characteristics but you Brits should have never given Marx safe haven in the first place lol.
‘America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.’
America doesn’t need control over the UK’s immigration policies: it has an ocean (not a mere Manche) between us and itself, and a formidable immigration system of its own. ‘Monetary autonomy’ for the pound, euro or any other monetary jurisdiction is also somewhat illusory; the policies of the Federal Bank determine what those of us in the rest of the world must do in response. America DOES control the foreign trade of its allies, through embargoes that suit America’s view of the world. And it DOES demand not only judicial supremacy for its courts but worldwide jurisdiction over anything that has affected American interests or citizens, without proportional reciprocation – hence the extradition of British subjects for ‘crimes’ that are not criminal under our own laws. The only part of that paragraph that is accurate is the last one – but that alone is worth the pain of extricating Britain from the EU. An EU which, despite its pretensions, is subject to all the American influences listed above while trumpeting its imagined independence.
If you remove the wishful thinking your contribution would thin out dramatically. If you placed more emphasis on reality – America’s hegemonic and monetary domination (only it gains: it’s vassals lose) and America’s less than warm welcome of the UKs obsequious attempt to cosy up – your assertions thin out even more.
Most important of all you make no mention of the blatantly obvious imminent decline of the USA and it’s growing isolation and alienation from the BRICS+ OPEC and Africa. You are backing the wrong horse!
“As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests…”
Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground. This excellent article, which was part of an UnHerd link collection talks about exactly that: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/we-are-no-longer-a-serious-people
Simone de Beauvoir also complains about this tendency in her diary of her trip to the States in 1947 (“America Day By Day”).
The US will likely ask for Britain to follow its product standards (hormone-fed beef, anyone?), and allow full access for its big corporations (US drug prices? NHS privatisation?), privacy regulation (full access for all data to any US corporation?) … It is not obvious that the UK will have more say over its own destiny as an American vassal than as a leading member of the EU collective, so what price ‘Take back control!’? Are you really sure the UK will feel more comfortable aligning with Alabama than with Bretagne?
“In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.” Well. It was the US who strong armed the weak and wobbly MacMillan into seeking EEC membership. MacMillan had no concept of UK interests, ie build up the industrial and economic base as goal No 1, 2, 3, 4 and for ever. It is also worth remembering that the State Depa rtment could never care one toss for the UK constitution. To State, it was a joke. Hence the ludicrous critique of Brexit that it was all about nostalgia.
No. Yanks. Its about us Brits wanting to govern ourselves. if you don”‘t like it, shove off.
From a European point of view Brexit did at least weaken the increasingly pernicious influence of the USA and in particular their racial and gender politics
‘America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.’
America doesn’t need control over the UK’s immigration policies: it has an ocean (not a mere Manche) between us and itself, and a formidable immigration system of its own. ‘Monetary autonomy’ for the pound, euro or any other monetary jurisdiction is also somewhat illusory; the policies of the Federal Bank determine what those of us in the rest of the world must do in response. America DOES control the foreign trade of its allies, through embargoes that suit America’s view of the world. And it DOES demand not only judicial supremacy for its courts but worldwide jurisdiction over anything that has affected American interests or citizens, without proportional reciprocation – hence the extradition of British subjects for ‘crimes’ that are not criminal under our own laws. The only part of that paragraph that is accurate is the last one – but that alone is worth the pain of extricating Britain from the EU. An EU which, despite its pretensions, is subject to all the American influences listed above while trumpeting its imagined independence.
If you remove the wishful thinking your contribution would thin out dramatically. If you placed more emphasis on reality – America’s hegemonic and monetary domination (only it gains: it’s vassals lose) and America’s less than warm welcome of the UKs obsequious attempt to cosy up – your assertions thin out even more.
Most important of all you make no mention of the blatantly obvious imminent decline of the USA and it’s growing isolation and alienation from the BRICS+ OPEC and Africa. You are backing the wrong horse!
Matthew Powell
10 months ago
This is exactly how I saw Brexit. It was never a question of splendid isolation or unlimited sovereignty but a choice between which of two imperial structures we sat under, the continental Franco-German EU or the global maritime US. (I tend to view the EU as an empire with in an empire, which the larger American empire tolerates)
It always seemed to me that Britain, a maritime nation with geography well suited to international trade had made a huge mistake when out of despondence and declinism, we threw away our natural advantages and tied ourselves to a protectionist continental economic model which brought limited benefits and reduced our access to a global trading system built around the Anglophone world we founded.
It is often forgotten what a bizarre construction the EU really is. A modern political construct that supposedly pools sovereignty, run by a class of bureaucratic overseers whose loyalty is explicitly stated to be to the institution, not their home country, which resembles something more like the medieval papacy than its democratic cousins around the world.
It’s true America has not welcomed us with open arms into this arrangement. As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests, to draw the UK closer into its coalition of democratic, maritime, trading nations such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.
America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.
Paddy Taylor
10 months ago
We are not a superpower, for sure, but nor are we simply a vassal state.
But in the C21st, what defines a Superpower?
Is it simply the size of a country’s standing army? If that was the case then India is a greater Superpower than the US, so it can’t be just that.
I certainly support additional defence spending in the UK because, as a newly sovereign global-facing Britain, it is right that we should have the capability to defend our interests at home and abroad.
But despite our currently much-reduced military capacity, there is surely more to being a superpower than military might alone.
Britain may no longer have its empire (which in truth is usually only something harped on about by the Remain lobby and the Brit-bashing left – or journalists wishing to tweak the pique of their readers) but, although we often portray ourselves as a damp, diminished little island, it is worth remembering where we stand globally – despite our relatively tiny size, geographically, we have the 6th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest defence budget, we’re a nuclear power. We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and are a founding member and the 2nd most influential power in NATO. We are a key member of the G7 and G20, a member of AUKUS and Five Eyes Intel sharing, and the nexus of all Commonwealth countries.
We’re cultural world leaders in music, film and the arts. Our language is the most widely spoken on the planet and has become the adopted lingua franca of global trade. London – for now – vies only with New York as the financial capital of the globe and, by virtue of our historical, colonial and trading links, we have diplomatic relationships and ‘soft-power’ influence that are the envy (literally the seething, covetous envy) of most other European nations. That is not simply my judgement – the UK has been voted as the country with the greatest soft power influence on the globe, (in 2019, 2020 and 21 so ‘despite Brexit’) – and yet there are still those in our Parliament who’d have us believe that we’d be better off simply allowing all our foreign policy and trade to be conducted through Brussels. Or who feel we’d be better off just curling up at the first sign of trouble, like a hedgehog being nosed by a predator.
I know it pains many on the left to admit such a thing but “Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.
But what we would consider basic liberal values are NOT a default position for most of the world. If you want the world to adopt democracy, or universal suffrage, or equal rights, or any of the other things we are lucky enough to take for granted, then you need to support the idea of Western predominance – the West has lost influence due in large part because the West seems to have lost the confidence to demonstrate to the rest of the world that our values, our laws and our tolerance lead to better outcomes. And sometimes, to project the superiority of western liberal democratic values, and to protect our interests, that involves intervention.
Unpalatable as that may be, it is undeniable.
Whenever the UK or America intervenes in another country or region, they’ll inevitably face the opprobrium of the western liberal media.
Whenever the UK or America chooses not to intervene they’ll face criticism from the same media sources, accusing them of standing idly by while ‘XYZ’ is being perpetrated.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Too many people find it too easy to stand on the sidelines complaining.
Pick a team – and then back it.
Military power, now that we are beyond the era of empire building, is mainly about deterrence. Little about Biden’s panicky withdrawal from Afghanistan would deter anyone. Indeed, it merely invites attack. EU member states have long resisted the need to divvy up and pay their fair share to support NATO. Instead they seem to prefer the self-aggrandising pomp of forming their own EU army. If such a thing comes into being then we already know what Brussels’ common defence policy priorities are – we’ve seen the paperwork and budgets. Spending billions to build a shiny new headquarters, to house yet more wretched bureaucrats, and with all the strategic effectiveness of the Maginot line. Perhaps I’m being cynical but I have the suspicion that an EU army is just another item on the checklist so that Brussels can bolster its imperial pretensions – not as an effective fighting force, so much as a vanity project, a decorative show of pomp – decked out in suitably gaudy, faux-Prussian dress uniforms to parade outside the institution’s buildings with as much grandeur and ceremony as possible – to allow the preening panjandrums of the Berlaymont to feel even more self-important (if such a thing were possible).
We cannot look to the US for leadership whilst Biden is in office nor, thankfully, are we part of an EU pretending to be a superpower. But with a resurgent and belligerent Russia and China it is right that Britain – whilst not a superpower – is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight.
Western Liberal values may also be demonstrably self defeating when you look at the prognosis for the populations of those that were born into those values and might be assumed to hold them most dearly. I’m afraid those living with other values hold with equal certainty that their values are demonstrably better than ours. They just use different parameters, which in their cultures might really be more important for them. For instance a highly religious culture might use the depth of faith in the population as a defining feature, or social cohesion, or any number of things we look pretty bad at. The evangelical zeal with which Tony Blair still justifies the Iraq war along lines not far from the superiority of Western values leaves me shaking with rage and, along with our numerous catastrophic interventions, leaves me deeply unsure of this assumption at the very least in terms of it’s applicability to historically and culturally completely different societies. You might argue who’s right and who’s wrong, but the likelihood is never the twain shall meet and in 100 years time demographics will provide the answer.
“is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight”
There were boxers in my family – nobody punches above their weight.
Whilst I am delighted that you should think that, I must reluctantly disabuse you of that patriotic notion.
We have been completely beholden to the US ever since Lord Balfour’s timely visit to the US in late 1916 to beg for funds to continue the conflict. The antics of WSC in late 1940 further exacerbated the problem.
When ‘push came to shove’ we meekly obeyed the UN/US resolution to abandon Palestine in 1948, and cease operations at Suez in 1956.
In between we answered the call in Korea, 1950-3.
We shall have to disagree over Vietnam, but our recent obsequious behaviour over Iraq was truly disgraceful. As to N Ireland was the GFA the work of the Blair creature or in reality the diktat of one Bill Clinton?
The Falklands War mini war would NOT have been possible without the wholehearted acquiescence of Ronald Reagan.
Finally to our so called independent nuclear deterrent. There is no possibility that it could be used unilaterally!* All the ‘software’ is US made and I doubt that if our submarine commander pressed the dreaded ‘red button’ it would actually work without the necessary ‘go code ‘ from the US.
Frankly I feel as disappointed about all this as you obviously do, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame. After more than three very happy centuries of plunder and profit, “we lost it” in 1914, and have never fully recovered.
Sadly “History takes no prisoners “.**
ps. A a definition of a superpower may I offer ‘a superpower is one that can a fight super war from its own resources ’. (Something we abjectly failed to do in both 1914-18 and again in 1939-45.)
(* David Cameron, of undying fame, claimed differently!)
(** The late Dr John Mann.)
Charles, while it’s entertaining to regard our historical plunder and profit as something to be proud of, don’t you think that sort of thing just gives licence to the US and Russians to do more of the same ? And just what is your beef with the US here ? Don’t you rate them because they’re not up to it on the plunder and profit side ?
You know as well as I that we were probably the most benign Imperial power there has ever been, with the possible exception of Ancient Rome. We ultimately ‘ploughed back’ into the Empire as much we took out.
I have no ‘beef’ with the Americans, they have ‘played their hand superbly, and are in many ways a most generous Hegemon it must be said.
Tend to agree. But not sure we’re the right people to “mark our own homework” on our record. I think in time a more balanced picture of our history will come through. Probably not one written by anyone British based on current trends. And will be more convincing if it comes from the countries who were colonised.
Well we do have this from the renowned Spanish philosopher George Santayana*, who taught at Harvard in his youth:-“
“Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.”
Compared to the Spanish and Belgians et al, yes, for sure the BE was so nice.. in the same way the 3rd Reich was so much nicer than Pol Pot or Gengis Khan, who in turn were probably nicer thar Satan himself.. ’tis all relative Charlie.
Compared to the Spanish and Belgians et al, yes, for sure the BE was so nice.. in the same way the 3rd Reich was so much nicer than Pol Pot or Gengis Khan, who in turn were probably nicer thar Satan himself.. ’tis all relative Charlie.
Well we do have this from the renowned Spanish philosopher George Santayana*, who taught at Harvard in his youth:-“
“Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.”
You got my downtick for para.1 – your plunder of India was a great example of ploughing back in!
But I gave you an uptick for para.2 but only because, like us, you guys are white, Christian (or a sort) with too low a prospect of stealing your oil. So yes, a generous Hegemon to you (and us).. TG we’re not brown, Muslim, and resource rich eh Charlie?
Tend to agree. But not sure we’re the right people to “mark our own homework” on our record. I think in time a more balanced picture of our history will come through. Probably not one written by anyone British based on current trends. And will be more convincing if it comes from the countries who were colonised.
You got my downtick for para.1 – your plunder of India was a great example of ploughing back in!
But I gave you an uptick for para.2 but only because, like us, you guys are white, Christian (or a sort) with too low a prospect of stealing your oil. So yes, a generous Hegemon to you (and us).. TG we’re not brown, Muslim, and resource rich eh Charlie?
You know as well as I that we were probably the most benign Imperial power there has ever been, with the possible exception of Ancient Rome. We ultimately ‘ploughed back’ into the Empire as much we took out.
I have no ‘beef’ with the Americans, they have ‘played their hand superbly, and are in many ways a most generous Hegemon it must be said.
Charles, while it’s entertaining to regard our historical plunder and profit as something to be proud of, don’t you think that sort of thing just gives licence to the US and Russians to do more of the same ? And just what is your beef with the US here ? Don’t you rate them because they’re not up to it on the plunder and profit side ?
Sweet Lord the racism continues unabated but now under a different guise.
It’s SO unfashionable to think you’re superior because of the colour of your skin.
But now it’s OK to consider all other cultures and value systems to be inherently and irredeemably inferior to those developed by AngloSaxon brains.
‘Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.’
What arrogance!
Let us consider the many many tens of millions across the world killed directly or indirectly in support of promoting ‘Western Liberal Values’: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen to name just some of the more egregious examples.
Not to recognise the outstanding success of China over the past 50 years, were over 650,000,000 people were lifted from dire poverty to comfortable middle class living shows deliberate ignorance or sheer willful blindness. The lifespan of the average Chinese has increased by over 30 years.
The success of China over that period is simply unprecedented in human history. That success is not only marginally superior to any previous wave of progress it is, at least, an order of magnitude better – measured by the number of humans who benefited and the short timescale of the achievement.
As for inalienable freedom and rights under Western Liberal Values it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are a fiction. The response to Covid proved that our freedoms or rights – are contingent on the whims of the deep state.
Largely nonsense.
If cultures are different – which you do not dispute – then there will be different strengths and weaknesses in each of them. In some situations, some cultures will do better relative to others.
There is nothing remotely contentious or “racist” about such an observation. It is nothing whatever to do with race.
No one is saying that a culture is “better”. We don’t need to. What is beyond dispute is that some are more successful than others. North vs South Korea is the most glaring example.
For example, Hong Kong became incredibly successful by adopting and turbo-charging many of the best aspects of British capitalism while filtering out some of the worst. Cultural assimilation is clearly not dependent on race – at least not the ability to do this where people are willing and motivated to learn and adapt.
In general, successful cultures today are those that emphasise learning and adaptation and de-emphasise ideology and rigid beliefs. They also prefer delayed gratification over instant rewards. They are also built around rule of law states.
You also neglect a few relevant facts.
Like the fact that Mao created and maintained much of the poverty in China.
And that the Indochina wars also involved interference by Russia and China (and France making a total pig’s ear of decolonisation – the Anericans got to clean up the mess the French left behind – and not for the first time).
I suppose it depends on how you define “success” and, most importantly, success fir whom? If you check you’ll find the 1% did well; the rest? …no so much!
I suppose it depends on how you define “success” and, most importantly, success fir whom? If you check you’ll find the 1% did well; the rest? …no so much!
I could simply dismiss your rebuttal as absolute twaddle, but in the spirit of good debate I’d ask you to consider – and try and refute – the following:
The great ideas of the West— the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights, rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, liberal democracy—together constitute quite an achievement for any civilization, surely you’d accept?.
This basic set of principles remains the best and perhaps only means for all people, regardless of race or creed, to live in freedom and reach their full potential.
These values form the basis of the West’s self-evident economic, social, political, scientific and cultural success. When such Western values have been adopted by other societies, such as Japan or South Korea, their citizens have reaped benefits. You talk of China – well they advanced financially by copying western style capitalism – however I very much doubt you’d enjoy living there as a free-thinking citizen – precisely because China although they adopted Western capitalism, they failed to adopt Western values.
We in the west are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose – unless we throw it all away by allowing the neo-authoritarian-woke to dismantle this legacy,
It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities and religious minorities, by recognizing their rights.
And yet, all you got out of my comment was “Racism”? Really?
Oh come off it! Deal with the real results, not the idealised, romanticised stuff of fiction. Focus on the actual effects on real people, not just the 1%. You’ll find the facts are very different to the pie in the sky, schoolboyish, wishful thinking. India was perhaps the wealthiest ‘country’ on Earth before it was plundered (from 28% of World GDP to 4%). Had you left it alone half of impoverished GB would be emigrating, illegally into India! And please don’t say you civilised the people of the Indus Valley!
Oh come off it! Deal with the real results, not the idealised, romanticised stuff of fiction. Focus on the actual effects on real people, not just the 1%. You’ll find the facts are very different to the pie in the sky, schoolboyish, wishful thinking. India was perhaps the wealthiest ‘country’ on Earth before it was plundered (from 28% of World GDP to 4%). Had you left it alone half of impoverished GB would be emigrating, illegally into India! And please don’t say you civilised the people of the Indus Valley!
Would the imprisonment and psychological torture of Julian Assange be a good measure of the value if Western Liberal Values? Wasn’t JFK murdered by the CIA for espousing genuine WLD values? Didn’t those WLD values account for much of history’s genocides, slavery, forced famines and plunder? If so, maybe it’s not really superior in any way other than in beastial brutality?
Largely nonsense.
If cultures are different – which you do not dispute – then there will be different strengths and weaknesses in each of them. In some situations, some cultures will do better relative to others.
There is nothing remotely contentious or “racist” about such an observation. It is nothing whatever to do with race.
No one is saying that a culture is “better”. We don’t need to. What is beyond dispute is that some are more successful than others. North vs South Korea is the most glaring example.
For example, Hong Kong became incredibly successful by adopting and turbo-charging many of the best aspects of British capitalism while filtering out some of the worst. Cultural assimilation is clearly not dependent on race – at least not the ability to do this where people are willing and motivated to learn and adapt.
In general, successful cultures today are those that emphasise learning and adaptation and de-emphasise ideology and rigid beliefs. They also prefer delayed gratification over instant rewards. They are also built around rule of law states.
You also neglect a few relevant facts.
Like the fact that Mao created and maintained much of the poverty in China.
And that the Indochina wars also involved interference by Russia and China (and France making a total pig’s ear of decolonisation – the Anericans got to clean up the mess the French left behind – and not for the first time).
I could simply dismiss your rebuttal as absolute twaddle, but in the spirit of good debate I’d ask you to consider – and try and refute – the following:
The great ideas of the West— the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights, rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, liberal democracy—together constitute quite an achievement for any civilization, surely you’d accept?.
This basic set of principles remains the best and perhaps only means for all people, regardless of race or creed, to live in freedom and reach their full potential.
These values form the basis of the West’s self-evident economic, social, political, scientific and cultural success. When such Western values have been adopted by other societies, such as Japan or South Korea, their citizens have reaped benefits. You talk of China – well they advanced financially by copying western style capitalism – however I very much doubt you’d enjoy living there as a free-thinking citizen – precisely because China although they adopted Western capitalism, they failed to adopt Western values.
We in the west are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose – unless we throw it all away by allowing the neo-authoritarian-woke to dismantle this legacy,
It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities and religious minorities, by recognizing their rights.
And yet, all you got out of my comment was “Racism”? Really?
Would the imprisonment and psychological torture of Julian Assange be a good measure of the value if Western Liberal Values? Wasn’t JFK murdered by the CIA for espousing genuine WLD values? Didn’t those WLD values account for much of history’s genocides, slavery, forced famines and plunder? If so, maybe it’s not really superior in any way other than in beastial brutality?
Think for a moment! Who is going to invade us? Not the Russians or the Chinese! They have always only been concerned with their own borders and surrounding countries..
I believe that aligning ourselves with the USA which has invaded numerous countries far from their borders, both in the last century and since 2000 (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya and South American countries which did not toe their political line, is against our interest and stability..
The word “diplomacy” is not in its vocabulary…
Don’t worry too much about the possible invasion of GB by the USA (unless Biden goes overboard on his Irishness!) ..they tend to focus on brown Muslims with lots of easy to steal oil. GB is way down the list.. but as Muslims outnumber Christians in GB, in say 20 years time, yeah, maybe rotate the guns westward to be on the safe side!
Don’t worry too much about the possible invasion of GB by the USA (unless Biden goes overboard on his Irishness!) ..they tend to focus on brown Muslims with lots of easy to steal oil. GB is way down the list.. but as Muslims outnumber Christians in GB, in say 20 years time, yeah, maybe rotate the guns westward to be on the safe side!
A tad one-sided, over-egged and replete with wishful thinking and a few glaring omissions.. but very well put if we ignore those minor shortcomings! One question:
Please explain what you mean by China’s “belligerence” compared to say, US belligerence and its attendant invasions, bombings, regime coups, assassinations, oil theft, war crimes and murderous sanctions.. the US death toll in the last 30 years of its benign hegemony stands (as of a US study) at 8 million and counting.
Western Liberal values may also be demonstrably self defeating when you look at the prognosis for the populations of those that were born into those values and might be assumed to hold them most dearly. I’m afraid those living with other values hold with equal certainty that their values are demonstrably better than ours. They just use different parameters, which in their cultures might really be more important for them. For instance a highly religious culture might use the depth of faith in the population as a defining feature, or social cohesion, or any number of things we look pretty bad at. The evangelical zeal with which Tony Blair still justifies the Iraq war along lines not far from the superiority of Western values leaves me shaking with rage and, along with our numerous catastrophic interventions, leaves me deeply unsure of this assumption at the very least in terms of it’s applicability to historically and culturally completely different societies. You might argue who’s right and who’s wrong, but the likelihood is never the twain shall meet and in 100 years time demographics will provide the answer.
“is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight”
There were boxers in my family – nobody punches above their weight.
Whilst I am delighted that you should think that, I must reluctantly disabuse you of that patriotic notion.
We have been completely beholden to the US ever since Lord Balfour’s timely visit to the US in late 1916 to beg for funds to continue the conflict. The antics of WSC in late 1940 further exacerbated the problem.
When ‘push came to shove’ we meekly obeyed the UN/US resolution to abandon Palestine in 1948, and cease operations at Suez in 1956.
In between we answered the call in Korea, 1950-3.
We shall have to disagree over Vietnam, but our recent obsequious behaviour over Iraq was truly disgraceful. As to N Ireland was the GFA the work of the Blair creature or in reality the diktat of one Bill Clinton?
The Falklands War mini war would NOT have been possible without the wholehearted acquiescence of Ronald Reagan.
Finally to our so called independent nuclear deterrent. There is no possibility that it could be used unilaterally!* All the ‘software’ is US made and I doubt that if our submarine commander pressed the dreaded ‘red button’ it would actually work without the necessary ‘go code ‘ from the US.
Frankly I feel as disappointed about all this as you obviously do, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame. After more than three very happy centuries of plunder and profit, “we lost it” in 1914, and have never fully recovered.
Sadly “History takes no prisoners “.**
ps. A a definition of a superpower may I offer ‘a superpower is one that can a fight super war from its own resources ’. (Something we abjectly failed to do in both 1914-18 and again in 1939-45.)
(* David Cameron, of undying fame, claimed differently!)
(** The late Dr John Mann.)
Sweet Lord the racism continues unabated but now under a different guise.
It’s SO unfashionable to think you’re superior because of the colour of your skin.
But now it’s OK to consider all other cultures and value systems to be inherently and irredeemably inferior to those developed by AngloSaxon brains.
‘Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.’
What arrogance!
Let us consider the many many tens of millions across the world killed directly or indirectly in support of promoting ‘Western Liberal Values’: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen to name just some of the more egregious examples.
Not to recognise the outstanding success of China over the past 50 years, were over 650,000,000 people were lifted from dire poverty to comfortable middle class living shows deliberate ignorance or sheer willful blindness. The lifespan of the average Chinese has increased by over 30 years.
The success of China over that period is simply unprecedented in human history. That success is not only marginally superior to any previous wave of progress it is, at least, an order of magnitude better – measured by the number of humans who benefited and the short timescale of the achievement.
As for inalienable freedom and rights under Western Liberal Values it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are a fiction. The response to Covid proved that our freedoms or rights – are contingent on the whims of the deep state.
Think for a moment! Who is going to invade us? Not the Russians or the Chinese! They have always only been concerned with their own borders and surrounding countries..
I believe that aligning ourselves with the USA which has invaded numerous countries far from their borders, both in the last century and since 2000 (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya and South American countries which did not toe their political line, is against our interest and stability..
The word “diplomacy” is not in its vocabulary…
A tad one-sided, over-egged and replete with wishful thinking and a few glaring omissions.. but very well put if we ignore those minor shortcomings! One question:
Please explain what you mean by China’s “belligerence” compared to say, US belligerence and its attendant invasions, bombings, regime coups, assassinations, oil theft, war crimes and murderous sanctions.. the US death toll in the last 30 years of its benign hegemony stands (as of a US study) at 8 million and counting.
Paddy Taylor
10 months ago
We are not a superpower, for sure, but nor are we simply a vassal state.
But in the C21st, what defines a Superpower?
Is it simply the size of a country’s standing army? If that was the case then India is a greater Superpower than the US, so it can’t be just that.
I certainly support additional defence spending in the UK because, as a newly sovereign global-facing Britain, it is right that we should have the capability to defend our interests at home and abroad.
But despite our currently much-reduced military capacity, there is surely more to being a superpower than military might alone.
Britain may no longer have its empire (which in truth is usually only something harped on about by the Remain lobby and the Brit-bashing left – or journalists wishing to tweak the pique of their readers) but, although we often portray ourselves as a damp, diminished little island, it is worth remembering where we stand globally – despite our relatively tiny size, geographically, we have the 6th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest defence budget, we’re a nuclear power. We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and are a founding member and the 2nd most influential power in NATO. We are a key member of the G7 and G20, a member of AUKUS and Five Eyes Intel sharing, and the nexus of all Commonwealth countries.
We’re cultural world leaders in music, film and the arts. Our language is the most widely spoken on the planet and has become the adopted lingua franca of global trade. London – for now – vies only with New York as the financial capital of the globe and, by virtue of our historical, colonial and trading links, we have diplomatic relationships and ‘soft-power’ influence that are the envy (literally the seething, covetous envy) of most other European nations. That is not simply my judgement – the UK has been voted as the country with the greatest soft power influence on the globe, (in 2019, 2020 and 21 so ‘despite Brexit’) – and yet there are still those in our Parliament who’d have us believe that we’d be better off simply allowing all our foreign policy and trade to be conducted through Brussels. Or who feel we’d be better off just curling up at the first sign of trouble, like a hedgehog being nosed by a predator.
I know it pains many on the left to admit such a thing but “Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.
But what we would consider basic liberal values are NOT a default position for most of the world. If you want the world to adopt democracy, or universal suffrage, or equal rights, or any of the other things we are lucky enough to take for granted, then you need to support the idea of Western predominance – the West has lost influence due in large part because the West seems to have lost the confidence to demonstrate to the rest of the world that our values, our laws and our tolerance lead to better outcomes. And sometimes, to project the superiority of western liberal democratic values, and to protect our interests, that involves intervention.
Unpalatable as that may be, it is undeniable.
Whenever the UK or America intervenes in another country or region, they’ll inevitably face the opprobrium of the western liberal media.
Whenever the UK or America chooses not to intervene they’ll face criticism from the same media sources, accusing them of standing idly by while ‘XYZ’ is being perpetrated.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Too many people find it too easy to stand on the sidelines complaining.
Pick a team – and then back it.
Military power, now that we are beyond the era of empire building, is mainly about deterrence. Little about Biden’s panicky withdrawal from Afghanistan would deter anyone. Indeed, it merely invites attack. EU member states have long resisted the need to divvy up and pay their fair share to support NATO. Instead they seem to prefer the self-aggrandising pomp of forming their own EU army. If such a thing comes into being then we already know what Brussels’ common defence policy priorities are – we’ve seen the paperwork and budgets. Spending billions to build a shiny new headquarters, to house yet more wretched bureaucrats, and with all the strategic effectiveness of the Maginot line. Perhaps I’m being cynical but I have the suspicion that an EU army is just another item on the checklist so that Brussels can bolster its imperial pretensions – not as an effective fighting force, so much as a vanity project, a decorative show of pomp – decked out in suitably gaudy, faux-Prussian dress uniforms to parade outside the institution’s buildings with as much grandeur and ceremony as possible – to allow the preening panjandrums of the Berlaymont to feel even more self-important (if such a thing were possible).
We cannot look to the US for leadership whilst Biden is in office nor, thankfully, are we part of an EU pretending to be a superpower. But with a resurgent and belligerent Russia and China it is right that Britain – whilst not a superpower – is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight.
Last edited 10 months ago by Paddy Taylor
Steve Murray
10 months ago
It’s a very long time since “most Brits” had “aspirations to be a global power” and i’ve no idea why supposedly intelligent and politically-savvy writers keep banging on along these lines.
This really does obfuscate the balancing act which the writer seems to have sought in the article and to some extent might have acheived, had it not been predicated on this old “global power” trope for which the term “straw-man argument” might’ve been invented.
I have never heard a Eurosceptic claim that Brexit would make us a “global power”. I think the author is confusing this with the slogan “global Britain” which relates to having a broader set of trading arrangements than possible within the EU.
If the case for Britain being in the EU was so strong, its advocates wouldn’t have to invent these straw-man arguments.
Bojo’s statement on Global Britain included – ‘blessed with a global network of friends <and> …our Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU gives us the freedom to do things differently and better, both economically and politically’. Certainly suggestive we were going to do lots of other deals enhancing our Global position, albeit the bit he couldn’t avoid was how key the TCA is too (and up for renegotiation next year).
His statement also went on about our largest warship ever, Queen Elizabeth patrolling the middle east and indo-pacific projecting our soft power etc So that links back to SM’s point on ‘aspirations’. You don’t have an aircraft carrier built so it can patrol the South China sea without aspirations on one’s world role.
Whether Sunak quite shares all this inheritance isn’t so clear, yet. But he sure ain’t getting a trade deal with US, and if any chance of being an AI governance leader (what he was there begging for) he has to go with broader US policy as he’s no EU leverage to deploy.
“our largest warship ever”
Yes but a “complete waste of rations” compared to what the USN has to offer. Even the QE’s aircraft are ALL American, and have we even paid for them yet? Probably not.
Off course the original reason for building both the QE and her sister ship the PoW was to provide employment yet again in ‘needy’ Scotland and in particular the constituency of one Gordon Brown Esq.
Yep I largely concur CS. Our Chateau Generals in 1914 took a long time to recognise mounted cavalry days had gone. One fears much the same about small Aircraft carriers without considerable frigate screening – which of course we don’t have, may continue to have the same hold over the Admiralty
They could of course ‘mothball’, but the optics would be v poor. Let’s hope neither end up neighbouring a prior PoW or HMS Renown over the next few years.
Yep I largely concur CS. Our Chateau Generals in 1914 took a long time to recognise mounted cavalry days had gone. One fears much the same about small Aircraft carriers without considerable frigate screening – which of course we don’t have, may continue to have the same hold over the Admiralty
They could of course ‘mothball’, but the optics would be v poor. Let’s hope neither end up neighbouring a prior PoW or HMS Renown over the next few years.
“our largest warship ever”
Yes but a “complete waste of rations” compared to what the USN has to offer. Even the QE’s aircraft are ALL American, and have we even paid for them yet? Probably not.
Off course the original reason for building both the QE and her sister ship the PoW was to provide employment yet again in ‘needy’ Scotland and in particular the constituency of one Gordon Brown Esq.
Global GB can only be achieved to serve GB interests if it is backed by GB military power or, as a vassal receiving the global crumbs from the master, using US military power. Since the latter is looking iffy, the former might be iffy also?
Bojo’s statement on Global Britain included – ‘blessed with a global network of friends <and> …our Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU gives us the freedom to do things differently and better, both economically and politically’. Certainly suggestive we were going to do lots of other deals enhancing our Global position, albeit the bit he couldn’t avoid was how key the TCA is too (and up for renegotiation next year).
His statement also went on about our largest warship ever, Queen Elizabeth patrolling the middle east and indo-pacific projecting our soft power etc So that links back to SM’s point on ‘aspirations’. You don’t have an aircraft carrier built so it can patrol the South China sea without aspirations on one’s world role.
Whether Sunak quite shares all this inheritance isn’t so clear, yet. But he sure ain’t getting a trade deal with US, and if any chance of being an AI governance leader (what he was there begging for) he has to go with broader US policy as he’s no EU leverage to deploy.
Global GB can only be achieved to serve GB interests if it is backed by GB military power or, as a vassal receiving the global crumbs from the master, using US military power. Since the latter is looking iffy, the former might be iffy also?
Totally right. The idea that Brexiteers were nostalgic for the global power of the 1950s was pure deranged Remainia. So too the idea that a trade deal with the US was the primary goal – er, you are all reading on your Apple phones or Del computers right…we trade without quite happily!!! Rule by a committee of 27 in a dysfunctional half built Euro Empire is an absurd and flawed model for governance. Most countries rather enjoy sovereignty….it brings greater democratic legitimacy. In time we will see the benefits when the pro EU Blob (weeping for those lost mega pensions) has finally awoken from its Brussels induced torpor and learnt to initiate again. And remember this. The middling power UK has a seat at the UN top table/Security Council. If we had stayed the EU they would have claimed it. Turning back on the world? What utter tosh.
A long time SM? Bojo was banging on about ‘Global Britain’ and our ‘soft’ power reach when Foreign Sec and campaigning for Leave. Brexiteers are still at it.
You’ve just fallen head first into the (clap)trap that Global Britain equates to Global Power. It is, and always was, about trading globally rather than exerting power. In falling thus, you’re simply projecting your own prejudices.
Why do we have an Aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific then? Why did we do AUKUS deal? It is the other side of the World isn’t it? Just about protecting convoy routes for imports of NZ lamb? I think not.
Brexiteers, Bojo at the fore, talked up Global Britain and didn’t just mean marginal trade deals. Same nostalgic intoxication.
Why do we have an Aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific then? Why did we do AUKUS deal? It is the other side of the World isn’t it? Just about protecting convoy routes for imports of NZ lamb? I think not.
Brexiteers, Bojo at the fore, talked up Global Britain and didn’t just mean marginal trade deals. Same nostalgic intoxication.
You’ve just fallen head first into the (clap)trap that Global Britain equates to Global Power. It is, and always was, about trading globally rather than exerting power. In falling thus, you’re simply projecting your own prejudices.
I have never heard a Eurosceptic claim that Brexit would make us a “global power”. I think the author is confusing this with the slogan “global Britain” which relates to having a broader set of trading arrangements than possible within the EU.
If the case for Britain being in the EU was so strong, its advocates wouldn’t have to invent these straw-man arguments.
Totally right. The idea that Brexiteers were nostalgic for the global power of the 1950s was pure deranged Remainia. So too the idea that a trade deal with the US was the primary goal – er, you are all reading on your Apple phones or Del computers right…we trade without quite happily!!! Rule by a committee of 27 in a dysfunctional half built Euro Empire is an absurd and flawed model for governance. Most countries rather enjoy sovereignty….it brings greater democratic legitimacy. In time we will see the benefits when the pro EU Blob (weeping for those lost mega pensions) has finally awoken from its Brussels induced torpor and learnt to initiate again. And remember this. The middling power UK has a seat at the UN top table/Security Council. If we had stayed the EU they would have claimed it. Turning back on the world? What utter tosh.
A long time SM? Bojo was banging on about ‘Global Britain’ and our ‘soft’ power reach when Foreign Sec and campaigning for Leave. Brexiteers are still at it.
Steve Murray
10 months ago
It’s a very long time since “most Brits” had “aspirations to be a global power” and i’ve no idea why supposedly intelligent and politically-savvy writers keep banging on along these lines.
This really does obfuscate the balancing act which the writer seems to have sought in the article and to some extent might have acheived, had it not been predicated on this old “global power” trope for which the term “straw-man argument” might’ve been invented.
Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Murray
Matt M
10 months ago
An Atlantic Japan? A North Sea Israel?
Yes please! This is exactly why I wanted to leave the EU.
I love the idea of it being a ‘North Sea Israel’. Pity about the weather! 🙂
Matt M
10 months ago
An Atlantic Japan? A North Sea Israel?
Yes please! This is exactly why I wanted to leave the EU.
Last edited 10 months ago by Matt M
David Adams
10 months ago
Brilliant article, a clear and realistic antidote to an increasingly toxic and unproductive argument.
Having left the EU, as a nation Britain needs the humility to accept the global situation, both its opportunities and hazards; the acceptance of responsibility for its own destiny; and ideally the social unity and stability not to get distracted.
Well, how easily we forget. Notions of un-bridled sovereignty loomed very large in the Brexit decision, remember? Buccaneering Britain etc. So deep runs the distaste for accommodation that Brexiters are still in quite the lather lest Britain unbound be tainted by the merest tincture of a EU-derived packaging reg. All very different from humility and vassals lol. This article is the start of the Brexit mentality booking an overdue appointment with reality. Whether this new-found humility ever penetrate very far into the likes of Rees Mogg, Farage et al remains to be seen.
Completely missing the point. Being a lackey to a superpower is an unpalatable but sovereign decision. Having your trade and regulatory policy decided for you by a supranational bureaucracy then having to beg and pay to remove yourself from its jurisdiction is not.
Nice going keeping the toxic pointless argument going.
Completely missing the point. Being a lackey to a superpower is an unpalatable but sovereign decision. Having your trade and regulatory policy decided for you by a supranational bureaucracy then having to beg and pay to remove yourself from its jurisdiction is not.
Nice going keeping the toxic pointless argument going.
Well, how easily we forget. Notions of un-bridled sovereignty loomed very large in the Brexit decision, remember? Buccaneering Britain etc. So deep runs the distaste for accommodation that Brexiters are still in quite the lather lest Britain unbound be tainted by the merest tincture of a EU-derived packaging reg. All very different from humility and vassals lol. This article is the start of the Brexit mentality booking an overdue appointment with reality. Whether this new-found humility ever penetrate very far into the likes of Rees Mogg, Farage et al remains to be seen.
David Adams
10 months ago
Brilliant article, a clear and realistic antidote to an increasingly toxic and unproductive argument.
Having left the EU, as a nation Britain needs the humility to accept the global situation, both its opportunities and hazards; the acceptance of responsibility for its own destiny; and ideally the social unity and stability not to get distracted.
Katharine Eyre
10 months ago
“Of course, Brexit Britain is not a “global power”, but nor was pre-Brexit Britain. Apart from the United States and China, no country on earth is a global power anymore — not even the EU”.
This sentence is in the article twice: Once in the 3rd paragraph, once in the 7th. Sloppy editing, UnHerd!
Re: UK’s relationship with the US. As I’ve said many times, Brexit has exposed many uncomfortable, but necessary truths (which the author also alludes to in the final paragraph). One of them being that, if you’re not serving the US’s interests (real or imagined) then they drop you like a hot potato, because they have interests rather than friends. Blair’s brown-nosing was hideous 20 years ago and what did the UK get from it?
Talk of the “special relationship” is completely absurd and should stop. The relationship is only “special” in the sense of unique or unusual. Have any other two countries started out as master and colony only for the roles to get completely reversed?
The new relationship to the US should be based on a sober and pragmatic view of it as an ally rather than a friend. As a country you cooperate with, but keep at arm’s length while you get on with your own life rather than hanging onto its skirt hem, snivelling like a spurned lover.
> Have any other two countries started out as master and colony only for the roles to get completely reversed?
Sorry to be a PITA by answering an obviously rhetorical question not as expected, but I give you … Normandy and England 🙂
(although technically Normandy was only a duchy not a country)
Last edited 10 months ago by John Ramsden
Katharine Eyre
10 months ago
“Of course, Brexit Britain is not a “global power”, but nor was pre-Brexit Britain. Apart from the United States and China, no country on earth is a global power anymore — not even the EU”.
This sentence is in the article twice: Once in the 3rd paragraph, once in the 7th. Sloppy editing, UnHerd!
Re: UK’s relationship with the US. As I’ve said many times, Brexit has exposed many uncomfortable, but necessary truths (which the author also alludes to in the final paragraph). One of them being that, if you’re not serving the US’s interests (real or imagined) then they drop you like a hot potato, because they have interests rather than friends. Blair’s brown-nosing was hideous 20 years ago and what did the UK get from it?
Talk of the “special relationship” is completely absurd and should stop. The relationship is only “special” in the sense of unique or unusual. Have any other two countries started out as master and colony only for the roles to get completely reversed?
The new relationship to the US should be based on a sober and pragmatic view of it as an ally rather than a friend. As a country you cooperate with, but keep at arm’s length while you get on with your own life rather than hanging onto its skirt hem, snivelling like a spurned lover.
Last edited 10 months ago by Katharine Eyre
Matt M
10 months ago
A couple of weeks ago the Aussies signed an agreement with the US on supply chains which gives Australia access to the new subsidy regime the US has implemented. Dressed up as a Green initiative it is really the US building an inner circle of trading partners to remove dependency of China for key products. The inner circle is: Canada, Mexico and now Australia. I expect it to eventually include Japan, South Korea and the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sunak comes back from Washington with news on this front.
Matt M
10 months ago
A couple of weeks ago the Aussies signed an agreement with the US on supply chains which gives Australia access to the new subsidy regime the US has implemented. Dressed up as a Green initiative it is really the US building an inner circle of trading partners to remove dependency of China for key products. The inner circle is: Canada, Mexico and now Australia. I expect it to eventually include Japan, South Korea and the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sunak comes back from Washington with news on this front.
polidori redux
10 months ago
“Britain can thrive as a vassal state”Vassals do not prosper. It is the vassal’s master who prospers: That is the point of the relationship. Still it is amusing to see “Managed Decline” back on the menu in the guise of “Happy Vassal”
Of course Britain is not a major power and hasn’t been been for a very long time. By the very meaning of the term “major” few countries can be. But the aim of British policy should be what was presumably English/British policy for a very long time: To maintain as much freedom as possible from domination by foreign empires. We may not fully succeed, but that should be the aspiration. Neither the US nor the EU have our best interests at heart and never will have. And to describe the US and the UK as ideological allies is to stretch the meaning of words beyond breaking point.
Last edited 10 months ago by polidori redux
polidori redux
10 months ago
“Britain can thrive as a vassal state”Vassals do not prosper. It is the vassal’s master who prospers: That is the point of the relationship. Still it is amusing to see “Managed Decline” back on the menu in the guise of “Happy Vassal”
Of course Britain is not a major power and hasn’t been been for a very long time. By the very meaning of the term “major” few countries can be. But the aim of British policy should be what was presumably English/British policy for a very long time: To maintain as much freedom as possible from domination by foreign empires. We may not fully succeed, but that should be the aspiration. Neither the US nor the EU have our best interests at heart and never will have. And to describe the US and the UK as ideological allies is to stretch the meaning of words beyond breaking point.
Last edited 10 months ago by polidori redux
Jonathan Story
10 months ago
The UK post-Brexit role is ” to turn itself into a successful mid-sized power in the 21st: an Atlantic Japan or North Sea Israel. It must align with the US on core questions of national security, turning questions of global trade into wider questions of Western interests” Yep. Focus on the UK. Maximising its wealth and prosperity. Keep law and order. Scare the bleeding daylights out of any possible enemy, and make it well known that you defend minor interests, vis fishing. Encourage national champions, ditch all the Heathite supranationalism which meant that the UK acted in effect as supranational hero Numero Uno, while selling national interests down the swanee, while France and Germany never did.
If you have a successful foreign policy it has to sell at home first and foremost. That’s where EU membership fell down. It can’t be revived. Finito. Bye-bye./
Jonathan Story
10 months ago
The UK post-Brexit role is ” to turn itself into a successful mid-sized power in the 21st: an Atlantic Japan or North Sea Israel. It must align with the US on core questions of national security, turning questions of global trade into wider questions of Western interests” Yep. Focus on the UK. Maximising its wealth and prosperity. Keep law and order. Scare the bleeding daylights out of any possible enemy, and make it well known that you defend minor interests, vis fishing. Encourage national champions, ditch all the Heathite supranationalism which meant that the UK acted in effect as supranational hero Numero Uno, while selling national interests down the swanee, while France and Germany never did.
If you have a successful foreign policy it has to sell at home first and foremost. That’s where EU membership fell down. It can’t be revived. Finito. Bye-bye./
Marissa M
10 months ago
The whole America/England relationship is amusing to me. In the states I think England is still viewed as a kind of a “Mother Country”, if you will. We pushed away to stand on our own, thank you very much, but still look round for your support and advice, like a spoiled, neurotic teenager lol. Sorry, but we’re your problem child. This is as opposed to Canada (always the goodie two-shoes oldest, eye roll) and Australia (the wild one youngest). I think the majority of Americans, if you were to ask, feel the same. Hence the interest in the English royal family, and the love in the US for the Queen in a grandmotherly way vs. any other country’s royalty. And the books and the films…I think it goes beyond the language, imo. It’s a deep rooted tie and in a strange way, a tie that never feels broken. At least it hasn’t been for centuries.
There’s something to what you say, but a serious foreign policy relationship is a continuation of ties forged since the summer of 1940, when the UK stood alone against Nazi Germany and the US, though officially neutral, decided to help. Once the US got into the war the free UK provided an allied base of operations without which we couldn’t have done a whole lot in Europe. The armies that organized and deployed from the UK and liberated western Europe were American, British and Canadian. At about the same time on the other side of the planet we and the Australians and New Zealanders needed each other to fight the Japanese and forged, if anything, even closer ties (the Australians and New Zealanders even stuck by us in Vietnam, while the British and Canadians did not). To this day the five of us are the Five Eyes when it comes to intelligence sharing. All in all we make a pretty good team.
There’s something to what you say, but a serious foreign policy relationship is a continuation of ties forged since the summer of 1940, when the UK stood alone against Nazi Germany and the US, though officially neutral, decided to help. Once the US got into the war the free UK provided an allied base of operations without which we couldn’t have done a whole lot in Europe. The armies that organized and deployed from the UK and liberated western Europe were American, British and Canadian. At about the same time on the other side of the planet we and the Australians and New Zealanders needed each other to fight the Japanese and forged, if anything, even closer ties (the Australians and New Zealanders even stuck by us in Vietnam, while the British and Canadians did not). To this day the five of us are the Five Eyes when it comes to intelligence sharing. All in all we make a pretty good team.
Marissa M
10 months ago
The whole America/England relationship is amusing to me. In the states I think England is still viewed as a kind of a “Mother Country”, if you will. We pushed away to stand on our own, thank you very much, but still look round for your support and advice, like a spoiled, neurotic teenager lol. Sorry, but we’re your problem child. This is as opposed to Canada (always the goodie two-shoes oldest, eye roll) and Australia (the wild one youngest). I think the majority of Americans, if you were to ask, feel the same. Hence the interest in the English royal family, and the love in the US for the Queen in a grandmotherly way vs. any other country’s royalty. And the books and the films…I think it goes beyond the language, imo. It’s a deep rooted tie and in a strange way, a tie that never feels broken. At least it hasn’t been for centuries.
Ben P
10 months ago
A referendum on the popularity of the EU by voters within the EU would also embarrass Rejoiners. They loathe the EU as much as any Brexiteer, just as Eastern Europeans did over Soviet occupation.
Ben P
10 months ago
A referendum on the popularity of the EU by voters within the EU would also embarrass Rejoiners. They loathe the EU as much as any Brexiteer, just as Eastern Europeans did over Soviet occupation.
Adrian Smith
10 months ago
Leave was always a coalition of anything is better than being in the EU believers and, given how rotten the EU as an institution had already become, it should not have been such a surprise to ordinary people that so many voted for it. There never was a clear vision of what either global or little Britain free of the EU actually meant. Those, like me, who voted Leave, trusted our politicians to respect the democratic decision and then work out something that did indeed make our lives better. Therein lies the big mistake, we were betrayed by our politicians, some of whom even now want Britain to fail so they can have the pleasure of saying we told you so.
Looking at what is happening in the EU, I really don’t see that we would have been any better off than we are now staying in. Some of that is down to circumstances we possibly could not have predicted. But with the German economy on the slide I see the EU becoming ever more fractious and the further from it we are (other side of the Atlantic or even in the Pacific) the better.
Brexit is for centuries, not just for a decade. Our Parliament is now, unambiguously, answerable only to the British electorate. So it’s up to us to improve the quality of our representatives.
Unless, of course, Sir Kier Starmer follows through on his ghastly idea of giving the vote to EU citizens who just happen to live here …
Brexit is for centuries, not just for a decade. Our Parliament is now, unambiguously, answerable only to the British electorate. So it’s up to us to improve the quality of our representatives.
Unless, of course, Sir Kier Starmer follows through on his ghastly idea of giving the vote to EU citizens who just happen to live here …
Adrian Smith
10 months ago
Leave was always a coalition of anything is better than being in the EU believers and, given how rotten the EU as an institution had already become, it should not have been such a surprise to ordinary people that so many voted for it. There never was a clear vision of what either global or little Britain free of the EU actually meant. Those, like me, who voted Leave, trusted our politicians to respect the democratic decision and then work out something that did indeed make our lives better. Therein lies the big mistake, we were betrayed by our politicians, some of whom even now want Britain to fail so they can have the pleasure of saying we told you so.
Looking at what is happening in the EU, I really don’t see that we would have been any better off than we are now staying in. Some of that is down to circumstances we possibly could not have predicted. But with the German economy on the slide I see the EU becoming ever more fractious and the further from it we are (other side of the Atlantic or even in the Pacific) the better.
John Croteau
10 months ago
It seems to me that the greatest qualification for being a trade partner is being an idealogical ally. From the American perspective, it is easier to envision win-win trade partnerships with the UK whereas those with the EU led by Germany or France feel like a stretch. In many ways, Americans respect and respond to British leadership as a peer no differently than East Coast, West Coast, Texans, mid-Westerners, etc., far more humble and realistic than EU Parliamentarian elites. The UK is far better off partnered with an idealogical ally in the US.
John Croteau
10 months ago
It seems to me that the greatest qualification for being a trade partner is being an idealogical ally. From the American perspective, it is easier to envision win-win trade partnerships with the UK whereas those with the EU led by Germany or France feel like a stretch. In many ways, Americans respect and respond to British leadership as a peer no differently than East Coast, West Coast, Texans, mid-Westerners, etc., far more humble and realistic than EU Parliamentarian elites. The UK is far better off partnered with an idealogical ally in the US.
Jim McDonnell
10 months ago
Seems like the Brits are ahead of US in some important ways. They’re out in front of us in helping the Ukrainians and they keep forcing our hand, shaming us into doing more faster. And while we stupidly pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and just as stupidly refuse to rejoin, the UK is joining it, proving that the UK is more serious about counterbalancing Chinese economic power in the Pacific than us Yanks are. Some vassal.
No, Zelenskyy did this in order to embezzle more money from the west. For you to accuse a native born Englishman of being a Russian is rather childish of you.
No, Zelenskyy did this in order to embezzle more money from the west. For you to accuse a native born Englishman of being a Russian is rather childish of you.
Why are we attempting to counterbalance Chinese power in the Pacific if we are not behaving as merely a vassal state of the US?
Old British imperial joke: The Chinese are threatening us Brits? Get a bigger map mate.
Why are we attempting to counterbalance Chinese power in the Pacific if we are not behaving as merely a vassal state of the US?
Old British imperial joke: The Chinese are threatening us Brits? Get a bigger map mate.
Last edited 10 months ago by polidori redux
Jim McDonnell
10 months ago
Seems like the Brits are ahead of US in some important ways. They’re out in front of us in helping the Ukrainians and they keep forcing our hand, shaming us into doing more faster. And while we stupidly pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and just as stupidly refuse to rejoin, the UK is joining it, proving that the UK is more serious about counterbalancing Chinese economic power in the Pacific than us Yanks are. Some vassal.
Mark Goodhand
10 months ago
We can be militarily aligned with the US without enthusiastically participating in all their ill-conceived foreign adventures.
And we shouldn’t forget that most of our economy is domestic. There’s lots we can do to boost productivity without sacrificing sovereignty in new trade agreements.
Let’s trade and cooperate with like-minded countries in our league (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan), rather than suck up further to the Americans.
It’s not worth paying attention to anyone who thinks “most favoured vassal” is the best we can aspire to.
Your last 3 paragraphs I agree with but paragraph 1, not so much.. I think, more than in any other sphere, you’ll have to kowtow militarily when Big Brother says so!
Your last 3 paragraphs I agree with but paragraph 1, not so much.. I think, more than in any other sphere, you’ll have to kowtow militarily when Big Brother says so!
Mark Goodhand
10 months ago
We can be militarily aligned with the US without enthusiastically participating in all their ill-conceived foreign adventures.
And we shouldn’t forget that most of our economy is domestic. There’s lots we can do to boost productivity without sacrificing sovereignty in new trade agreements.
Let’s trade and cooperate with like-minded countries in our league (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan), rather than suck up further to the Americans.
It’s not worth paying attention to anyone who thinks “most favoured vassal” is the best we can aspire to.
René Descartes
10 months ago
Vassal State? I don’t think so. What Brexit has shown is that we are among the most free-thinking people on the planet. We just won’t do as we are told. By anyone. I think our current political status is a better fit for our national character than running some kind of empire or being run by one. It won’t make us rich but ultimately it might just make us happy.
All well and good provided you have enough to eat and are able to keep warm.
René Descartes
10 months ago
Vassal State? I don’t think so. What Brexit has shown is that we are among the most free-thinking people on the planet. We just won’t do as we are told. By anyone. I think our current political status is a better fit for our national character than running some kind of empire or being run by one. It won’t make us rich but ultimately it might just make us happy.
Kate Heusser
10 months ago
‘If the disastrous handling of Brexit has achieved anything, it is to rob most Brits of any lingering aspirations to global power.’
Which ‘Brits’ with half a brain or the barest smattering of education imagined Britain HAD any ‘global power’ during our lifetimes? And why would Britain want the responsibility and expense?
‘If the disastrous handling of Brexit has achieved anything, it is to rob most Brits of any lingering aspirations to global power.’
Which ‘Brits’ with half a brain or the barest smattering of education imagined Britain HAD any ‘global power’ during our lifetimes? And why would Britain want the responsibility and expense?
David Kingsworthy
10 months ago
The obvious problem in attempting to align with American plans is the terrifically inconsistent policy approaches depending upon which political party occupies the WH. The dramatic swings from left to right and back again have given Britain and others whiplash, eventually destabilizing alliances. I think Britain can only really benefit from the piecemeal steps.
Very much so. Here in UK we constantly place ourselves at the mercy of shifting US political opinion.
And can we please stop using the term “Special Relationship” There is no special relationship. British politicians adopted the term to disguise their own weakness. If you don’t believe me, find a US politician who uses the phrase in a non-derogatory manner, if they use it at all.
You should read the book The Real Special Relationship by Michael Smith. It makes the point that the intelligence sharing relationship that began in Bletchley Park in 1941 has continued unbroken to the present day despite disagreements between individual Prime Ministers and Presidents, despite Suez, despite the Cambridge spy ring. The special relationship is between the intelligence and military bureaucracies of the two countries. To put it bluntly, the USA trusts Britain in a way that it trusts no other country.
You should read the book The Real Special Relationship by Michael Smith. It makes the point that the intelligence sharing relationship that began in Bletchley Park in 1941 has continued unbroken to the present day despite disagreements between individual Prime Ministers and Presidents, despite Suez, despite the Cambridge spy ring. The special relationship is between the intelligence and military bureaucracies of the two countries. To put it bluntly, the USA trusts Britain in a way that it trusts no other country.
Very much so. Here in UK we constantly place ourselves at the mercy of shifting US political opinion.
And can we please stop using the term “Special Relationship” There is no special relationship. British politicians adopted the term to disguise their own weakness. If you don’t believe me, find a US politician who uses the phrase in a non-derogatory manner, if they use it at all.
Last edited 10 months ago by polidori redux
David Kingsworthy
10 months ago
The obvious problem in attempting to align with American plans is the terrifically inconsistent policy approaches depending upon which political party occupies the WH. The dramatic swings from left to right and back again have given Britain and others whiplash, eventually destabilizing alliances. I think Britain can only really benefit from the piecemeal steps.
Perry de Havilland
10 months ago
“Brexit are beginning to morph into the very thing they have long accused their opponents of being: creatures trapped in nostalgic visions of a world that never existed.”
Clearly you have read things written by Brexiteers but I’m thinking you’ve never actually met any inside your bubble if you think “nostalga” is what drove Brexit.
“First came Aukus, the alliance between Britain, Australia and the United States that did so much to annoy the French.”
What an absurd article this is.
Perry de Havilland
10 months ago
“Brexit are beginning to morph into the very thing they have long accused their opponents of being: creatures trapped in nostalgic visions of a world that never existed.”
Clearly you have read things written by Brexiteers but I’m thinking you’ve never actually met any inside your bubble if you think “nostalga” is what drove Brexit.
“First came Aukus, the alliance between Britain, Australia and the United States that did so much to annoy the French.”
What an absurd article this is.
Rachel Taylor
10 months ago
A good foundation would be economic strength. Germany has been able to do pretty much what it wants, for better or worse, because it is the one of the largest exporters, with one of the largest trade surpluses, in the world.
Rachel Taylor
10 months ago
A good foundation would be economic strength. Germany has been able to do pretty much what it wants, for better or worse, because it is the one of the largest exporters, with one of the largest trade surpluses, in the world.
David Harris
10 months ago
Remainers see Brexit as a huge mistake by the UK. But of course the huge mistake was that of the EU (especially the Germans and French) in forcing Cameron and Osborne to beg concessions from Brussels and then denying them those concessions. Thus the EU lost a sixth of its population/GDP and created a major competitor on its doorstep. But that, as they say, is history.
David Harris
10 months ago
Remainers see Brexit as a huge mistake by the UK. But of course the huge mistake was that of the EU (especially the Germans and French) in forcing Cameron and Osborne to beg concessions from Brussels and then denying them those concessions. Thus the EU lost a sixth of its population/GDP and created a major competitor on its doorstep. But that, as they say, is history.
Andy Iddon
10 months ago
Trade deals are overrated. Better to focus on productivity and organic growth. There are no free lunches. Deals should be flexible, to accommodate change without becoming self-harming prisons, whilst denoting preferred partners and being mutually rewarding – no binding nonsense.
Andy Iddon
10 months ago
Trade deals are overrated. Better to focus on productivity and organic growth. There are no free lunches. Deals should be flexible, to accommodate change without becoming self-harming prisons, whilst denoting preferred partners and being mutually rewarding – no binding nonsense.
Simon S
10 months ago
From the Spectator today, on the Biden/Sunak “deal”: “British defence manufacturers will soon be counted as ‘domestic manufacturers’ for US procurement, and since the American arms budget is notorious for its profligacy (‘a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money’ as the saying goes) there will be even more money on the table. Of course, American taxpayers will have to pay for all that generosity to big corporations. But British ones won’t. True, it won’t transform the British economy, but it will help.” Why are we being so unquestioning, so pathetic?
Nothing to do with the eastern European countries actually wanting to join NATO then ? And who in their right mind wouldn’t given Russia’s current and historic behaviour ?
Or would you deny these countries any agency in their own futures ? Should they simply be buffer states or in the Russian sphere of influence because the Russian mindset is still stuck pre-19th century in such matters ?
Britain was pushing for expansion of the EU – with the idea that enlarging the EU would make it hard to impossible to integrate too closely into a superstate.
Yes, both New Labour and the Conservatives were pushing it for different reasons. Many of the problems within the EU came about through this expansion (in my opinion), aided by the Global Financial Crash. It was probably a factor in Britain leaving the EU.
If you make decisions based on ideology rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones.
Might I amend that: “If you make decisions based on ideology or politics rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones” ?
Britain’s push for eastward EU expansion wasn’t based on ideology or strategy, but tactics and politics – there was little underlying belief in whether this was a good thing in itself and far more calculation about whether this might yield some short term advantage. That’s simply an observation – not a statement that eastward EU expansion was good or bad (my view being that it was good in principle, but poorly timed and implemented in some places – but not disastrously so).
Might I amend that: “If you make decisions based on ideology or politics rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones” ?
Britain’s push for eastward EU expansion wasn’t based on ideology or strategy, but tactics and politics – there was little underlying belief in whether this was a good thing in itself and far more calculation about whether this might yield some short term advantage. That’s simply an observation – not a statement that eastward EU expansion was good or bad (my view being that it was good in principle, but poorly timed and implemented in some places – but not disastrously so).
Yes, both New Labour and the Conservatives were pushing it for different reasons. Many of the problems within the EU came about through this expansion (in my opinion), aided by the Global Financial Crash. It was probably a factor in Britain leaving the EU.
If you make decisions based on ideology rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones.
No worries, I appreciate your comments and I do agree with them. I was clumsy with my language but I still feel that the expansion should have been organic, admitting that many countries and a new currency so quickly would have ramifications further along the line.
No worries, I appreciate your comments and I do agree with them. I was clumsy with my language but I still feel that the expansion should have been organic, admitting that many countries and a new currency so quickly would have ramifications further along the line.
Britain was pushing for expansion of the EU – with the idea that enlarging the EU would make it hard to impossible to integrate too closely into a superstate.
Nothing to do with the eastern European countries actually wanting to join NATO then ? And who in their right mind wouldn’t given Russia’s current and historic behaviour ?
Or would you deny these countries any agency in their own futures ? Should they simply be buffer states or in the Russian sphere of influence because the Russian mindset is still stuck pre-19th century in such matters ?
Andrew Raiment
10 months ago
If the US hadn’t been pushing for eastern expansion of the EU (NATO had that covered) then maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
John Murray
10 months ago
I think it’s largely accepted, at least in the real world, that younger voters are turning away from the Tories, the party of Brexit, in droves, and that an increasing number of people see Brexit as a mistake.
This is largely because the economic benefits of leaving the EU proved illusory, and the kind of issues younger voters care about, whether affordable housing, education or childcare, good public services etc have not been competently handled over the last 13 years.
So the key question is surely not whether this pivot from Europe to the US makes strategic sense, or is the only post Brexit option, but whether it delivers the economic benefits which younger voters desire.
We should also remember that the US will always act in their own self interest, and that for the foreseeable future Europe will remain our most important trading partner, if only by reason of proximity. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be either-or.
Young people are always leftish in their youth and become more conservative as they grow older. Every election cycle people start saying that the Tories are doomed because of the youth vote. And then they win the next election.
We have only been out of the EU for 2 years, all of which time has been spent in the aftermath of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. I think it is a bit early to be looking for economic upsides from Brexit. We only concluded our first post-Brexit trade deals last week! Give it time.
The best thing we could do for younger people is help them to buy a house of their own. The best thing we could do to aid that is to reduce demand for housing by limiting net immigration. That is only possible because we are out of the EU.
I know the old Churchill saying, and maybe that was once true, but I doubt it is any more. The conservative option in this country is the Tory Party, or fringe parties to the right of them, and they really have nothing to offer younger voters, voters with children especially. This is not going to change before the next election, when the chaos of the reigns of Bad King Boris and Mad Queen Liz will still be fresh in everyone’s minds.
I was reading an account of Kemi Badenoch at the select committee defending her decision to dramatically scale back on the removal of the retained EU laws. While an eminently sensible decision I was not surprised to see her popularity had fallen among Tory members, who will ultimately pick the next leader. I may be wrong but I see a National Conservative ideologue being picked and a lurch to the right, making them unelectable for a time. Will voters then, who had never voted Tory return?
As for the concept of ‘give it time’, the sunlit uplands are just around the corner I think minds are already being made up. The ‘Hard Brexit’ driven by an opportunistic Johnson and the Brexit Elite was always going to be economically damaging in the short term, with no certainty it wouldn’t also be any better long term. It was always a minority project, and more popular with older voters, so once the perception of failure takes hold it’s a leap of faith to think younger people will change their minds down the line.
With immigration, I remember Farage talking about an Australian points style system, dependent on economic needs, which we have now and Daniel Hannan pointing out just days after the result was in that ‘taking back control’ didn’t mean there would automatically be less immigration. There is a trade off between immigration and economic need that was never spelt out, hence why some leaver voters feel betrayed.
But, who really knows, we’ll just have to see how it all plays out.
I can understand your frustration, and in many ways the Tory Party has been an utter disgrace in recent years.
It seems like only yesterday that it was mired in the ‘cash-for- questions’ debacle by such odious slime balls as the late Sir Michael Grylls & others, but is in fact 30 years!
However is the Labour really likely to do any better, tarnished as it is by a similar history?
No wonder most the ‘young’ I speak to have completely giving up on politics, the Monarchy, the Church of England and pretty much everything else.
Can one really blame them?
I can understand your frustration, and in many ways the Tory Party has been an utter disgrace in recent years.
It seems like only yesterday that it was mired in the ‘cash-for- questions’ debacle by such odious slime balls as the late Sir Michael Grylls & others, but is in fact 30 years!
However is the Labour really likely to do any better, tarnished as it is by a similar history?
No wonder most the ‘young’ I speak to have completely giving up on politics, the Monarchy, the Church of England and pretty much everything else.
Can one really blame them?
I know the old Churchill saying, and maybe that was once true, but I doubt it is any more. The conservative option in this country is the Tory Party, or fringe parties to the right of them, and they really have nothing to offer younger voters, voters with children especially. This is not going to change before the next election, when the chaos of the reigns of Bad King Boris and Mad Queen Liz will still be fresh in everyone’s minds.
I was reading an account of Kemi Badenoch at the select committee defending her decision to dramatically scale back on the removal of the retained EU laws. While an eminently sensible decision I was not surprised to see her popularity had fallen among Tory members, who will ultimately pick the next leader. I may be wrong but I see a National Conservative ideologue being picked and a lurch to the right, making them unelectable for a time. Will voters then, who had never voted Tory return?
As for the concept of ‘give it time’, the sunlit uplands are just around the corner I think minds are already being made up. The ‘Hard Brexit’ driven by an opportunistic Johnson and the Brexit Elite was always going to be economically damaging in the short term, with no certainty it wouldn’t also be any better long term. It was always a minority project, and more popular with older voters, so once the perception of failure takes hold it’s a leap of faith to think younger people will change their minds down the line.
With immigration, I remember Farage talking about an Australian points style system, dependent on economic needs, which we have now and Daniel Hannan pointing out just days after the result was in that ‘taking back control’ didn’t mean there would automatically be less immigration. There is a trade off between immigration and economic need that was never spelt out, hence why some leaver voters feel betrayed.
But, who really knows, we’ll just have to see how it all plays out.
Young people are always leftish in their youth and become more conservative as they grow older. Every election cycle people start saying that the Tories are doomed because of the youth vote. And then they win the next election.
We have only been out of the EU for 2 years, all of which time has been spent in the aftermath of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. I think it is a bit early to be looking for economic upsides from Brexit. We only concluded our first post-Brexit trade deals last week! Give it time.
The best thing we could do for younger people is help them to buy a house of their own. The best thing we could do to aid that is to reduce demand for housing by limiting net immigration. That is only possible because we are out of the EU.
Yeh, yeh, yeh. We’ve hear it all before and it’s bollox.
John Murray
10 months ago
I think it’s largely accepted, at least in the real world, that younger voters are turning away from the Tories, the party of Brexit, in droves, and that an increasing number of people see Brexit as a mistake.
This is largely because the economic benefits of leaving the EU proved illusory, and the kind of issues younger voters care about, whether affordable housing, education or childcare, good public services etc have not been competently handled over the last 13 years.
So the key question is surely not whether this pivot from Europe to the US makes strategic sense, or is the only post Brexit option, but whether it delivers the economic benefits which younger voters desire.
We should also remember that the US will always act in their own self interest, and that for the foreseeable future Europe will remain our most important trading partner, if only by reason of proximity. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be either-or.
Chris Amies
10 months ago
OK, so can UK citizens now have unlimited rights to live and work in the USA?
One of the funny things about EU Freedom of Movement is that Brits never used it. With the exception of southern Spain (which took the place of South Africa in the 1990s), the list of top emigration destinations for Brits is the same in 2023 as it was in 1973:
1.Australia
2.Canada
3.USA
4.New Zealand
5. Spain
The recent Australian and NZ FTAs have started liberalising travel rules for British citizens. I think we might well end up with pretty freeish movement rules with the above countries.
The US might want to see us doing a better job of controlling our own borders before signing up to anything like that.
Not, of course, that they have their own borders under control.
Note: I found an interesting report on France having problems with small boat immigration from the Comoros Islands to Mayotte (part of metropolitan France in the Indian Ocean). And guess what – the French in Mayotte have sent the boats back ! Funnily enough you don’t read about it in the UK media.
You’ll be thrilled to learn that the local human rights activists are all over the French actions in Mayotte.
But it is time someone here asked the French why if they can take that sort of action on the receiving end in Mayotte, they can’t do something similar on the sending end over at Calais. Sadly, there are too many people – in both France and Britain – who don’t want the problem to be solved.
I have some sympathy for the French. They don’t want these wretches either, and if they can cross France from the Italian border why not be shot of them?
Particularly as Les Anglais are too feeble to stop them.
I have some sympathy for the French. They don’t want these wretches either, and if they can cross France from the Italian border why not be shot of them?
Particularly as Les Anglais are too feeble to stop them.
You’ll be thrilled to learn that the local human rights activists are all over the French actions in Mayotte.
But it is time someone here asked the French why if they can take that sort of action on the receiving end in Mayotte, they can’t do something similar on the sending end over at Calais. Sadly, there are too many people – in both France and Britain – who don’t want the problem to be solved.
The US might want to see us doing a better job of controlling our own borders before signing up to anything like that.
Not, of course, that they have their own borders under control.
Note: I found an interesting report on France having problems with small boat immigration from the Comoros Islands to Mayotte (part of metropolitan France in the Indian Ocean). And guess what – the French in Mayotte have sent the boats back ! Funnily enough you don’t read about it in the UK media.
Irrelevant.
US citizens have no automatic right to live and work in the UK and nor do we in the US. If you can demonstrate your value to the US, you’ll be able to get the appropriate visa. What’s the problem with that ? It’s an arrangement which has worked for many decades.
One of the funny things about EU Freedom of Movement is that Brits never used it. With the exception of southern Spain (which took the place of South Africa in the 1990s), the list of top emigration destinations for Brits is the same in 2023 as it was in 1973:
1.Australia
2.Canada
3.USA
4.New Zealand
5. Spain
The recent Australian and NZ FTAs have started liberalising travel rules for British citizens. I think we might well end up with pretty freeish movement rules with the above countries.
Irrelevant.
US citizens have no automatic right to live and work in the UK and nor do we in the US. If you can demonstrate your value to the US, you’ll be able to get the appropriate visa. What’s the problem with that ? It’s an arrangement which has worked for many decades.
Chris Amies
10 months ago
OK, so can UK citizens now have unlimited rights to live and work in the USA?
Adrian Doble
10 months ago
The Brexit war is over. All that remains is bitterness. Brexiteers love that
Nope! I voted for Brexit and I don’t love bitternes (or experience it, come to that). A lot of Remainers, on the other hand, are still seething with resentment that the masses didn’t do what the experts told them to.
_________________________________________
Wow! I managed to get a comment past reCaptcha! Every other article on this site has been blocking me for the past 3-4 hours. UnHerd ‘Help’ is no help at all!
That is a silly comment Adrian, I’m an enthusiastic Brexiteer and feel no animosity towards Remainers (which include most of my friends and family). I think it is good that he heat has finally gone out of the debate and people can start to assess the best next steps for the country.
Nope! I voted for Brexit and I don’t love bitternes (or experience it, come to that). A lot of Remainers, on the other hand, are still seething with resentment that the masses didn’t do what the experts told them to.
_________________________________________
Wow! I managed to get a comment past reCaptcha! Every other article on this site has been blocking me for the past 3-4 hours. UnHerd ‘Help’ is no help at all!
That is a silly comment Adrian, I’m an enthusiastic Brexiteer and feel no animosity towards Remainers (which include most of my friends and family). I think it is good that he heat has finally gone out of the debate and people can start to assess the best next steps for the country.
Adrian Doble
10 months ago
The Brexit war is over. All that remains is bitterness. Brexiteers love that
j watson
10 months ago
The clear undercurrent to the Article is the EU with the UK was stronger, and, importantly, vice versa. The Author confirms that’s the view of the US too and that counts. They still listen to us but we don’t carry quite the influence we had. Alas that is now gone for a generation at least.
The Japan or Israel models may have something about them, albeit as noted both rely heavily on the US.
The UK was never a vassal state in the EU. It was one of the leaders and in fact probably that role would have further strengthened with Ukraine and some of the emerging right of centre European Govts. The obvious outcome is we are much more a vassal of the US when alone and that is the core of this Article.
There is no doubt the US is driving a ‘which side are you on?’ vault-line internationally regarding China. Europe would prefer to avoid this and will look for some ambiguity but if pressed will fall in line with US. AUKUS aside the rest of the world will look to avoid the choice and that will frustrate the US. The UK will be in no position but to hug close to the US and thus inevitably risk the economic consequences of de-coupling/de-risking of China trade. The US can handle that risk, but we can’t so easily and even more so given Brexit. So this tension is set to cause serious foreign policy consternation for some time in the UK. There can be no doubt we’d have been better placed to navigate these coming storms leading Europe which was ours for the taking.
Nonsense JW.
Sitting on the fence and hoping for the best with China is not an answer. That’s ultimately just appeasement and avoiding facing up to tough decisions. But that’s the European way. Not culturally our way though. As our gut response to Covid and Ukraine tells us.
You do realise that in arguing for Britain to be in the EU, you are at the same time arguing for Britain to the the US puppet at the EU. That – as the article states – is the reason some in the US wanted us to be in the EU. Despite the EU being an organisation the US themselves wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.
By accepting this premise of the article, you are endorsing the UK’s role as a vassal of the US in the EU.
In reality we have never been and will not be a vassal state. Where is the evidence that we do not and cannot make our own decisions ? Are countries like Switzerland considered to be “vassal states” ?
There are no “leaders” in the EU. It’s a slow moving, clumsy, inefficient and partly corrupt bureaucracy which is incapable of reform or adaptation (or completing basic accounts).
Suggest one vassal state in the EU is Republic of Ireland. A vassal state of the US now in the hands of the US transnationals but this due to end with EU interference on the way transnationals payor don’t pay corporation taxes. EU is by nature controlling and look at the way Geermany became dependent on Russia for energy while not developing nuclear power. Merkel’s doing.
Not convinced. Though I’d like to be.
Ireland has done spectacularly well out of its tax arbitrage operations (that’s what it is after all) – it’s effectively the EU’s biggest tax haven, surpassing Luxemburg. Perhaps the Dutch are also on the scoreboard here.
I’ve never understood why the EU puts up with this. But there must be some reason as it’s been tolerated for so long – and allowed to grow – and I’m not convinced it’ll be wound up any time soon (though I think it should be).
Note also how Ireland and Luxemburg spend <1% of GDP on defence. Lowest spenders out there. Not only are they facilitating tax dodging and unfairly competing with other countries for foreign investment, they’re also freeloading on defence.
Not convinced. Though I’d like to be.
Ireland has done spectacularly well out of its tax arbitrage operations (that’s what it is after all) – it’s effectively the EU’s biggest tax haven, surpassing Luxemburg. Perhaps the Dutch are also on the scoreboard here.
I’ve never understood why the EU puts up with this. But there must be some reason as it’s been tolerated for so long – and allowed to grow – and I’m not convinced it’ll be wound up any time soon (though I think it should be).
Note also how Ireland and Luxemburg spend <1% of GDP on defence. Lowest spenders out there. Not only are they facilitating tax dodging and unfairly competing with other countries for foreign investment, they’re also freeloading on defence.
Suggest one vassal state in the EU is Republic of Ireland. A vassal state of the US now in the hands of the US transnationals but this due to end with EU interference on the way transnationals payor don’t pay corporation taxes. EU is by nature controlling and look at the way Geermany became dependent on Russia for energy while not developing nuclear power. Merkel’s doing.
Nonsense JW.
Sitting on the fence and hoping for the best with China is not an answer. That’s ultimately just appeasement and avoiding facing up to tough decisions. But that’s the European way. Not culturally our way though. As our gut response to Covid and Ukraine tells us.
You do realise that in arguing for Britain to be in the EU, you are at the same time arguing for Britain to the the US puppet at the EU. That – as the article states – is the reason some in the US wanted us to be in the EU. Despite the EU being an organisation the US themselves wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.
By accepting this premise of the article, you are endorsing the UK’s role as a vassal of the US in the EU.
In reality we have never been and will not be a vassal state. Where is the evidence that we do not and cannot make our own decisions ? Are countries like Switzerland considered to be “vassal states” ?
There are no “leaders” in the EU. It’s a slow moving, clumsy, inefficient and partly corrupt bureaucracy which is incapable of reform or adaptation (or completing basic accounts).
j watson
10 months ago
The clear undercurrent to the Article is the EU with the UK was stronger, and, importantly, vice versa. The Author confirms that’s the view of the US too and that counts. They still listen to us but we don’t carry quite the influence we had. Alas that is now gone for a generation at least.
The Japan or Israel models may have something about them, albeit as noted both rely heavily on the US.
The UK was never a vassal state in the EU. It was one of the leaders and in fact probably that role would have further strengthened with Ukraine and some of the emerging right of centre European Govts. The obvious outcome is we are much more a vassal of the US when alone and that is the core of this Article.
There is no doubt the US is driving a ‘which side are you on?’ vault-line internationally regarding China. Europe would prefer to avoid this and will look for some ambiguity but if pressed will fall in line with US. AUKUS aside the rest of the world will look to avoid the choice and that will frustrate the US. The UK will be in no position but to hug close to the US and thus inevitably risk the economic consequences of de-coupling/de-risking of China trade. The US can handle that risk, but we can’t so easily and even more so given Brexit. So this tension is set to cause serious foreign policy consternation for some time in the UK. There can be no doubt we’d have been better placed to navigate these coming storms leading Europe which was ours for the taking.
This is exactly how I saw Brexit. It was never a question of splendid isolation or unlimited sovereignty but a choice between which of two imperial structures we sat under, the continental Franco-German EU or the global maritime US. (I tend to view the EU as an empire with in an empire, which the larger American empire tolerates)
It always seemed to me that Britain, a maritime nation with geography well suited to international trade had made a huge mistake when out of despondence and declinism, we threw away our natural advantages and tied ourselves to a protectionist continental economic model which brought limited benefits and reduced our access to a global trading system built around the Anglophone world we founded.
It is often forgotten what a bizarre construction the EU really is. A modern political construct that supposedly pools sovereignty, run by a class of bureaucratic overseers whose loyalty is explicitly stated to be to the institution, not their home country, which resembles something more like the medieval papacy than its democratic cousins around the world.
It’s true America has not welcomed us with open arms into this arrangement. As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests, to draw the UK closer into its coalition of democratic, maritime, trading nations such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.
America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.
“As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests…”
Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground. This excellent article, which was part of an UnHerd link collection talks about exactly that: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/we-are-no-longer-a-serious-people
Simone de Beauvoir also complains about this tendency in her diary of her trip to the States in 1947 (“America Day By Day”).
“Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground”
Well said and to over-egg it a bit, my neighbour’s neuroses can easily become my discomfort.
“Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground”
Well said and to over-egg it a bit, my neighbour’s neuroses can easily become my discomfort.
The US will likely ask for Britain to follow its product standards (hormone-fed beef, anyone?), and allow full access for its big corporations (US drug prices? NHS privatisation?), privacy regulation (full access for all data to any US corporation?) … It is not obvious that the UK will have more say over its own destiny as an American vassal than as a leading member of the EU collective, so what price ‘Take back control!’? Are you really sure the UK will feel more comfortable aligning with Alabama than with Bretagne?
Of course we are more comfortable with Americans than the French. That much is obvious to everyone in Britain. We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.
As for alignment on those things, why not if they gave us greater access to the American markets? The Aussies, the Canadians and the Japanese all have FTAs with the US and seem to have thriving agricultural and healthcare sectors.
Totally agree. Although the US is a mix of European peoples – there are plenty of originally German, French, Scandinavian, Irish, Polish and other peoples who would numerically outnumber British settlers. But that said, it’s clearly an Anglo-Saxon culture like ours with a shared heritage in things like common law and business practices.
All this noise about food standards. Yet no one who holidays in Florida or California and eats this “dreadful food” seems to complain while they are there or suffer any adverse consequences. It’s rather like people complaining about global warming and choosing to holiday in hot countries.
Immigrants from those countries did arrive in huge waves but generally after the British had been there for 200 years. The most common ancestry in the US is English-American but nowadays is the least talked about. I suppose it lacks the glamour of pretending to be Rob Roy or Wolfe Tone.
Biden’s latest pursuit is ‘white supremacy’ – he’s having none of the Anglo-Saxon relationship.
Biden’s latest pursuit is ‘white supremacy’ – he’s having none of the Anglo-Saxon relationship.
Did you not hear the latest bulletin from Cambridge, there was never any such thing as Anglo-Saxons?
Thanks for the update. I live fairly close to Cambridge, but this news had not yet penetrated out to the sticks 15 miles away. In fact I was in the city yesterday and no one mentioned this very exciting news to me …
I think it was the ‘Cambridge’ on the other side of the Pond.
San to say the lunacy ight hve originated in the US but it has taken root in the UK
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/#:~:text=SIM%2Donly%20deals-,Anglo%2DSaxons%20aren't%20real%2C%20Cambridge%20tells%20students,in%20effort%20to%20fight%20'nationalism'&text=Cambridge%20is%20teaching%20students%20that,undermine%20%E2%80%9Cmyths%20of%20nationalism%E2%80%9D.
San to say the lunacy ight hve originated in the US but it has taken root in the UK
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/#:~:text=SIM%2Donly%20deals-,Anglo%2DSaxons%20aren't%20real%2C%20Cambridge%20tells%20students,in%20effort%20to%20fight%20'nationalism'&text=Cambridge%20is%20teaching%20students%20that,undermine%20%E2%80%9Cmyths%20of%20nationalism%E2%80%9D.
I think it was the ‘Cambridge’ on the other side of the Pond.
Cambridge is seemingly getting dumber by the day.
Thanks for the update. I live fairly close to Cambridge, but this news had not yet penetrated out to the sticks 15 miles away. In fact I was in the city yesterday and no one mentioned this very exciting news to me …
Cambridge is seemingly getting dumber by the day.
Oh and lack of gun control in the US? School children sot down. Yes Johnson was bad but Trump in another league. Canada more like the UK but disgraceful on help for Ukraine under Trudeau.
You make two points in two paragraphs..
1. So all Americans have lost their individual European heritages? ..and adopted Anglo Saxon ideals (whatever they are? Angles + Saxons hailed from Germany fgs!). The Irish influence is alive and well. Ask Joe Biden!
And didn’t I read somewhere that the Anglo-Saxons were smashed by the French Normans? ..not to mention the Vikings in the North if England? Anglo-Saxon heritage is a myth in England. It’sa faery take in NY.
2. If you assume Brits are okay with GM foods, hormone ridden beef and chlorinated chicken you’re deluded. And if you think the only effect of global warming is nice warm weather you must be living on another planet, literally!
Immigrants from those countries did arrive in huge waves but generally after the British had been there for 200 years. The most common ancestry in the US is English-American but nowadays is the least talked about. I suppose it lacks the glamour of pretending to be Rob Roy or Wolfe Tone.
Did you not hear the latest bulletin from Cambridge, there was never any such thing as Anglo-Saxons?
Oh and lack of gun control in the US? School children sot down. Yes Johnson was bad but Trump in another league. Canada more like the UK but disgraceful on help for Ukraine under Trudeau.
You make two points in two paragraphs..
1. So all Americans have lost their individual European heritages? ..and adopted Anglo Saxon ideals (whatever they are? Angles + Saxons hailed from Germany fgs!). The Irish influence is alive and well. Ask Joe Biden!
And didn’t I read somewhere that the Anglo-Saxons were smashed by the French Normans? ..not to mention the Vikings in the North if England? Anglo-Saxon heritage is a myth in England. It’sa faery take in NY.
2. If you assume Brits are okay with GM foods, hormone ridden beef and chlorinated chicken you’re deluded. And if you think the only effect of global warming is nice warm weather you must be living on another planet, literally!
“We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.”
I’m sorry Matt but that is delusional. Just because we speak the same language does not mean that we have the same interests.
I didn’t say we had the same interests. Of course American politicians will look out for the US’s interest just like the French government looks out for France’s. But culturally and historically we are closely related. I work with many Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, white South Africans etc. There are differences but they are very minor. I actually think we have more in common culturally with people of Indian heritage than with the French and Germans (though they are fine people and France and Germany are great countries to visit).
And don’t knock the fact that we speak the same language. British people almost never speak foreign languages which means that in Europe (aside from the European upper classes) we cannot speak to each another in a meaningful way. Whereas I can go to Denver or Dunedin tomorrow and start chatting to the neighbours.
And I think there is a level of trust between the English-speaking nations that doesn’t exist between the European ones. I think the AUKUS and 5Eyes pacts are testament to that. Also being on the same side in every war of the 20C helps.
He wasn’t saying that to be fair. There is enough common heritage generally with America and Europe to be able to do meaningful business although our hertigage is changing now that the Tories have brought in Woke.
I didn’t say we had the same interests. Of course American politicians will look out for the US’s interest just like the French government looks out for France’s. But culturally and historically we are closely related. I work with many Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, white South Africans etc. There are differences but they are very minor. I actually think we have more in common culturally with people of Indian heritage than with the French and Germans (though they are fine people and France and Germany are great countries to visit).
And don’t knock the fact that we speak the same language. British people almost never speak foreign languages which means that in Europe (aside from the European upper classes) we cannot speak to each another in a meaningful way. Whereas I can go to Denver or Dunedin tomorrow and start chatting to the neighbours.
And I think there is a level of trust between the English-speaking nations that doesn’t exist between the European ones. I think the AUKUS and 5Eyes pacts are testament to that. Also being on the same side in every war of the 20C helps.
He wasn’t saying that to be fair. There is enough common heritage generally with America and Europe to be able to do meaningful business although our hertigage is changing now that the Tories have brought in Woke.
We may be MM, but clear no trade deal with US anytime soon and we continue to do majority of our trade with EU. Plus foreseeable trade with China going to have some complications in coming years, esp if tying ourselves more to US policy.
So we’ve a dichotomy – we align more with US but tied financially to Europe. That ain’t changing quickly, and one can discern Govt recognises this reality
In what way exactly are we “tied financially to Europe” ? Did we join the Euro ? Did the EU ever implement the single market for services so that our superior financial services would dominate the EU market ? I must be missing something.
In fact, that’s the single strongest reason I had for getting out of the EU – so we are not financially tied to Europe. The last thing we need is to be on the hook when the debt mutualisation begging bowl comes round. Which it will. Tony Blair’s on record as saying that EU debt sharing is a good thing. That means us bailing out the profligates. No thanks !
42% of our total exports and 48% of total imports ties us v tightly PB. The TCA ties us. The Windsor Framework ties us. Our Businesses lobby to not digress as it’ll increase their costs etc etc
And when you do that much trade with a much larger bloc they always have leverage you don’t.
I think this is a major prob leave supporters never quite grasped and yet it’s so obvious. We’re tied and opted to have less influence too. Genius.
Clearly the outlet of doing more with China to reduce the imbalance with EU not going to be easy as we tie ourselves to the US. they will expect we align on their approach to China trade.
Separate to trade issues one other example – £480m paid to Macron to get a few more beach patrols. Good value? Who has the leverage here? Who’s tied?
I don’t think you actually understand how trade works.
By the way, you are aware that France (Mayotte is in metropolitan France) is currently turning back the small illegal migrant boats from the other Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean ? Exactly the same scenario as we have with France. Only they’re doing what they wouldn’t accept us doing.
I am aware of Comoros. Newsnight covered it some months ago making same point you are about inconsistency – which of course has some validity. Which just shows we don’t have the leverage given the other choke points France and EU hold on us to get away with the same in the Channel, even if we thought that appropriate. You kind of underlined the point for me.
I am aware of Comoros. Newsnight covered it some months ago making same point you are about inconsistency – which of course has some validity. Which just shows we don’t have the leverage given the other choke points France and EU hold on us to get away with the same in the Channel, even if we thought that appropriate. You kind of underlined the point for me.
I don’t think you actually understand how trade works.
By the way, you are aware that France (Mayotte is in metropolitan France) is currently turning back the small illegal migrant boats from the other Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean ? Exactly the same scenario as we have with France. Only they’re doing what they wouldn’t accept us doing.
42% of our total exports and 48% of total imports ties us v tightly PB. The TCA ties us. The Windsor Framework ties us. Our Businesses lobby to not digress as it’ll increase their costs etc etc
And when you do that much trade with a much larger bloc they always have leverage you don’t.
I think this is a major prob leave supporters never quite grasped and yet it’s so obvious. We’re tied and opted to have less influence too. Genius.
Clearly the outlet of doing more with China to reduce the imbalance with EU not going to be easy as we tie ourselves to the US. they will expect we align on their approach to China trade.
Separate to trade issues one other example – £480m paid to Macron to get a few more beach patrols. Good value? Who has the leverage here? Who’s tied?
In what way exactly are we “tied financially to Europe” ? Did we join the Euro ? Did the EU ever implement the single market for services so that our superior financial services would dominate the EU market ? I must be missing something.
In fact, that’s the single strongest reason I had for getting out of the EU – so we are not financially tied to Europe. The last thing we need is to be on the hook when the debt mutualisation begging bowl comes round. Which it will. Tony Blair’s on record as saying that EU debt sharing is a good thing. That means us bailing out the profligates. No thanks !
In the past I may have believed this but given how insane American liberalism is now and how ‘wokified’ most American mass culture is becoming I have to admit to being more comfortable with the French than America now.
And then other Anglosphere states like Canada, New Zealand, Australia seem even more woke than the US as well! Sad times.
But the opposition to Wokery is also strongest in the USA. Pretty soon the Woke trend will die a death and the stake through the heart will be administrated by an American. I think we are already passed peak-woke.
Woke is crucial to American hegemony. It is already used to mark out the free Western good guys from the evil autocratic Eastern bad guys. ESG in particular will be used as a strategy to combat Chinese industrial power. You will not see the end of it in your lifetime.
Agreed. We have passed ‘peak-woke’ mode. We have also passed ‘peak-Christianity’ mode. And I am glad to start to see the back of them both.
I sincerely hope you are right Matt. It appears to me that there are some in the Tory party keeping it going. My bet is on Miriam Cates at the moment. One of the few with her head screwed on along with Priti Patel, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman. All women for some reason.
Woke is crucial to American hegemony. It is already used to mark out the free Western good guys from the evil autocratic Eastern bad guys. ESG in particular will be used as a strategy to combat Chinese industrial power. You will not see the end of it in your lifetime.
Agreed. We have passed ‘peak-woke’ mode. We have also passed ‘peak-Christianity’ mode. And I am glad to start to see the back of them both.
I sincerely hope you are right Matt. It appears to me that there are some in the Tory party keeping it going. My bet is on Miriam Cates at the moment. One of the few with her head screwed on along with Priti Patel, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman. All women for some reason.
Even Australia and NZ is going more Woke so we are all losing our original heritage mostly coming in with the Tories in power. A civilisation does not last forever without a meaningful input to revive what is good in our past.
It’ll take more than woke rubbish to shut down Aussie blunt speaking and sledging. And quite right too. They’re over here next week to give us a reminder.
In the USA, as well, there’s a ‘woke’ backlash’ and a hard core part of the population that thinks Biden and his ilk have cotton for brains.
In the USA, as well, there’s a ‘woke’ backlash’ and a hard core part of the population that thinks Biden and his ilk have cotton for brains.
It’ll take more than woke rubbish to shut down Aussie blunt speaking and sledging. And quite right too. They’re over here next week to give us a reminder.
Yes. I live in Canada and under Trudeau very woke and into to promoting transgender and guilty about the First Nation people . A mediocre country
Sadly as an American I agree.
Yes sadly I agree about that. As a Canadian I’m much more at home in the uk and Europe than I am in Canada. The stuff happening over there is socking.
I think we are near peak woke. There is quite the backlash brewing here (in Canada). People – especially parents – are starting to openly push back.
But the opposition to Wokery is also strongest in the USA. Pretty soon the Woke trend will die a death and the stake through the heart will be administrated by an American. I think we are already passed peak-woke.
Even Australia and NZ is going more Woke so we are all losing our original heritage mostly coming in with the Tories in power. A civilisation does not last forever without a meaningful input to revive what is good in our past.
Yes. I live in Canada and under Trudeau very woke and into to promoting transgender and guilty about the First Nation people . A mediocre country
Sadly as an American I agree.
Yes sadly I agree about that. As a Canadian I’m much more at home in the uk and Europe than I am in Canada. The stuff happening over there is socking.
I think we are near peak woke. There is quite the backlash brewing here (in Canada). People – especially parents – are starting to openly push back.
So long as that does not open us up to WEF.
..a tad racist je pense?
Totally agree. Although the US is a mix of European peoples – there are plenty of originally German, French, Scandinavian, Irish, Polish and other peoples who would numerically outnumber British settlers. But that said, it’s clearly an Anglo-Saxon culture like ours with a shared heritage in things like common law and business practices.
All this noise about food standards. Yet no one who holidays in Florida or California and eats this “dreadful food” seems to complain while they are there or suffer any adverse consequences. It’s rather like people complaining about global warming and choosing to holiday in hot countries.
“We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.”
I’m sorry Matt but that is delusional. Just because we speak the same language does not mean that we have the same interests.
We may be MM, but clear no trade deal with US anytime soon and we continue to do majority of our trade with EU. Plus foreseeable trade with China going to have some complications in coming years, esp if tying ourselves more to US policy.
So we’ve a dichotomy – we align more with US but tied financially to Europe. That ain’t changing quickly, and one can discern Govt recognises this reality
In the past I may have believed this but given how insane American liberalism is now and how ‘wokified’ most American mass culture is becoming I have to admit to being more comfortable with the French than America now.
And then other Anglosphere states like Canada, New Zealand, Australia seem even more woke than the US as well! Sad times.
So long as that does not open us up to WEF.
..a tad racist je pense?
You are correct – That will be the direction of travel.
It’s almost cute how the same two issues of agricultural products are constantly dragged up! (What’s actually wrong with chlorine washed chicken anyway…?) You can exempt items in specific negotiations as I am sure the Americans also will.
However, this will not result in US law becoming superior to British, or our having to accept free movement, or even (as if we rejoined the EU) in Britain having to transition to adopting the dollar ….
Even the Americans no longer have a meaningful say over their own country under Biden. What chance would we have? I believe in Brexit with all my heart but I realise that there are two Conservative parties one of them ready to take full advantage of Brexit the other hankering after the EU and also taking on all the Woke in our schools etc. I don’t know the outcome of this but it appears like a lost ship going in circles.
Biden is not forever and might be gone sooner than we think.
Biden is not forever and might be gone sooner than we think.
Well said.. and congratulations on all your downticks from this platform’s prolific Little Englanders.. a sure sign you’re on the right track!
Yawn
Of course we are more comfortable with Americans than the French. That much is obvious to everyone in Britain. We are essentially the same people as the Americans, Aussies, Kiwis etc.
As for alignment on those things, why not if they gave us greater access to the American markets? The Aussies, the Canadians and the Japanese all have FTAs with the US and seem to have thriving agricultural and healthcare sectors.
You are correct – That will be the direction of travel.
It’s almost cute how the same two issues of agricultural products are constantly dragged up! (What’s actually wrong with chlorine washed chicken anyway…?) You can exempt items in specific negotiations as I am sure the Americans also will.
However, this will not result in US law becoming superior to British, or our having to accept free movement, or even (as if we rejoined the EU) in Britain having to transition to adopting the dollar ….
Even the Americans no longer have a meaningful say over their own country under Biden. What chance would we have? I believe in Brexit with all my heart but I realise that there are two Conservative parties one of them ready to take full advantage of Brexit the other hankering after the EU and also taking on all the Woke in our schools etc. I don’t know the outcome of this but it appears like a lost ship going in circles.
Well said.. and congratulations on all your downticks from this platform’s prolific Little Englanders.. a sure sign you’re on the right track!
Yawn
“In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.” Well. It was the US who strong armed the weak and wobbly MacMillan into seeking EEC membership. MacMillan had no concept of UK interests, ie build up the industrial and economic base as goal No 1, 2, 3, 4 and for ever. It is also worth remembering that the State Depa rtment could never care one toss for the UK constitution. To State, it was a joke. Hence the ludicrous critique of Brexit that it was all about nostalgia.
No. Yanks. Its about us Brits wanting to govern ourselves. if you don”‘t like it, shove off.
That would all change with Trump. So it appears to depend on which party is in power. We would thrive more under Republicanism but the Democrats would destroy all that is good in Britian if Starmer doesn’t do it first.
That would all change with Trump. So it appears to depend on which party is in power. We would thrive more under Republicanism but the Democrats would destroy all that is good in Britian if Starmer doesn’t do it first.
From a European point of view Brexit did at least weaken the increasingly pernicious influence of the USA and in particular their racial and gender politics
In our defense, the Woke 19th century Germans started it all! We will be permanently stained by this Marxism with American characteristics but you Brits should have never given Marx safe haven in the first place lol.
You are entirely correct
You are entirely correct
In our defense, the Woke 19th century Germans started it all! We will be permanently stained by this Marxism with American characteristics but you Brits should have never given Marx safe haven in the first place lol.
Hilarious! The collectivists are clearly threatened by any movement towards autonomy. Liberty is always an existential threat to totalitarians.
‘America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.’
America doesn’t need control over the UK’s immigration policies: it has an ocean (not a mere Manche) between us and itself, and a formidable immigration system of its own. ‘Monetary autonomy’ for the pound, euro or any other monetary jurisdiction is also somewhat illusory; the policies of the Federal Bank determine what those of us in the rest of the world must do in response. America DOES control the foreign trade of its allies, through embargoes that suit America’s view of the world. And it DOES demand not only judicial supremacy for its courts but worldwide jurisdiction over anything that has affected American interests or citizens, without proportional reciprocation – hence the extradition of British subjects for ‘crimes’ that are not criminal under our own laws. The only part of that paragraph that is accurate is the last one – but that alone is worth the pain of extricating Britain from the EU. An EU which, despite its pretensions, is subject to all the American influences listed above while trumpeting its imagined independence.
A comment that is at least as good as the article itself.
I wholly agree on all points.
If you remove the wishful thinking your contribution would thin out dramatically. If you placed more emphasis on reality – America’s hegemonic and monetary domination (only it gains: it’s vassals lose) and America’s less than warm welcome of the UKs obsequious attempt to cosy up – your assertions thin out even more.
Most important of all you make no mention of the blatantly obvious imminent decline of the USA and it’s growing isolation and alienation from the BRICS+ OPEC and Africa. You are backing the wrong horse!
“As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests…”
Great point but I think this issue is tied to America’s general tendency to view the world through the prism of its own domestic neuroses rather than engage with the facts on the ground. This excellent article, which was part of an UnHerd link collection talks about exactly that: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/we-are-no-longer-a-serious-people
Simone de Beauvoir also complains about this tendency in her diary of her trip to the States in 1947 (“America Day By Day”).
The US will likely ask for Britain to follow its product standards (hormone-fed beef, anyone?), and allow full access for its big corporations (US drug prices? NHS privatisation?), privacy regulation (full access for all data to any US corporation?) … It is not obvious that the UK will have more say over its own destiny as an American vassal than as a leading member of the EU collective, so what price ‘Take back control!’? Are you really sure the UK will feel more comfortable aligning with Alabama than with Bretagne?
“In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.” Well. It was the US who strong armed the weak and wobbly MacMillan into seeking EEC membership. MacMillan had no concept of UK interests, ie build up the industrial and economic base as goal No 1, 2, 3, 4 and for ever. It is also worth remembering that the State Depa rtment could never care one toss for the UK constitution. To State, it was a joke. Hence the ludicrous critique of Brexit that it was all about nostalgia.
No. Yanks. Its about us Brits wanting to govern ourselves. if you don”‘t like it, shove off.
From a European point of view Brexit did at least weaken the increasingly pernicious influence of the USA and in particular their racial and gender politics
Hilarious! The collectivists are clearly threatened by any movement towards autonomy. Liberty is always an existential threat to totalitarians.
‘America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.’
America doesn’t need control over the UK’s immigration policies: it has an ocean (not a mere Manche) between us and itself, and a formidable immigration system of its own. ‘Monetary autonomy’ for the pound, euro or any other monetary jurisdiction is also somewhat illusory; the policies of the Federal Bank determine what those of us in the rest of the world must do in response. America DOES control the foreign trade of its allies, through embargoes that suit America’s view of the world. And it DOES demand not only judicial supremacy for its courts but worldwide jurisdiction over anything that has affected American interests or citizens, without proportional reciprocation – hence the extradition of British subjects for ‘crimes’ that are not criminal under our own laws. The only part of that paragraph that is accurate is the last one – but that alone is worth the pain of extricating Britain from the EU. An EU which, despite its pretensions, is subject to all the American influences listed above while trumpeting its imagined independence.
A comment that is at least as good as the article itself.
I wholly agree on all points.
If you remove the wishful thinking your contribution would thin out dramatically. If you placed more emphasis on reality – America’s hegemonic and monetary domination (only it gains: it’s vassals lose) and America’s less than warm welcome of the UKs obsequious attempt to cosy up – your assertions thin out even more.
Most important of all you make no mention of the blatantly obvious imminent decline of the USA and it’s growing isolation and alienation from the BRICS+ OPEC and Africa. You are backing the wrong horse!
This is exactly how I saw Brexit. It was never a question of splendid isolation or unlimited sovereignty but a choice between which of two imperial structures we sat under, the continental Franco-German EU or the global maritime US. (I tend to view the EU as an empire with in an empire, which the larger American empire tolerates)
It always seemed to me that Britain, a maritime nation with geography well suited to international trade had made a huge mistake when out of despondence and declinism, we threw away our natural advantages and tied ourselves to a protectionist continental economic model which brought limited benefits and reduced our access to a global trading system built around the Anglophone world we founded.
It is often forgotten what a bizarre construction the EU really is. A modern political construct that supposedly pools sovereignty, run by a class of bureaucratic overseers whose loyalty is explicitly stated to be to the institution, not their home country, which resembles something more like the medieval papacy than its democratic cousins around the world.
It’s true America has not welcomed us with open arms into this arrangement. As the article correctly states they were happy with the UK acting as there man in the inside but more so we’ve just had the misfortune of being caught up in the ugly political civil war consuming America. Brexit’s association with Trump’s populist revolt and Joe Biden’s faux Irish bigotry is delaying what is certainly in America’s long term interests, to draw the UK closer into its coalition of democratic, maritime, trading nations such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.
America asks for free trade and joint defence policies to sit under its umbrella. It does not request control of your immigration policies, the abandonment of monetary autonomy, control of foreign trade, the judicial supremacy of its courts or the subjugation of your legislator in order to co-exist with it. In the end, the price of American imperialism is far less than the of the EU’s.
We are not a superpower, for sure, but nor are we simply a vassal state.
But in the C21st, what defines a Superpower?
Is it simply the size of a country’s standing army? If that was the case then India is a greater Superpower than the US, so it can’t be just that.
I certainly support additional defence spending in the UK because, as a newly sovereign global-facing Britain, it is right that we should have the capability to defend our interests at home and abroad.
But despite our currently much-reduced military capacity, there is surely more to being a superpower than military might alone.
Britain may no longer have its empire (which in truth is usually only something harped on about by the Remain lobby and the Brit-bashing left – or journalists wishing to tweak the pique of their readers) but, although we often portray ourselves as a damp, diminished little island, it is worth remembering where we stand globally – despite our relatively tiny size, geographically, we have the 6th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest defence budget, we’re a nuclear power. We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and are a founding member and the 2nd most influential power in NATO. We are a key member of the G7 and G20, a member of AUKUS and Five Eyes Intel sharing, and the nexus of all Commonwealth countries.
We’re cultural world leaders in music, film and the arts. Our language is the most widely spoken on the planet and has become the adopted lingua franca of global trade. London – for now – vies only with New York as the financial capital of the globe and, by virtue of our historical, colonial and trading links, we have diplomatic relationships and ‘soft-power’ influence that are the envy (literally the seething, covetous envy) of most other European nations. That is not simply my judgement – the UK has been voted as the country with the greatest soft power influence on the globe, (in 2019, 2020 and 21 so ‘despite Brexit’) – and yet there are still those in our Parliament who’d have us believe that we’d be better off simply allowing all our foreign policy and trade to be conducted through Brussels. Or who feel we’d be better off just curling up at the first sign of trouble, like a hedgehog being nosed by a predator.
I know it pains many on the left to admit such a thing but “Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.
But what we would consider basic liberal values are NOT a default position for most of the world. If you want the world to adopt democracy, or universal suffrage, or equal rights, or any of the other things we are lucky enough to take for granted, then you need to support the idea of Western predominance – the West has lost influence due in large part because the West seems to have lost the confidence to demonstrate to the rest of the world that our values, our laws and our tolerance lead to better outcomes. And sometimes, to project the superiority of western liberal democratic values, and to protect our interests, that involves intervention.
Unpalatable as that may be, it is undeniable.
Whenever the UK or America intervenes in another country or region, they’ll inevitably face the opprobrium of the western liberal media.
Whenever the UK or America chooses not to intervene they’ll face criticism from the same media sources, accusing them of standing idly by while ‘XYZ’ is being perpetrated.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Too many people find it too easy to stand on the sidelines complaining.
Pick a team – and then back it.
Military power, now that we are beyond the era of empire building, is mainly about deterrence. Little about Biden’s panicky withdrawal from Afghanistan would deter anyone. Indeed, it merely invites attack. EU member states have long resisted the need to divvy up and pay their fair share to support NATO. Instead they seem to prefer the self-aggrandising pomp of forming their own EU army. If such a thing comes into being then we already know what Brussels’ common defence policy priorities are – we’ve seen the paperwork and budgets. Spending billions to build a shiny new headquarters, to house yet more wretched bureaucrats, and with all the strategic effectiveness of the Maginot line. Perhaps I’m being cynical but I have the suspicion that an EU army is just another item on the checklist so that Brussels can bolster its imperial pretensions – not as an effective fighting force, so much as a vanity project, a decorative show of pomp – decked out in suitably gaudy, faux-Prussian dress uniforms to parade outside the institution’s buildings with as much grandeur and ceremony as possible – to allow the preening panjandrums of the Berlaymont to feel even more self-important (if such a thing were possible).
We cannot look to the US for leadership whilst Biden is in office nor, thankfully, are we part of an EU pretending to be a superpower. But with a resurgent and belligerent Russia and China it is right that Britain – whilst not a superpower – is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight.
Western Liberal values may also be demonstrably self defeating when you look at the prognosis for the populations of those that were born into those values and might be assumed to hold them most dearly. I’m afraid those living with other values hold with equal certainty that their values are demonstrably better than ours. They just use different parameters, which in their cultures might really be more important for them. For instance a highly religious culture might use the depth of faith in the population as a defining feature, or social cohesion, or any number of things we look pretty bad at. The evangelical zeal with which Tony Blair still justifies the Iraq war along lines not far from the superiority of Western values leaves me shaking with rage and, along with our numerous catastrophic interventions, leaves me deeply unsure of this assumption at the very least in terms of it’s applicability to historically and culturally completely different societies. You might argue who’s right and who’s wrong, but the likelihood is never the twain shall meet and in 100 years time demographics will provide the answer.
“is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight”
There were boxers in my family – nobody punches above their weight.
“ but nor are we simply a vassal state.”
Whilst I am delighted that you should think that, I must reluctantly disabuse you of that patriotic notion.
We have been completely beholden to the US ever since Lord Balfour’s timely visit to the US in late 1916 to beg for funds to continue the conflict. The antics of WSC in late 1940 further exacerbated the problem.
When ‘push came to shove’ we meekly obeyed the UN/US resolution to abandon Palestine in 1948, and cease operations at Suez in 1956.
In between we answered the call in Korea, 1950-3.
We shall have to disagree over Vietnam, but our recent obsequious behaviour over Iraq was truly disgraceful. As to N Ireland was the GFA the work of the Blair creature or in reality the diktat of one Bill Clinton?
The Falklands War mini war would NOT have been possible without the wholehearted acquiescence of Ronald Reagan.
Finally to our so called independent nuclear deterrent. There is no possibility that it could be used unilaterally!* All the ‘software’ is US made and I doubt that if our submarine commander pressed the dreaded ‘red button’ it would actually work without the necessary ‘go code ‘ from the US.
Frankly I feel as disappointed about all this as you obviously do, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame. After more than three very happy centuries of plunder and profit, “we lost it” in 1914, and have never fully recovered.
Sadly “History takes no prisoners “.**
ps. A a definition of a superpower may I offer ‘a superpower is one that can a fight super war from its own resources ’. (Something we abjectly failed to do in both 1914-18 and again in 1939-45.)
(* David Cameron, of undying fame, claimed differently!)
(** The late Dr John Mann.)
Charles, while it’s entertaining to regard our historical plunder and profit as something to be proud of, don’t you think that sort of thing just gives licence to the US and Russians to do more of the same ? And just what is your beef with the US here ? Don’t you rate them because they’re not up to it on the plunder and profit side ?
You know as well as I that we were probably the most benign Imperial power there has ever been, with the possible exception of Ancient Rome. We ultimately ‘ploughed back’ into the Empire as much we took out.
I have no ‘beef’ with the Americans, they have ‘played their hand superbly, and are in many ways a most generous Hegemon it must be said.
Tend to agree. But not sure we’re the right people to “mark our own homework” on our record. I think in time a more balanced picture of our history will come through. Probably not one written by anyone British based on current trends. And will be more convincing if it comes from the countries who were colonised.
Well we do have this from the renowned Spanish philosopher George Santayana*, who taught at Harvard in his youth:-“
“Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.”
(*1863-1952.)
Compared to the Spanish and Belgians et al, yes, for sure the BE was so nice.. in the same way the 3rd Reich was so much nicer than Pol Pot or Gengis Khan, who in turn were probably nicer thar Satan himself.. ’tis all relative Charlie.
Compared to the Spanish and Belgians et al, yes, for sure the BE was so nice.. in the same way the 3rd Reich was so much nicer than Pol Pot or Gengis Khan, who in turn were probably nicer thar Satan himself.. ’tis all relative Charlie.
Well we do have this from the renowned Spanish philosopher George Santayana*, who taught at Harvard in his youth:-“
“Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master. It will be a black day for the human race when scientific blackguards, conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.”
(*1863-1952.)
You got my downtick for para.1 – your plunder of India was a great example of ploughing back in!
But I gave you an uptick for para.2 but only because, like us, you guys are white, Christian (or a sort) with too low a prospect of stealing your oil. So yes, a generous Hegemon to you (and us).. TG we’re not brown, Muslim, and resource rich eh Charlie?
Tend to agree. But not sure we’re the right people to “mark our own homework” on our record. I think in time a more balanced picture of our history will come through. Probably not one written by anyone British based on current trends. And will be more convincing if it comes from the countries who were colonised.
You got my downtick for para.1 – your plunder of India was a great example of ploughing back in!
But I gave you an uptick for para.2 but only because, like us, you guys are white, Christian (or a sort) with too low a prospect of stealing your oil. So yes, a generous Hegemon to you (and us).. TG we’re not brown, Muslim, and resource rich eh Charlie?
You know as well as I that we were probably the most benign Imperial power there has ever been, with the possible exception of Ancient Rome. We ultimately ‘ploughed back’ into the Empire as much we took out.
I have no ‘beef’ with the Americans, they have ‘played their hand superbly, and are in many ways a most generous Hegemon it must be said.
Such honest from you Charlie. I’m overcome! What say you to doing a deal with China? ..but no opium this time!!
Charles, while it’s entertaining to regard our historical plunder and profit as something to be proud of, don’t you think that sort of thing just gives licence to the US and Russians to do more of the same ? And just what is your beef with the US here ? Don’t you rate them because they’re not up to it on the plunder and profit side ?
Such honest from you Charlie. I’m overcome! What say you to doing a deal with China? ..but no opium this time!!
I’m currently enjoying Dr Nigel Biggar’s book Colonialism… It ties in with your excellent observations… I understand better now.
Sweet Lord the racism continues unabated but now under a different guise.
It’s SO unfashionable to think you’re superior because of the colour of your skin.
But now it’s OK to consider all other cultures and value systems to be inherently and irredeemably inferior to those developed by AngloSaxon brains.
‘Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.’
What arrogance!
Let us consider the many many tens of millions across the world killed directly or indirectly in support of promoting ‘Western Liberal Values’: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen to name just some of the more egregious examples.
Not to recognise the outstanding success of China over the past 50 years, were over 650,000,000 people were lifted from dire poverty to comfortable middle class living shows deliberate ignorance or sheer willful blindness. The lifespan of the average Chinese has increased by over 30 years.
The success of China over that period is simply unprecedented in human history. That success is not only marginally superior to any previous wave of progress it is, at least, an order of magnitude better – measured by the number of humans who benefited and the short timescale of the achievement.
As for inalienable freedom and rights under Western Liberal Values it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are a fiction. The response to Covid proved that our freedoms or rights – are contingent on the whims of the deep state.
Largely nonsense.
If cultures are different – which you do not dispute – then there will be different strengths and weaknesses in each of them. In some situations, some cultures will do better relative to others.
There is nothing remotely contentious or “racist” about such an observation. It is nothing whatever to do with race.
No one is saying that a culture is “better”. We don’t need to. What is beyond dispute is that some are more successful than others. North vs South Korea is the most glaring example.
For example, Hong Kong became incredibly successful by adopting and turbo-charging many of the best aspects of British capitalism while filtering out some of the worst. Cultural assimilation is clearly not dependent on race – at least not the ability to do this where people are willing and motivated to learn and adapt.
In general, successful cultures today are those that emphasise learning and adaptation and de-emphasise ideology and rigid beliefs. They also prefer delayed gratification over instant rewards. They are also built around rule of law states.
You also neglect a few relevant facts.
Like the fact that Mao created and maintained much of the poverty in China.
And that the Indochina wars also involved interference by Russia and China (and France making a total pig’s ear of decolonisation – the Anericans got to clean up the mess the French left behind – and not for the first time).
I suppose it depends on how you define “success” and, most importantly, success fir whom? If you check you’ll find the 1% did well; the rest? …no so much!
I suppose it depends on how you define “success” and, most importantly, success fir whom? If you check you’ll find the 1% did well; the rest? …no so much!
I could simply dismiss your rebuttal as absolute twaddle, but in the spirit of good debate I’d ask you to consider – and try and refute – the following:
The great ideas of the West— the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights, rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, liberal democracy—together constitute quite an achievement for any civilization, surely you’d accept?.
This basic set of principles remains the best and perhaps only means for all people, regardless of race or creed, to live in freedom and reach their full potential.
These values form the basis of the West’s self-evident economic, social, political, scientific and cultural success. When such Western values have been adopted by other societies, such as Japan or South Korea, their citizens have reaped benefits. You talk of China – well they advanced financially by copying western style capitalism – however I very much doubt you’d enjoy living there as a free-thinking citizen – precisely because China although they adopted Western capitalism, they failed to adopt Western values.
We in the west are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose – unless we throw it all away by allowing the neo-authoritarian-woke to dismantle this legacy,
It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities and religious minorities, by recognizing their rights.
And yet, all you got out of my comment was “Racism”? Really?
I admire your patience!
Oh come off it! Deal with the real results, not the idealised, romanticised stuff of fiction. Focus on the actual effects on real people, not just the 1%. You’ll find the facts are very different to the pie in the sky, schoolboyish, wishful thinking. India was perhaps the wealthiest ‘country’ on Earth before it was plundered (from 28% of World GDP to 4%). Had you left it alone half of impoverished GB would be emigrating, illegally into India! And please don’t say you civilised the people of the Indus Valley!
I admire your patience!
Oh come off it! Deal with the real results, not the idealised, romanticised stuff of fiction. Focus on the actual effects on real people, not just the 1%. You’ll find the facts are very different to the pie in the sky, schoolboyish, wishful thinking. India was perhaps the wealthiest ‘country’ on Earth before it was plundered (from 28% of World GDP to 4%). Had you left it alone half of impoverished GB would be emigrating, illegally into India! And please don’t say you civilised the people of the Indus Valley!
Remind us- What was the Origin of Covid?
Gain a function virology in Chapel Hill Lab, University of North Carolina.. the China episode was downstream. Check it out for yourself
Gain a function virology in Chapel Hill Lab, University of North Carolina.. the China episode was downstream. Check it out for yourself
Would the imprisonment and psychological torture of Julian Assange be a good measure of the value if Western Liberal Values? Wasn’t JFK murdered by the CIA for espousing genuine WLD values? Didn’t those WLD values account for much of history’s genocides, slavery, forced famines and plunder? If so, maybe it’s not really superior in any way other than in beastial brutality?
Largely nonsense.
If cultures are different – which you do not dispute – then there will be different strengths and weaknesses in each of them. In some situations, some cultures will do better relative to others.
There is nothing remotely contentious or “racist” about such an observation. It is nothing whatever to do with race.
No one is saying that a culture is “better”. We don’t need to. What is beyond dispute is that some are more successful than others. North vs South Korea is the most glaring example.
For example, Hong Kong became incredibly successful by adopting and turbo-charging many of the best aspects of British capitalism while filtering out some of the worst. Cultural assimilation is clearly not dependent on race – at least not the ability to do this where people are willing and motivated to learn and adapt.
In general, successful cultures today are those that emphasise learning and adaptation and de-emphasise ideology and rigid beliefs. They also prefer delayed gratification over instant rewards. They are also built around rule of law states.
You also neglect a few relevant facts.
Like the fact that Mao created and maintained much of the poverty in China.
And that the Indochina wars also involved interference by Russia and China (and France making a total pig’s ear of decolonisation – the Anericans got to clean up the mess the French left behind – and not for the first time).
I could simply dismiss your rebuttal as absolute twaddle, but in the spirit of good debate I’d ask you to consider – and try and refute – the following:
The great ideas of the West— the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights, rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, liberal democracy—together constitute quite an achievement for any civilization, surely you’d accept?.
This basic set of principles remains the best and perhaps only means for all people, regardless of race or creed, to live in freedom and reach their full potential.
These values form the basis of the West’s self-evident economic, social, political, scientific and cultural success. When such Western values have been adopted by other societies, such as Japan or South Korea, their citizens have reaped benefits. You talk of China – well they advanced financially by copying western style capitalism – however I very much doubt you’d enjoy living there as a free-thinking citizen – precisely because China although they adopted Western capitalism, they failed to adopt Western values.
We in the west are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose – unless we throw it all away by allowing the neo-authoritarian-woke to dismantle this legacy,
It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities and religious minorities, by recognizing their rights.
And yet, all you got out of my comment was “Racism”? Really?
Remind us- What was the Origin of Covid?
Would the imprisonment and psychological torture of Julian Assange be a good measure of the value if Western Liberal Values? Wasn’t JFK murdered by the CIA for espousing genuine WLD values? Didn’t those WLD values account for much of history’s genocides, slavery, forced famines and plunder? If so, maybe it’s not really superior in any way other than in beastial brutality?
Think for a moment! Who is going to invade us? Not the Russians or the Chinese! They have always only been concerned with their own borders and surrounding countries..
I believe that aligning ourselves with the USA which has invaded numerous countries far from their borders, both in the last century and since 2000 (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya and South American countries which did not toe their political line, is against our interest and stability..
The word “diplomacy” is not in its vocabulary…
Don’t worry too much about the possible invasion of GB by the USA (unless Biden goes overboard on his Irishness!) ..they tend to focus on brown Muslims with lots of easy to steal oil. GB is way down the list.. but as Muslims outnumber Christians in GB, in say 20 years time, yeah, maybe rotate the guns westward to be on the safe side!
Don’t worry too much about the possible invasion of GB by the USA (unless Biden goes overboard on his Irishness!) ..they tend to focus on brown Muslims with lots of easy to steal oil. GB is way down the list.. but as Muslims outnumber Christians in GB, in say 20 years time, yeah, maybe rotate the guns westward to be on the safe side!
Biden is a disappointment for sure. This too will pass.
Looks like another Paddy though, in the form of RFK jnr! So still no trade deal for you guys!
Looks like another Paddy though, in the form of RFK jnr! So still no trade deal for you guys!
A tad one-sided, over-egged and replete with wishful thinking and a few glaring omissions.. but very well put if we ignore those minor shortcomings! One question:
Please explain what you mean by China’s “belligerence” compared to say, US belligerence and its attendant invasions, bombings, regime coups, assassinations, oil theft, war crimes and murderous sanctions.. the US death toll in the last 30 years of its benign hegemony stands (as of a US study) at 8 million and counting.
it might be contentious to ask you to identify the least belligerent US president – by record- of the last century?
I guess having to admit that it was, for all his obvious faults, Donald Trump, might make your head explode
it might be contentious to ask you to identify the least belligerent US president – by record- of the last century?
I guess having to admit that it was, for all his obvious faults, Donald Trump, might make your head explode
Western Liberal values may also be demonstrably self defeating when you look at the prognosis for the populations of those that were born into those values and might be assumed to hold them most dearly. I’m afraid those living with other values hold with equal certainty that their values are demonstrably better than ours. They just use different parameters, which in their cultures might really be more important for them. For instance a highly religious culture might use the depth of faith in the population as a defining feature, or social cohesion, or any number of things we look pretty bad at. The evangelical zeal with which Tony Blair still justifies the Iraq war along lines not far from the superiority of Western values leaves me shaking with rage and, along with our numerous catastrophic interventions, leaves me deeply unsure of this assumption at the very least in terms of it’s applicability to historically and culturally completely different societies. You might argue who’s right and who’s wrong, but the likelihood is never the twain shall meet and in 100 years time demographics will provide the answer.
“is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight”
There were boxers in my family – nobody punches above their weight.
“ but nor are we simply a vassal state.”
Whilst I am delighted that you should think that, I must reluctantly disabuse you of that patriotic notion.
We have been completely beholden to the US ever since Lord Balfour’s timely visit to the US in late 1916 to beg for funds to continue the conflict. The antics of WSC in late 1940 further exacerbated the problem.
When ‘push came to shove’ we meekly obeyed the UN/US resolution to abandon Palestine in 1948, and cease operations at Suez in 1956.
In between we answered the call in Korea, 1950-3.
We shall have to disagree over Vietnam, but our recent obsequious behaviour over Iraq was truly disgraceful. As to N Ireland was the GFA the work of the Blair creature or in reality the diktat of one Bill Clinton?
The Falklands War mini war would NOT have been possible without the wholehearted acquiescence of Ronald Reagan.
Finally to our so called independent nuclear deterrent. There is no possibility that it could be used unilaterally!* All the ‘software’ is US made and I doubt that if our submarine commander pressed the dreaded ‘red button’ it would actually work without the necessary ‘go code ‘ from the US.
Frankly I feel as disappointed about all this as you obviously do, but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame. After more than three very happy centuries of plunder and profit, “we lost it” in 1914, and have never fully recovered.
Sadly “History takes no prisoners “.**
ps. A a definition of a superpower may I offer ‘a superpower is one that can a fight super war from its own resources ’. (Something we abjectly failed to do in both 1914-18 and again in 1939-45.)
(* David Cameron, of undying fame, claimed differently!)
(** The late Dr John Mann.)
I’m currently enjoying Dr Nigel Biggar’s book Colonialism… It ties in with your excellent observations… I understand better now.
Sweet Lord the racism continues unabated but now under a different guise.
It’s SO unfashionable to think you’re superior because of the colour of your skin.
But now it’s OK to consider all other cultures and value systems to be inherently and irredeemably inferior to those developed by AngloSaxon brains.
‘Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.’
What arrogance!
Let us consider the many many tens of millions across the world killed directly or indirectly in support of promoting ‘Western Liberal Values’: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen to name just some of the more egregious examples.
Not to recognise the outstanding success of China over the past 50 years, were over 650,000,000 people were lifted from dire poverty to comfortable middle class living shows deliberate ignorance or sheer willful blindness. The lifespan of the average Chinese has increased by over 30 years.
The success of China over that period is simply unprecedented in human history. That success is not only marginally superior to any previous wave of progress it is, at least, an order of magnitude better – measured by the number of humans who benefited and the short timescale of the achievement.
As for inalienable freedom and rights under Western Liberal Values it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are a fiction. The response to Covid proved that our freedoms or rights – are contingent on the whims of the deep state.
Think for a moment! Who is going to invade us? Not the Russians or the Chinese! They have always only been concerned with their own borders and surrounding countries..
I believe that aligning ourselves with the USA which has invaded numerous countries far from their borders, both in the last century and since 2000 (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya and South American countries which did not toe their political line, is against our interest and stability..
The word “diplomacy” is not in its vocabulary…
Biden is a disappointment for sure. This too will pass.
A tad one-sided, over-egged and replete with wishful thinking and a few glaring omissions.. but very well put if we ignore those minor shortcomings! One question:
Please explain what you mean by China’s “belligerence” compared to say, US belligerence and its attendant invasions, bombings, regime coups, assassinations, oil theft, war crimes and murderous sanctions.. the US death toll in the last 30 years of its benign hegemony stands (as of a US study) at 8 million and counting.
We are not a superpower, for sure, but nor are we simply a vassal state.
But in the C21st, what defines a Superpower?
Is it simply the size of a country’s standing army? If that was the case then India is a greater Superpower than the US, so it can’t be just that.
I certainly support additional defence spending in the UK because, as a newly sovereign global-facing Britain, it is right that we should have the capability to defend our interests at home and abroad.
But despite our currently much-reduced military capacity, there is surely more to being a superpower than military might alone.
Britain may no longer have its empire (which in truth is usually only something harped on about by the Remain lobby and the Brit-bashing left – or journalists wishing to tweak the pique of their readers) but, although we often portray ourselves as a damp, diminished little island, it is worth remembering where we stand globally – despite our relatively tiny size, geographically, we have the 6th largest economy in the world and the 6th largest defence budget, we’re a nuclear power. We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and are a founding member and the 2nd most influential power in NATO. We are a key member of the G7 and G20, a member of AUKUS and Five Eyes Intel sharing, and the nexus of all Commonwealth countries.
We’re cultural world leaders in music, film and the arts. Our language is the most widely spoken on the planet and has become the adopted lingua franca of global trade. London – for now – vies only with New York as the financial capital of the globe and, by virtue of our historical, colonial and trading links, we have diplomatic relationships and ‘soft-power’ influence that are the envy (literally the seething, covetous envy) of most other European nations. That is not simply my judgement – the UK has been voted as the country with the greatest soft power influence on the globe, (in 2019, 2020 and 21 so ‘despite Brexit’) – and yet there are still those in our Parliament who’d have us believe that we’d be better off simply allowing all our foreign policy and trade to be conducted through Brussels. Or who feel we’d be better off just curling up at the first sign of trouble, like a hedgehog being nosed by a predator.
I know it pains many on the left to admit such a thing but “Western Liberal Values” are demonstrably better for the people that live under them, than the various other ideologies and regimes elsewhere in the world.
But what we would consider basic liberal values are NOT a default position for most of the world. If you want the world to adopt democracy, or universal suffrage, or equal rights, or any of the other things we are lucky enough to take for granted, then you need to support the idea of Western predominance – the West has lost influence due in large part because the West seems to have lost the confidence to demonstrate to the rest of the world that our values, our laws and our tolerance lead to better outcomes. And sometimes, to project the superiority of western liberal democratic values, and to protect our interests, that involves intervention.
Unpalatable as that may be, it is undeniable.
Whenever the UK or America intervenes in another country or region, they’ll inevitably face the opprobrium of the western liberal media.
Whenever the UK or America chooses not to intervene they’ll face criticism from the same media sources, accusing them of standing idly by while ‘XYZ’ is being perpetrated.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Too many people find it too easy to stand on the sidelines complaining.
Pick a team – and then back it.
Military power, now that we are beyond the era of empire building, is mainly about deterrence. Little about Biden’s panicky withdrawal from Afghanistan would deter anyone. Indeed, it merely invites attack. EU member states have long resisted the need to divvy up and pay their fair share to support NATO. Instead they seem to prefer the self-aggrandising pomp of forming their own EU army. If such a thing comes into being then we already know what Brussels’ common defence policy priorities are – we’ve seen the paperwork and budgets. Spending billions to build a shiny new headquarters, to house yet more wretched bureaucrats, and with all the strategic effectiveness of the Maginot line. Perhaps I’m being cynical but I have the suspicion that an EU army is just another item on the checklist so that Brussels can bolster its imperial pretensions – not as an effective fighting force, so much as a vanity project, a decorative show of pomp – decked out in suitably gaudy, faux-Prussian dress uniforms to parade outside the institution’s buildings with as much grandeur and ceremony as possible – to allow the preening panjandrums of the Berlaymont to feel even more self-important (if such a thing were possible).
We cannot look to the US for leadership whilst Biden is in office nor, thankfully, are we part of an EU pretending to be a superpower. But with a resurgent and belligerent Russia and China it is right that Britain – whilst not a superpower – is still seen as a country of global influence and significance that still punches well above its weight.
It’s a very long time since “most Brits” had “aspirations to be a global power” and i’ve no idea why supposedly intelligent and politically-savvy writers keep banging on along these lines.
This really does obfuscate the balancing act which the writer seems to have sought in the article and to some extent might have acheived, had it not been predicated on this old “global power” trope for which the term “straw-man argument” might’ve been invented.
I have never heard a Eurosceptic claim that Brexit would make us a “global power”. I think the author is confusing this with the slogan “global Britain” which relates to having a broader set of trading arrangements than possible within the EU.
If the case for Britain being in the EU was so strong, its advocates wouldn’t have to invent these straw-man arguments.
Bojo’s statement on Global Britain included – ‘blessed with a global network of friends <and> …our Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU gives us the freedom to do things differently and better, both economically and politically’. Certainly suggestive we were going to do lots of other deals enhancing our Global position, albeit the bit he couldn’t avoid was how key the TCA is too (and up for renegotiation next year).
His statement also went on about our largest warship ever, Queen Elizabeth patrolling the middle east and indo-pacific projecting our soft power etc So that links back to SM’s point on ‘aspirations’. You don’t have an aircraft carrier built so it can patrol the South China sea without aspirations on one’s world role.
Whether Sunak quite shares all this inheritance isn’t so clear, yet. But he sure ain’t getting a trade deal with US, and if any chance of being an AI governance leader (what he was there begging for) he has to go with broader US policy as he’s no EU leverage to deploy.
“our largest warship ever”
Yes but a “complete waste of rations” compared to what the USN has to offer. Even the QE’s aircraft are ALL American, and have we even paid for them yet? Probably not.
Off course the original reason for building both the QE and her sister ship the PoW was to provide employment yet again in ‘needy’ Scotland and in particular the constituency of one Gordon Brown Esq.
Yep I largely concur CS. Our Chateau Generals in 1914 took a long time to recognise mounted cavalry days had gone. One fears much the same about small Aircraft carriers without considerable frigate screening – which of course we don’t have, may continue to have the same hold over the Admiralty
They could of course ‘mothball’, but the optics would be v poor. Let’s hope neither end up neighbouring a prior PoW or HMS Renown over the next few years.
Wasn’t it HMS Repulse NOT Renown?
Wasn’t it HMS Repulse NOT Renown?
Yep I largely concur CS. Our Chateau Generals in 1914 took a long time to recognise mounted cavalry days had gone. One fears much the same about small Aircraft carriers without considerable frigate screening – which of course we don’t have, may continue to have the same hold over the Admiralty
They could of course ‘mothball’, but the optics would be v poor. Let’s hope neither end up neighbouring a prior PoW or HMS Renown over the next few years.
“our largest warship ever”
Yes but a “complete waste of rations” compared to what the USN has to offer. Even the QE’s aircraft are ALL American, and have we even paid for them yet? Probably not.
Off course the original reason for building both the QE and her sister ship the PoW was to provide employment yet again in ‘needy’ Scotland and in particular the constituency of one Gordon Brown Esq.
Global GB can only be achieved to serve GB interests if it is backed by GB military power or, as a vassal receiving the global crumbs from the master, using US military power. Since the latter is looking iffy, the former might be iffy also?
Bojo’s statement on Global Britain included – ‘blessed with a global network of friends <and> …our Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU gives us the freedom to do things differently and better, both economically and politically’. Certainly suggestive we were going to do lots of other deals enhancing our Global position, albeit the bit he couldn’t avoid was how key the TCA is too (and up for renegotiation next year).
His statement also went on about our largest warship ever, Queen Elizabeth patrolling the middle east and indo-pacific projecting our soft power etc So that links back to SM’s point on ‘aspirations’. You don’t have an aircraft carrier built so it can patrol the South China sea without aspirations on one’s world role.
Whether Sunak quite shares all this inheritance isn’t so clear, yet. But he sure ain’t getting a trade deal with US, and if any chance of being an AI governance leader (what he was there begging for) he has to go with broader US policy as he’s no EU leverage to deploy.
Global GB can only be achieved to serve GB interests if it is backed by GB military power or, as a vassal receiving the global crumbs from the master, using US military power. Since the latter is looking iffy, the former might be iffy also?
Totally right. The idea that Brexiteers were nostalgic for the global power of the 1950s was pure deranged Remainia. So too the idea that a trade deal with the US was the primary goal – er, you are all reading on your Apple phones or Del computers right…we trade without quite happily!!! Rule by a committee of 27 in a dysfunctional half built Euro Empire is an absurd and flawed model for governance. Most countries rather enjoy sovereignty….it brings greater democratic legitimacy. In time we will see the benefits when the pro EU Blob (weeping for those lost mega pensions) has finally awoken from its Brussels induced torpor and learnt to initiate again. And remember this. The middling power UK has a seat at the UN top table/Security Council. If we had stayed the EU they would have claimed it. Turning back on the world? What utter tosh.
A long time SM? Bojo was banging on about ‘Global Britain’ and our ‘soft’ power reach when Foreign Sec and campaigning for Leave. Brexiteers are still at it.
You’ve just fallen head first into the (clap)trap that Global Britain equates to Global Power. It is, and always was, about trading globally rather than exerting power. In falling thus, you’re simply projecting your own prejudices.
It’s also why you lost the democratic vote.
Why do we have an Aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific then? Why did we do AUKUS deal? It is the other side of the World isn’t it? Just about protecting convoy routes for imports of NZ lamb? I think not.
Brexiteers, Bojo at the fore, talked up Global Britain and didn’t just mean marginal trade deals. Same nostalgic intoxication.
Why do we have an Aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific then? Why did we do AUKUS deal? It is the other side of the World isn’t it? Just about protecting convoy routes for imports of NZ lamb? I think not.
Brexiteers, Bojo at the fore, talked up Global Britain and didn’t just mean marginal trade deals. Same nostalgic intoxication.
Double post
I would have happily read it twice 🙂
I would have happily read it twice 🙂
You’ve just fallen head first into the (clap)trap that Global Britain equates to Global Power. It is, and always was, about trading globally rather than exerting power. In falling thus, you’re simply projecting your own prejudices.
It’s also why you lost the democratic vote.
Double post
I have never heard a Eurosceptic claim that Brexit would make us a “global power”. I think the author is confusing this with the slogan “global Britain” which relates to having a broader set of trading arrangements than possible within the EU.
If the case for Britain being in the EU was so strong, its advocates wouldn’t have to invent these straw-man arguments.
Totally right. The idea that Brexiteers were nostalgic for the global power of the 1950s was pure deranged Remainia. So too the idea that a trade deal with the US was the primary goal – er, you are all reading on your Apple phones or Del computers right…we trade without quite happily!!! Rule by a committee of 27 in a dysfunctional half built Euro Empire is an absurd and flawed model for governance. Most countries rather enjoy sovereignty….it brings greater democratic legitimacy. In time we will see the benefits when the pro EU Blob (weeping for those lost mega pensions) has finally awoken from its Brussels induced torpor and learnt to initiate again. And remember this. The middling power UK has a seat at the UN top table/Security Council. If we had stayed the EU they would have claimed it. Turning back on the world? What utter tosh.
A long time SM? Bojo was banging on about ‘Global Britain’ and our ‘soft’ power reach when Foreign Sec and campaigning for Leave. Brexiteers are still at it.
It’s a very long time since “most Brits” had “aspirations to be a global power” and i’ve no idea why supposedly intelligent and politically-savvy writers keep banging on along these lines.
This really does obfuscate the balancing act which the writer seems to have sought in the article and to some extent might have acheived, had it not been predicated on this old “global power” trope for which the term “straw-man argument” might’ve been invented.
An Atlantic Japan? A North Sea Israel?
Yes please! This is exactly why I wanted to leave the EU.
I love the idea of it being a ‘North Sea Israel’. Pity about the weather! 🙂
I love the idea of it being a ‘North Sea Israel’. Pity about the weather! 🙂
An Atlantic Japan? A North Sea Israel?
Yes please! This is exactly why I wanted to leave the EU.
Brilliant article, a clear and realistic antidote to an increasingly toxic and unproductive argument.
Having left the EU, as a nation Britain needs the humility to accept the global situation, both its opportunities and hazards; the acceptance of responsibility for its own destiny; and ideally the social unity and stability not to get distracted.
Well, how easily we forget. Notions of un-bridled sovereignty loomed very large in the Brexit decision, remember? Buccaneering Britain etc. So deep runs the distaste for accommodation that Brexiters are still in quite the lather lest Britain unbound be tainted by the merest tincture of a EU-derived packaging reg. All very different from humility and vassals lol. This article is the start of the Brexit mentality booking an overdue appointment with reality. Whether this new-found humility ever penetrate very far into the likes of Rees Mogg, Farage et al remains to be seen.
Completely missing the point. Being a lackey to a superpower is an unpalatable but sovereign decision. Having your trade and regulatory policy decided for you by a supranational bureaucracy then having to beg and pay to remove yourself from its jurisdiction is not.
Nice going keeping the toxic pointless argument going.
Completely missing the point. Being a lackey to a superpower is an unpalatable but sovereign decision. Having your trade and regulatory policy decided for you by a supranational bureaucracy then having to beg and pay to remove yourself from its jurisdiction is not.
Nice going keeping the toxic pointless argument going.
Well, how easily we forget. Notions of un-bridled sovereignty loomed very large in the Brexit decision, remember? Buccaneering Britain etc. So deep runs the distaste for accommodation that Brexiters are still in quite the lather lest Britain unbound be tainted by the merest tincture of a EU-derived packaging reg. All very different from humility and vassals lol. This article is the start of the Brexit mentality booking an overdue appointment with reality. Whether this new-found humility ever penetrate very far into the likes of Rees Mogg, Farage et al remains to be seen.
Brilliant article, a clear and realistic antidote to an increasingly toxic and unproductive argument.
Having left the EU, as a nation Britain needs the humility to accept the global situation, both its opportunities and hazards; the acceptance of responsibility for its own destiny; and ideally the social unity and stability not to get distracted.
“Of course, Brexit Britain is not a “global power”, but nor was pre-Brexit Britain. Apart from the United States and China, no country on earth is a global power anymore — not even the EU”.
This sentence is in the article twice: Once in the 3rd paragraph, once in the 7th. Sloppy editing, UnHerd!
Re: UK’s relationship with the US. As I’ve said many times, Brexit has exposed many uncomfortable, but necessary truths (which the author also alludes to in the final paragraph). One of them being that, if you’re not serving the US’s interests (real or imagined) then they drop you like a hot potato, because they have interests rather than friends. Blair’s brown-nosing was hideous 20 years ago and what did the UK get from it?
Talk of the “special relationship” is completely absurd and should stop. The relationship is only “special” in the sense of unique or unusual. Have any other two countries started out as master and colony only for the roles to get completely reversed?
The new relationship to the US should be based on a sober and pragmatic view of it as an ally rather than a friend. As a country you cooperate with, but keep at arm’s length while you get on with your own life rather than hanging onto its skirt hem, snivelling like a spurned lover.
> Have any other two countries started out as master and colony only for the roles to get completely reversed?
Sorry to be a PITA by answering an obviously rhetorical question not as expected, but I give you … Normandy and England 🙂
(although technically Normandy was only a duchy not a country)
> Have any other two countries started out as master and colony only for the roles to get completely reversed?
Sorry to be a PITA by answering an obviously rhetorical question not as expected, but I give you … Normandy and England 🙂
(although technically Normandy was only a duchy not a country)
“Of course, Brexit Britain is not a “global power”, but nor was pre-Brexit Britain. Apart from the United States and China, no country on earth is a global power anymore — not even the EU”.
This sentence is in the article twice: Once in the 3rd paragraph, once in the 7th. Sloppy editing, UnHerd!
Re: UK’s relationship with the US. As I’ve said many times, Brexit has exposed many uncomfortable, but necessary truths (which the author also alludes to in the final paragraph). One of them being that, if you’re not serving the US’s interests (real or imagined) then they drop you like a hot potato, because they have interests rather than friends. Blair’s brown-nosing was hideous 20 years ago and what did the UK get from it?
Talk of the “special relationship” is completely absurd and should stop. The relationship is only “special” in the sense of unique or unusual. Have any other two countries started out as master and colony only for the roles to get completely reversed?
The new relationship to the US should be based on a sober and pragmatic view of it as an ally rather than a friend. As a country you cooperate with, but keep at arm’s length while you get on with your own life rather than hanging onto its skirt hem, snivelling like a spurned lover.
A couple of weeks ago the Aussies signed an agreement with the US on supply chains which gives Australia access to the new subsidy regime the US has implemented. Dressed up as a Green initiative it is really the US building an inner circle of trading partners to remove dependency of China for key products. The inner circle is: Canada, Mexico and now Australia. I expect it to eventually include Japan, South Korea and the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sunak comes back from Washington with news on this front.
A couple of weeks ago the Aussies signed an agreement with the US on supply chains which gives Australia access to the new subsidy regime the US has implemented. Dressed up as a Green initiative it is really the US building an inner circle of trading partners to remove dependency of China for key products. The inner circle is: Canada, Mexico and now Australia. I expect it to eventually include Japan, South Korea and the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sunak comes back from Washington with news on this front.
“Britain can thrive as a vassal state”Vassals do not prosper. It is the vassal’s master who prospers: That is the point of the relationship. Still it is amusing to see “Managed Decline” back on the menu in the guise of “Happy Vassal”
Of course Britain is not a major power and hasn’t been been for a very long time. By the very meaning of the term “major” few countries can be. But the aim of British policy should be what was presumably English/British policy for a very long time: To maintain as much freedom as possible from domination by foreign empires. We may not fully succeed, but that should be the aspiration. Neither the US nor the EU have our best interests at heart and never will have. And to describe the US and the UK as ideological allies is to stretch the meaning of words beyond breaking point.
“Britain can thrive as a vassal state”Vassals do not prosper. It is the vassal’s master who prospers: That is the point of the relationship. Still it is amusing to see “Managed Decline” back on the menu in the guise of “Happy Vassal”
Of course Britain is not a major power and hasn’t been been for a very long time. By the very meaning of the term “major” few countries can be. But the aim of British policy should be what was presumably English/British policy for a very long time: To maintain as much freedom as possible from domination by foreign empires. We may not fully succeed, but that should be the aspiration. Neither the US nor the EU have our best interests at heart and never will have. And to describe the US and the UK as ideological allies is to stretch the meaning of words beyond breaking point.
The UK post-Brexit role is ” to turn itself into a successful mid-sized power in the 21st: an Atlantic Japan or North Sea Israel. It must align with the US on core questions of national security, turning questions of global trade into wider questions of Western interests” Yep. Focus on the UK. Maximising its wealth and prosperity. Keep law and order. Scare the bleeding daylights out of any possible enemy, and make it well known that you defend minor interests, vis fishing. Encourage national champions, ditch all the Heathite supranationalism which meant that the UK acted in effect as supranational hero Numero Uno, while selling national interests down the swanee, while France and Germany never did.
If you have a successful foreign policy it has to sell at home first and foremost. That’s where EU membership fell down. It can’t be revived. Finito. Bye-bye./
The UK post-Brexit role is ” to turn itself into a successful mid-sized power in the 21st: an Atlantic Japan or North Sea Israel. It must align with the US on core questions of national security, turning questions of global trade into wider questions of Western interests” Yep. Focus on the UK. Maximising its wealth and prosperity. Keep law and order. Scare the bleeding daylights out of any possible enemy, and make it well known that you defend minor interests, vis fishing. Encourage national champions, ditch all the Heathite supranationalism which meant that the UK acted in effect as supranational hero Numero Uno, while selling national interests down the swanee, while France and Germany never did.
If you have a successful foreign policy it has to sell at home first and foremost. That’s where EU membership fell down. It can’t be revived. Finito. Bye-bye./
The whole America/England relationship is amusing to me. In the states I think England is still viewed as a kind of a “Mother Country”, if you will. We pushed away to stand on our own, thank you very much, but still look round for your support and advice, like a spoiled, neurotic teenager lol. Sorry, but we’re your problem child. This is as opposed to Canada (always the goodie two-shoes oldest, eye roll) and Australia (the wild one youngest). I think the majority of Americans, if you were to ask, feel the same. Hence the interest in the English royal family, and the love in the US for the Queen in a grandmotherly way vs. any other country’s royalty. And the books and the films…I think it goes beyond the language, imo. It’s a deep rooted tie and in a strange way, a tie that never feels broken. At least it hasn’t been for centuries.
There’s something to what you say, but a serious foreign policy relationship is a continuation of ties forged since the summer of 1940, when the UK stood alone against Nazi Germany and the US, though officially neutral, decided to help. Once the US got into the war the free UK provided an allied base of operations without which we couldn’t have done a whole lot in Europe. The armies that organized and deployed from the UK and liberated western Europe were American, British and Canadian. At about the same time on the other side of the planet we and the Australians and New Zealanders needed each other to fight the Japanese and forged, if anything, even closer ties (the Australians and New Zealanders even stuck by us in Vietnam, while the British and Canadians did not). To this day the five of us are the Five Eyes when it comes to intelligence sharing. All in all we make a pretty good team.
There’s something to what you say, but a serious foreign policy relationship is a continuation of ties forged since the summer of 1940, when the UK stood alone against Nazi Germany and the US, though officially neutral, decided to help. Once the US got into the war the free UK provided an allied base of operations without which we couldn’t have done a whole lot in Europe. The armies that organized and deployed from the UK and liberated western Europe were American, British and Canadian. At about the same time on the other side of the planet we and the Australians and New Zealanders needed each other to fight the Japanese and forged, if anything, even closer ties (the Australians and New Zealanders even stuck by us in Vietnam, while the British and Canadians did not). To this day the five of us are the Five Eyes when it comes to intelligence sharing. All in all we make a pretty good team.
The whole America/England relationship is amusing to me. In the states I think England is still viewed as a kind of a “Mother Country”, if you will. We pushed away to stand on our own, thank you very much, but still look round for your support and advice, like a spoiled, neurotic teenager lol. Sorry, but we’re your problem child. This is as opposed to Canada (always the goodie two-shoes oldest, eye roll) and Australia (the wild one youngest). I think the majority of Americans, if you were to ask, feel the same. Hence the interest in the English royal family, and the love in the US for the Queen in a grandmotherly way vs. any other country’s royalty. And the books and the films…I think it goes beyond the language, imo. It’s a deep rooted tie and in a strange way, a tie that never feels broken. At least it hasn’t been for centuries.
A referendum on the popularity of the EU by voters within the EU would also embarrass Rejoiners. They loathe the EU as much as any Brexiteer, just as Eastern Europeans did over Soviet occupation.
A referendum on the popularity of the EU by voters within the EU would also embarrass Rejoiners. They loathe the EU as much as any Brexiteer, just as Eastern Europeans did over Soviet occupation.
Leave was always a coalition of anything is better than being in the EU believers and, given how rotten the EU as an institution had already become, it should not have been such a surprise to ordinary people that so many voted for it. There never was a clear vision of what either global or little Britain free of the EU actually meant. Those, like me, who voted Leave, trusted our politicians to respect the democratic decision and then work out something that did indeed make our lives better. Therein lies the big mistake, we were betrayed by our politicians, some of whom even now want Britain to fail so they can have the pleasure of saying we told you so.
Looking at what is happening in the EU, I really don’t see that we would have been any better off than we are now staying in. Some of that is down to circumstances we possibly could not have predicted. But with the German economy on the slide I see the EU becoming ever more fractious and the further from it we are (other side of the Atlantic or even in the Pacific) the better.
Brexit is for centuries, not just for a decade. Our Parliament is now, unambiguously, answerable only to the British electorate. So it’s up to us to improve the quality of our representatives.
Unless, of course, Sir Kier Starmer follows through on his ghastly idea of giving the vote to EU citizens who just happen to live here …
Brexit is for centuries, not just for a decade. Our Parliament is now, unambiguously, answerable only to the British electorate. So it’s up to us to improve the quality of our representatives.
Unless, of course, Sir Kier Starmer follows through on his ghastly idea of giving the vote to EU citizens who just happen to live here …
Leave was always a coalition of anything is better than being in the EU believers and, given how rotten the EU as an institution had already become, it should not have been such a surprise to ordinary people that so many voted for it. There never was a clear vision of what either global or little Britain free of the EU actually meant. Those, like me, who voted Leave, trusted our politicians to respect the democratic decision and then work out something that did indeed make our lives better. Therein lies the big mistake, we were betrayed by our politicians, some of whom even now want Britain to fail so they can have the pleasure of saying we told you so.
Looking at what is happening in the EU, I really don’t see that we would have been any better off than we are now staying in. Some of that is down to circumstances we possibly could not have predicted. But with the German economy on the slide I see the EU becoming ever more fractious and the further from it we are (other side of the Atlantic or even in the Pacific) the better.
It seems to me that the greatest qualification for being a trade partner is being an idealogical ally. From the American perspective, it is easier to envision win-win trade partnerships with the UK whereas those with the EU led by Germany or France feel like a stretch. In many ways, Americans respect and respond to British leadership as a peer no differently than East Coast, West Coast, Texans, mid-Westerners, etc., far more humble and realistic than EU Parliamentarian elites. The UK is far better off partnered with an idealogical ally in the US.
It seems to me that the greatest qualification for being a trade partner is being an idealogical ally. From the American perspective, it is easier to envision win-win trade partnerships with the UK whereas those with the EU led by Germany or France feel like a stretch. In many ways, Americans respect and respond to British leadership as a peer no differently than East Coast, West Coast, Texans, mid-Westerners, etc., far more humble and realistic than EU Parliamentarian elites. The UK is far better off partnered with an idealogical ally in the US.
Seems like the Brits are ahead of US in some important ways. They’re out in front of us in helping the Ukrainians and they keep forcing our hand, shaming us into doing more faster. And while we stupidly pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and just as stupidly refuse to rejoin, the UK is joining it, proving that the UK is more serious about counterbalancing Chinese economic power in the Pacific than us Yanks are. Some vassal.
The Ukrainian issue is YOUR proxy war against Russia. Britain should have no part in this debacle.
If you must troll Stoater, inprove your English usage.
Glad to help
There nothing wrong with my comment and it is not trolling.
You have been duped over this Ukraine conflict.
Oh yes there is.
Ask your tutor.
OK, I spotted the error. It’s called a typo.
I’m guessing that is a big victory for someone like you.
Your tutor spotted an error that no native speaker of English would have made in the first place.
It’s a typo and you know it.
Don’t be so disingenuous.
The Russians blew up a dam that was under Russian control. Maybe that was a typo as well, Vlad.
No, Zelenskyy did this in order to embezzle more money from the west. For you to accuse a native born Englishman of being a Russian is rather childish of you.
No, Zelenskyy did this in order to embezzle more money from the west. For you to accuse a native born Englishman of being a Russian is rather childish of you.
The Russians blew up a dam that was under Russian control. Maybe that was a typo as well, Vlad.
It’s a typo and you know it.
Don’t be so disingenuous.
Your tutor spotted an error that no native speaker of English would have made in the first place.
OK, I spotted the error. It’s called a typo.
I’m guessing that is a big victory for someone like you.
Oh yes there is.
Ask your tutor.
There nothing wrong with my comment and it is not trolling.
You have been duped over this Ukraine conflict.
If you must troll Stoater, inprove your English usage.
Glad to help
Well said Jim.
Why are we attempting to counterbalance Chinese power in the Pacific if we are not behaving as merely a vassal state of the US?
Old British imperial joke: The Chinese are threatening us Brits? Get a bigger map mate.
The Ukrainian issue is YOUR proxy war against Russia. Britain should have no part in this debacle.
Well said Jim.
Why are we attempting to counterbalance Chinese power in the Pacific if we are not behaving as merely a vassal state of the US?
Old British imperial joke: The Chinese are threatening us Brits? Get a bigger map mate.
Seems like the Brits are ahead of US in some important ways. They’re out in front of us in helping the Ukrainians and they keep forcing our hand, shaming us into doing more faster. And while we stupidly pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and just as stupidly refuse to rejoin, the UK is joining it, proving that the UK is more serious about counterbalancing Chinese economic power in the Pacific than us Yanks are. Some vassal.
We can be militarily aligned with the US without enthusiastically participating in all their ill-conceived foreign adventures.
And we shouldn’t forget that most of our economy is domestic. There’s lots we can do to boost productivity without sacrificing sovereignty in new trade agreements.
Let’s trade and cooperate with like-minded countries in our league (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan), rather than suck up further to the Americans.
It’s not worth paying attention to anyone who thinks “most favoured vassal” is the best we can aspire to.
Your last 3 paragraphs I agree with but paragraph 1, not so much.. I think, more than in any other sphere, you’ll have to kowtow militarily when Big Brother says so!
Your last 3 paragraphs I agree with but paragraph 1, not so much.. I think, more than in any other sphere, you’ll have to kowtow militarily when Big Brother says so!
We can be militarily aligned with the US without enthusiastically participating in all their ill-conceived foreign adventures.
And we shouldn’t forget that most of our economy is domestic. There’s lots we can do to boost productivity without sacrificing sovereignty in new trade agreements.
Let’s trade and cooperate with like-minded countries in our league (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan), rather than suck up further to the Americans.
It’s not worth paying attention to anyone who thinks “most favoured vassal” is the best we can aspire to.
Vassal State? I don’t think so. What Brexit has shown is that we are among the most free-thinking people on the planet. We just won’t do as we are told. By anyone. I think our current political status is a better fit for our national character than running some kind of empire or being run by one. It won’t make us rich but ultimately it might just make us happy.
All well and good provided you have enough to eat and are able to keep warm.
All well and good provided you have enough to eat and are able to keep warm.
Vassal State? I don’t think so. What Brexit has shown is that we are among the most free-thinking people on the planet. We just won’t do as we are told. By anyone. I think our current political status is a better fit for our national character than running some kind of empire or being run by one. It won’t make us rich but ultimately it might just make us happy.
‘If the disastrous handling of Brexit has achieved anything, it is to rob most Brits of any lingering aspirations to global power.’
Which ‘Brits’ with half a brain or the barest smattering of education imagined Britain HAD any ‘global power’ during our lifetimes? And why would Britain want the responsibility and expense?
Say it like it is Kate!
Say it like it is Kate!
‘If the disastrous handling of Brexit has achieved anything, it is to rob most Brits of any lingering aspirations to global power.’
Which ‘Brits’ with half a brain or the barest smattering of education imagined Britain HAD any ‘global power’ during our lifetimes? And why would Britain want the responsibility and expense?
The obvious problem in attempting to align with American plans is the terrifically inconsistent policy approaches depending upon which political party occupies the WH. The dramatic swings from left to right and back again have given Britain and others whiplash, eventually destabilizing alliances. I think Britain can only really benefit from the piecemeal steps.
Very much so. Here in UK we constantly place ourselves at the mercy of shifting US political opinion.
And can we please stop using the term “Special Relationship” There is no special relationship. British politicians adopted the term to disguise their own weakness. If you don’t believe me, find a US politician who uses the phrase in a non-derogatory manner, if they use it at all.
You should read the book The Real Special Relationship by Michael Smith. It makes the point that the intelligence sharing relationship that began in Bletchley Park in 1941 has continued unbroken to the present day despite disagreements between individual Prime Ministers and Presidents, despite Suez, despite the Cambridge spy ring. The special relationship is between the intelligence and military bureaucracies of the two countries. To put it bluntly, the USA trusts Britain in a way that it trusts no other country.
We still had to build our own BOMB from scratch.
We still had to build our own BOMB from scratch.
You should read the book The Real Special Relationship by Michael Smith. It makes the point that the intelligence sharing relationship that began in Bletchley Park in 1941 has continued unbroken to the present day despite disagreements between individual Prime Ministers and Presidents, despite Suez, despite the Cambridge spy ring. The special relationship is between the intelligence and military bureaucracies of the two countries. To put it bluntly, the USA trusts Britain in a way that it trusts no other country.
Very much so. Here in UK we constantly place ourselves at the mercy of shifting US political opinion.
And can we please stop using the term “Special Relationship” There is no special relationship. British politicians adopted the term to disguise their own weakness. If you don’t believe me, find a US politician who uses the phrase in a non-derogatory manner, if they use it at all.
The obvious problem in attempting to align with American plans is the terrifically inconsistent policy approaches depending upon which political party occupies the WH. The dramatic swings from left to right and back again have given Britain and others whiplash, eventually destabilizing alliances. I think Britain can only really benefit from the piecemeal steps.
“Brexit are beginning to morph into the very thing they have long accused their opponents of being: creatures trapped in nostalgic visions of a world that never existed.”
Clearly you have read things written by Brexiteers but I’m thinking you’ve never actually met any inside your bubble if you think “nostalga” is what drove Brexit.
“First came Aukus, the alliance between Britain, Australia and the United States that did so much to annoy the French.”
What an absurd article this is.
“Brexit are beginning to morph into the very thing they have long accused their opponents of being: creatures trapped in nostalgic visions of a world that never existed.”
Clearly you have read things written by Brexiteers but I’m thinking you’ve never actually met any inside your bubble if you think “nostalga” is what drove Brexit.
“First came Aukus, the alliance between Britain, Australia and the United States that did so much to annoy the French.”
What an absurd article this is.
A good foundation would be economic strength. Germany has been able to do pretty much what it wants, for better or worse, because it is the one of the largest exporters, with one of the largest trade surpluses, in the world.
A good foundation would be economic strength. Germany has been able to do pretty much what it wants, for better or worse, because it is the one of the largest exporters, with one of the largest trade surpluses, in the world.
Remainers see Brexit as a huge mistake by the UK. But of course the huge mistake was that of the EU (especially the Germans and French) in forcing Cameron and Osborne to beg concessions from Brussels and then denying them those concessions. Thus the EU lost a sixth of its population/GDP and created a major competitor on its doorstep. But that, as they say, is history.
Remainers see Brexit as a huge mistake by the UK. But of course the huge mistake was that of the EU (especially the Germans and French) in forcing Cameron and Osborne to beg concessions from Brussels and then denying them those concessions. Thus the EU lost a sixth of its population/GDP and created a major competitor on its doorstep. But that, as they say, is history.
Trade deals are overrated. Better to focus on productivity and organic growth. There are no free lunches. Deals should be flexible, to accommodate change without becoming self-harming prisons, whilst denoting preferred partners and being mutually rewarding – no binding nonsense.
Trade deals are overrated. Better to focus on productivity and organic growth. There are no free lunches. Deals should be flexible, to accommodate change without becoming self-harming prisons, whilst denoting preferred partners and being mutually rewarding – no binding nonsense.
From the Spectator today, on the Biden/Sunak “deal”: “British defence manufacturers will soon be counted as ‘domestic manufacturers’ for US procurement, and since the American arms budget is notorious for its profligacy (‘a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money’ as the saying goes) there will be even more money on the table. Of course, American taxpayers will have to pay for all that generosity to big corporations. But British ones won’t. True, it won’t transform the British economy, but it will help.” Why are we being so unquestioning, so pathetic?
How wonderful! More and more instruments of death and torture and mayhem and destruction! Happy days!
One of the best analysis of Brit options we’ve had for a while!!, great essay.
What a complete waste of time. Biden won’t even be around much longer, he belongs in a care home or better still a jail cell.
What a complete waste of time. Biden won’t even be around much longer, he belongs in a care home or better still a jail cell.
If the US hadn’t been pushing for eastern expansion of the EU (NATO had that covered) then maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Nothing to do with the eastern European countries actually wanting to join NATO then ? And who in their right mind wouldn’t given Russia’s current and historic behaviour ?
Or would you deny these countries any agency in their own futures ? Should they simply be buffer states or in the Russian sphere of influence because the Russian mindset is still stuck pre-19th century in such matters ?
No issue with the Eastern European countries becoming members of NATO, just not sure it was a good idea expanding the EU so quickly.
Britain was pushing for expansion of the EU – with the idea that enlarging the EU would make it hard to impossible to integrate too closely into a superstate.
Yes, both New Labour and the Conservatives were pushing it for different reasons. Many of the problems within the EU came about through this expansion (in my opinion), aided by the Global Financial Crash. It was probably a factor in Britain leaving the EU.
If you make decisions based on ideology rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones.
Might I amend that: “If you make decisions based on ideology or politics rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones” ?
Britain’s push for eastward EU expansion wasn’t based on ideology or strategy, but tactics and politics – there was little underlying belief in whether this was a good thing in itself and far more calculation about whether this might yield some short term advantage. That’s simply an observation – not a statement that eastward EU expansion was good or bad (my view being that it was good in principle, but poorly timed and implemented in some places – but not disastrously so).
Might I amend that: “If you make decisions based on ideology or politics rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones” ?
Britain’s push for eastward EU expansion wasn’t based on ideology or strategy, but tactics and politics – there was little underlying belief in whether this was a good thing in itself and far more calculation about whether this might yield some short term advantage. That’s simply an observation – not a statement that eastward EU expansion was good or bad (my view being that it was good in principle, but poorly timed and implemented in some places – but not disastrously so).
Yes, both New Labour and the Conservatives were pushing it for different reasons. Many of the problems within the EU came about through this expansion (in my opinion), aided by the Global Financial Crash. It was probably a factor in Britain leaving the EU.
If you make decisions based on ideology rather than praticality, expect them to be poor ones.
Apologies – I misread your comment.
No worries, I appreciate your comments and I do agree with them. I was clumsy with my language but I still feel that the expansion should have been organic, admitting that many countries and a new currency so quickly would have ramifications further along the line.
No worries, I appreciate your comments and I do agree with them. I was clumsy with my language but I still feel that the expansion should have been organic, admitting that many countries and a new currency so quickly would have ramifications further along the line.
Britain was pushing for expansion of the EU – with the idea that enlarging the EU would make it hard to impossible to integrate too closely into a superstate.
Apologies – I misread your comment.
No issue with the Eastern European countries becoming members of NATO, just not sure it was a good idea expanding the EU so quickly.
Nothing to do with the eastern European countries actually wanting to join NATO then ? And who in their right mind wouldn’t given Russia’s current and historic behaviour ?
Or would you deny these countries any agency in their own futures ? Should they simply be buffer states or in the Russian sphere of influence because the Russian mindset is still stuck pre-19th century in such matters ?
If the US hadn’t been pushing for eastern expansion of the EU (NATO had that covered) then maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I think it’s largely accepted, at least in the real world, that younger voters are turning away from the Tories, the party of Brexit, in droves, and that an increasing number of people see Brexit as a mistake.
This is largely because the economic benefits of leaving the EU proved illusory, and the kind of issues younger voters care about, whether affordable housing, education or childcare, good public services etc have not been competently handled over the last 13 years.
So the key question is surely not whether this pivot from Europe to the US makes strategic sense, or is the only post Brexit option, but whether it delivers the economic benefits which younger voters desire.
We should also remember that the US will always act in their own self interest, and that for the foreseeable future Europe will remain our most important trading partner, if only by reason of proximity. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be either-or.
Young people are always leftish in their youth and become more conservative as they grow older. Every election cycle people start saying that the Tories are doomed because of the youth vote. And then they win the next election.
We have only been out of the EU for 2 years, all of which time has been spent in the aftermath of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. I think it is a bit early to be looking for economic upsides from Brexit. We only concluded our first post-Brexit trade deals last week! Give it time.
The best thing we could do for younger people is help them to buy a house of their own. The best thing we could do to aid that is to reduce demand for housing by limiting net immigration. That is only possible because we are out of the EU.
I know the old Churchill saying, and maybe that was once true, but I doubt it is any more. The conservative option in this country is the Tory Party, or fringe parties to the right of them, and they really have nothing to offer younger voters, voters with children especially. This is not going to change before the next election, when the chaos of the reigns of Bad King Boris and Mad Queen Liz will still be fresh in everyone’s minds.
I was reading an account of Kemi Badenoch at the select committee defending her decision to dramatically scale back on the removal of the retained EU laws. While an eminently sensible decision I was not surprised to see her popularity had fallen among Tory members, who will ultimately pick the next leader. I may be wrong but I see a National Conservative ideologue being picked and a lurch to the right, making them unelectable for a time. Will voters then, who had never voted Tory return?
As for the concept of ‘give it time’, the sunlit uplands are just around the corner I think minds are already being made up. The ‘Hard Brexit’ driven by an opportunistic Johnson and the Brexit Elite was always going to be economically damaging in the short term, with no certainty it wouldn’t also be any better long term. It was always a minority project, and more popular with older voters, so once the perception of failure takes hold it’s a leap of faith to think younger people will change their minds down the line.
With immigration, I remember Farage talking about an Australian points style system, dependent on economic needs, which we have now and Daniel Hannan pointing out just days after the result was in that ‘taking back control’ didn’t mean there would automatically be less immigration. There is a trade off between immigration and economic need that was never spelt out, hence why some leaver voters feel betrayed.
But, who really knows, we’ll just have to see how it all plays out.
I can understand your frustration, and in many ways the Tory Party has been an utter disgrace in recent years.
It seems like only yesterday that it was mired in the ‘cash-for- questions’ debacle by such odious slime balls as the late Sir Michael Grylls & others, but is in fact 30 years!
However is the Labour really likely to do any better, tarnished as it is by a similar history?
No wonder most the ‘young’ I speak to have completely giving up on politics, the Monarchy, the Church of England and pretty much everything else.
Can one really blame them?
I can understand your frustration, and in many ways the Tory Party has been an utter disgrace in recent years.
It seems like only yesterday that it was mired in the ‘cash-for- questions’ debacle by such odious slime balls as the late Sir Michael Grylls & others, but is in fact 30 years!
However is the Labour really likely to do any better, tarnished as it is by a similar history?
No wonder most the ‘young’ I speak to have completely giving up on politics, the Monarchy, the Church of England and pretty much everything else.
Can one really blame them?
I know the old Churchill saying, and maybe that was once true, but I doubt it is any more. The conservative option in this country is the Tory Party, or fringe parties to the right of them, and they really have nothing to offer younger voters, voters with children especially. This is not going to change before the next election, when the chaos of the reigns of Bad King Boris and Mad Queen Liz will still be fresh in everyone’s minds.
I was reading an account of Kemi Badenoch at the select committee defending her decision to dramatically scale back on the removal of the retained EU laws. While an eminently sensible decision I was not surprised to see her popularity had fallen among Tory members, who will ultimately pick the next leader. I may be wrong but I see a National Conservative ideologue being picked and a lurch to the right, making them unelectable for a time. Will voters then, who had never voted Tory return?
As for the concept of ‘give it time’, the sunlit uplands are just around the corner I think minds are already being made up. The ‘Hard Brexit’ driven by an opportunistic Johnson and the Brexit Elite was always going to be economically damaging in the short term, with no certainty it wouldn’t also be any better long term. It was always a minority project, and more popular with older voters, so once the perception of failure takes hold it’s a leap of faith to think younger people will change their minds down the line.
With immigration, I remember Farage talking about an Australian points style system, dependent on economic needs, which we have now and Daniel Hannan pointing out just days after the result was in that ‘taking back control’ didn’t mean there would automatically be less immigration. There is a trade off between immigration and economic need that was never spelt out, hence why some leaver voters feel betrayed.
But, who really knows, we’ll just have to see how it all plays out.
Yeh, yeh, yeh. We’ve hear it all before and it’s bollox.
Young people are always leftish in their youth and become more conservative as they grow older. Every election cycle people start saying that the Tories are doomed because of the youth vote. And then they win the next election.
We have only been out of the EU for 2 years, all of which time has been spent in the aftermath of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. I think it is a bit early to be looking for economic upsides from Brexit. We only concluded our first post-Brexit trade deals last week! Give it time.
The best thing we could do for younger people is help them to buy a house of their own. The best thing we could do to aid that is to reduce demand for housing by limiting net immigration. That is only possible because we are out of the EU.
Yeh, yeh, yeh. We’ve hear it all before and it’s bollox.
I think it’s largely accepted, at least in the real world, that younger voters are turning away from the Tories, the party of Brexit, in droves, and that an increasing number of people see Brexit as a mistake.
This is largely because the economic benefits of leaving the EU proved illusory, and the kind of issues younger voters care about, whether affordable housing, education or childcare, good public services etc have not been competently handled over the last 13 years.
So the key question is surely not whether this pivot from Europe to the US makes strategic sense, or is the only post Brexit option, but whether it delivers the economic benefits which younger voters desire.
We should also remember that the US will always act in their own self interest, and that for the foreseeable future Europe will remain our most important trading partner, if only by reason of proximity. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be either-or.
OK, so can UK citizens now have unlimited rights to live and work in the USA?
One of the funny things about EU Freedom of Movement is that Brits never used it. With the exception of southern Spain (which took the place of South Africa in the 1990s), the list of top emigration destinations for Brits is the same in 2023 as it was in 1973:
1.Australia
2.Canada
3.USA
4.New Zealand
5. Spain
The recent Australian and NZ FTAs have started liberalising travel rules for British citizens. I think we might well end up with pretty freeish movement rules with the above countries.
The US might want to see us doing a better job of controlling our own borders before signing up to anything like that.
Not, of course, that they have their own borders under control.
Note: I found an interesting report on France having problems with small boat immigration from the Comoros Islands to Mayotte (part of metropolitan France in the Indian Ocean). And guess what – the French in Mayotte have sent the boats back ! Funnily enough you don’t read about it in the UK media.
Sadly the Indian Ocean is NOT the English Channel!
You’ll be thrilled to learn that the local human rights activists are all over the French actions in Mayotte.
But it is time someone here asked the French why if they can take that sort of action on the receiving end in Mayotte, they can’t do something similar on the sending end over at Calais. Sadly, there are too many people – in both France and Britain – who don’t want the problem to be solved.
I have some sympathy for the French. They don’t want these wretches either, and if they can cross France from the Italian border why not be shot of them?
Particularly as Les Anglais are too feeble to stop them.
I have some sympathy for the French. They don’t want these wretches either, and if they can cross France from the Italian border why not be shot of them?
Particularly as Les Anglais are too feeble to stop them.
You’ll be thrilled to learn that the local human rights activists are all over the French actions in Mayotte.
But it is time someone here asked the French why if they can take that sort of action on the receiving end in Mayotte, they can’t do something similar on the sending end over at Calais. Sadly, there are too many people – in both France and Britain – who don’t want the problem to be solved.
Sadly the Indian Ocean is NOT the English Channel!
The US might want to see us doing a better job of controlling our own borders before signing up to anything like that.
Not, of course, that they have their own borders under control.
Note: I found an interesting report on France having problems with small boat immigration from the Comoros Islands to Mayotte (part of metropolitan France in the Indian Ocean). And guess what – the French in Mayotte have sent the boats back ! Funnily enough you don’t read about it in the UK media.
Who cares about the desire of a tiny minority when considering the whole country. However, plenty do live and work in the US.
Irrelevant.
US citizens have no automatic right to live and work in the UK and nor do we in the US. If you can demonstrate your value to the US, you’ll be able to get the appropriate visa. What’s the problem with that ? It’s an arrangement which has worked for many decades.
However the US Embassy resolutely refuses to pay the London Congestion Charge, and thus is granted complete immunity from prosecution.
As are all foreign embassies!
I seem to recall they took their lead from the US.
I seem to recall they took their lead from the US.
Also irrelevant to the point under discussion !
Completely.
Completely.
As are all foreign embassies!
Also irrelevant to the point under discussion !
However the US Embassy resolutely refuses to pay the London Congestion Charge, and thus is granted complete immunity from prosecution.
One of the funny things about EU Freedom of Movement is that Brits never used it. With the exception of southern Spain (which took the place of South Africa in the 1990s), the list of top emigration destinations for Brits is the same in 2023 as it was in 1973:
1.Australia
2.Canada
3.USA
4.New Zealand
5. Spain
The recent Australian and NZ FTAs have started liberalising travel rules for British citizens. I think we might well end up with pretty freeish movement rules with the above countries.
Who cares about the desire of a tiny minority when considering the whole country. However, plenty do live and work in the US.
Irrelevant.
US citizens have no automatic right to live and work in the UK and nor do we in the US. If you can demonstrate your value to the US, you’ll be able to get the appropriate visa. What’s the problem with that ? It’s an arrangement which has worked for many decades.
OK, so can UK citizens now have unlimited rights to live and work in the USA?
The Brexit war is over. All that remains is bitterness. Brexiteers love that
Nope! I voted for Brexit and I don’t love bitternes (or experience it, come to that). A lot of Remainers, on the other hand, are still seething with resentment that the masses didn’t do what the experts told them to.
_________________________________________
Wow! I managed to get a comment past reCaptcha! Every other article on this site has been blocking me for the past 3-4 hours. UnHerd ‘Help’ is no help at all!
Happens to me. I usually find that I have Unherd open in two browsers simultaneously. Close one down and reload the one that you are using.
Happens to me. I usually find that I have Unherd open in two browsers simultaneously. Close one down and reload the one that you are using.
No we don’t.
The bitterness comes from the remain side.
That is a silly comment Adrian, I’m an enthusiastic Brexiteer and feel no animosity towards Remainers (which include most of my friends and family). I think it is good that he heat has finally gone out of the debate and people can start to assess the best next steps for the country.
Nope! I voted for Brexit and I don’t love bitternes (or experience it, come to that). A lot of Remainers, on the other hand, are still seething with resentment that the masses didn’t do what the experts told them to.
_________________________________________
Wow! I managed to get a comment past reCaptcha! Every other article on this site has been blocking me for the past 3-4 hours. UnHerd ‘Help’ is no help at all!
No we don’t.
The bitterness comes from the remain side.
That is a silly comment Adrian, I’m an enthusiastic Brexiteer and feel no animosity towards Remainers (which include most of my friends and family). I think it is good that he heat has finally gone out of the debate and people can start to assess the best next steps for the country.
The Brexit war is over. All that remains is bitterness. Brexiteers love that
The clear undercurrent to the Article is the EU with the UK was stronger, and, importantly, vice versa. The Author confirms that’s the view of the US too and that counts. They still listen to us but we don’t carry quite the influence we had. Alas that is now gone for a generation at least.
The Japan or Israel models may have something about them, albeit as noted both rely heavily on the US.
The UK was never a vassal state in the EU. It was one of the leaders and in fact probably that role would have further strengthened with Ukraine and some of the emerging right of centre European Govts. The obvious outcome is we are much more a vassal of the US when alone and that is the core of this Article.
There is no doubt the US is driving a ‘which side are you on?’ vault-line internationally regarding China. Europe would prefer to avoid this and will look for some ambiguity but if pressed will fall in line with US. AUKUS aside the rest of the world will look to avoid the choice and that will frustrate the US. The UK will be in no position but to hug close to the US and thus inevitably risk the economic consequences of de-coupling/de-risking of China trade. The US can handle that risk, but we can’t so easily and even more so given Brexit. So this tension is set to cause serious foreign policy consternation for some time in the UK. There can be no doubt we’d have been better placed to navigate these coming storms leading Europe which was ours for the taking.
Nonsense JW.
Sitting on the fence and hoping for the best with China is not an answer. That’s ultimately just appeasement and avoiding facing up to tough decisions. But that’s the European way. Not culturally our way though. As our gut response to Covid and Ukraine tells us.
You do realise that in arguing for Britain to be in the EU, you are at the same time arguing for Britain to the the US puppet at the EU. That – as the article states – is the reason some in the US wanted us to be in the EU. Despite the EU being an organisation the US themselves wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.
By accepting this premise of the article, you are endorsing the UK’s role as a vassal of the US in the EU.
In reality we have never been and will not be a vassal state. Where is the evidence that we do not and cannot make our own decisions ? Are countries like Switzerland considered to be “vassal states” ?
There are no “leaders” in the EU. It’s a slow moving, clumsy, inefficient and partly corrupt bureaucracy which is incapable of reform or adaptation (or completing basic accounts).
Suggest one vassal state in the EU is Republic of Ireland. A vassal state of the US now in the hands of the US transnationals but this due to end with EU interference on the way transnationals payor don’t pay corporation taxes. EU is by nature controlling and look at the way Geermany became dependent on Russia for energy while not developing nuclear power. Merkel’s doing.
Not convinced. Though I’d like to be.
Ireland has done spectacularly well out of its tax arbitrage operations (that’s what it is after all) – it’s effectively the EU’s biggest tax haven, surpassing Luxemburg. Perhaps the Dutch are also on the scoreboard here.
I’ve never understood why the EU puts up with this. But there must be some reason as it’s been tolerated for so long – and allowed to grow – and I’m not convinced it’ll be wound up any time soon (though I think it should be).
Note also how Ireland and Luxemburg spend <1% of GDP on defence. Lowest spenders out there. Not only are they facilitating tax dodging and unfairly competing with other countries for foreign investment, they’re also freeloading on defence.
Not convinced. Though I’d like to be.
Ireland has done spectacularly well out of its tax arbitrage operations (that’s what it is after all) – it’s effectively the EU’s biggest tax haven, surpassing Luxemburg. Perhaps the Dutch are also on the scoreboard here.
I’ve never understood why the EU puts up with this. But there must be some reason as it’s been tolerated for so long – and allowed to grow – and I’m not convinced it’ll be wound up any time soon (though I think it should be).
Note also how Ireland and Luxemburg spend <1% of GDP on defence. Lowest spenders out there. Not only are they facilitating tax dodging and unfairly competing with other countries for foreign investment, they’re also freeloading on defence.
Suggest one vassal state in the EU is Republic of Ireland. A vassal state of the US now in the hands of the US transnationals but this due to end with EU interference on the way transnationals payor don’t pay corporation taxes. EU is by nature controlling and look at the way Geermany became dependent on Russia for energy while not developing nuclear power. Merkel’s doing.
Nonsense JW.
Sitting on the fence and hoping for the best with China is not an answer. That’s ultimately just appeasement and avoiding facing up to tough decisions. But that’s the European way. Not culturally our way though. As our gut response to Covid and Ukraine tells us.
You do realise that in arguing for Britain to be in the EU, you are at the same time arguing for Britain to the the US puppet at the EU. That – as the article states – is the reason some in the US wanted us to be in the EU. Despite the EU being an organisation the US themselves wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.
By accepting this premise of the article, you are endorsing the UK’s role as a vassal of the US in the EU.
In reality we have never been and will not be a vassal state. Where is the evidence that we do not and cannot make our own decisions ? Are countries like Switzerland considered to be “vassal states” ?
There are no “leaders” in the EU. It’s a slow moving, clumsy, inefficient and partly corrupt bureaucracy which is incapable of reform or adaptation (or completing basic accounts).
The clear undercurrent to the Article is the EU with the UK was stronger, and, importantly, vice versa. The Author confirms that’s the view of the US too and that counts. They still listen to us but we don’t carry quite the influence we had. Alas that is now gone for a generation at least.
The Japan or Israel models may have something about them, albeit as noted both rely heavily on the US.
The UK was never a vassal state in the EU. It was one of the leaders and in fact probably that role would have further strengthened with Ukraine and some of the emerging right of centre European Govts. The obvious outcome is we are much more a vassal of the US when alone and that is the core of this Article.
There is no doubt the US is driving a ‘which side are you on?’ vault-line internationally regarding China. Europe would prefer to avoid this and will look for some ambiguity but if pressed will fall in line with US. AUKUS aside the rest of the world will look to avoid the choice and that will frustrate the US. The UK will be in no position but to hug close to the US and thus inevitably risk the economic consequences of de-coupling/de-risking of China trade. The US can handle that risk, but we can’t so easily and even more so given Brexit. So this tension is set to cause serious foreign policy consternation for some time in the UK. There can be no doubt we’d have been better placed to navigate these coming storms leading Europe which was ours for the taking.