The UKs place in the world

darkman2

Hi, this question has been popping up ever more frequently over recent years imparticular - what in modern times is the UKs role in world affairs. Our nearest neighbour has always been a major player on the international stage, from the time of the Empire to the present day and willl continue to have a big role. However it is obvious that its influence is diminishing and if anything its become unsure of what its place is in the world. This can be typified in the Iraq war - did the British really have any basis for following the Americans in there? Who has it benefited? The Americans are taking the lions share of the lucrative oil contracts and construction contracts with the British left effectively with the scraps. Has it enhanced Britains reputation on the world stage? - I would seriously doubt it.:(

The commonwealth, that proud institution, a remnant of the empire has turned into a complete joke. The vast majority of the countries in its ranks can only be described as despotic states. The Austrailians are on the verge of pulling out of this farce, waking up to the fact that a Queen of an Island 1000s of miles away shouldnt have anything to do with their affairs.:mad:

The falklands war though was probrably the starting point for this new uncertainty. Britian, a country thousands of miles from a group of Islands off Argentina sent a display of military might to the region to prevent the Argentinians from maintaining control of their newly taken prize.......for what. A few rocks? It pushed the UKs military capabilities to the limit and all just for pride. This was empire mentality at its worst. The British though thought it was great, the rest of the world felt it was childish.

Now take the French and Germans for example - two countries far bigger then the UK who had the guts to deny the Americans their support, economic consequences or no economic consequences they said no in Iraq. I ridiculed the French and Germans for that at the time but in retropect who are the bigger fools now? - 'The Americans and their lapdogs the British'. All of us who supported the war have to hold our hands up now and say it was a mistake.:(

The UK also has to tackle one of its biggest scourages - nationalism. On the rise across many commonwealth countries, it is also on the rise in the UK itself. The Scottish are only now realising that they have been taken for fools over their oil reserves - repeatedly lied too over a commodity that would have made them rich. This is just one of many reasons the UK as an entitiy may be closer to disintegration then we think. It is no coincidence that Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff are among the most deprived cities in Europe, the money inevitably was centralised in Southeast England. Ireland of course is proving to the regions of the UK that economic arguments against independence are completely false. Proper economic management could see these regions sustain themselves. I reckon if Scotland left the UK the rest would be dissolved very quickly. :rolleyes:

So what is the role for the UK these days? World policeman? - They dont have the resources. A peacekeeping nation? They still have that WW2 complex. Economic superiority? - Hardly. At the centre of the EU? No, they seem in general to be probrably the most anti of all EU populations.

What do you think?:)

New_Departure06

The UK's modern role is to be a puppet of the US in international affairs, and a semi-detached member of the EU. I don't think they will leave the EU but I expect relations between the UK and the EU to get much worse under a Cameron Tory govt.

darkman2

New_Departure06 wrote:

The UK's modern role is to be a puppet of the US in international affairs, and a semi-detached member of the EU. I don't think they will leave the EU but I expect relations between the UK and the EU to get much worse under a Cameron Tory govt.

It wasnt always like that though. I actually think that the reputation the UK now has i.e When the Americans say jump - how high? is the most unfortunate episode in a nation that has a proud history. Its stance on Europe in general is bizarre - When asked in the commons why Ireland was getting so much US investment, Gordon Brown the would-be prime minister siad it is because 'Ireland is so heavily subsidised by the EU'. Nothing to do of course with our tax policies as against there outdated model! In a way claiming that the UK is effectively funding the new member states. So is practically every other nation for goodness sake! Their place in Europe is even uncertain, lambasting the Euro and any attempt to make the running of the EU more efficient because they feel it undermines their sovereignty.

arbeitsscheuer

Actually the UK had a good plan for its role in the world following the Second World War, when their fall from the status of Global Power was more or less complete. At the end of the war, the superpowers were USA and USSR, Great Britain's empire could no longer be sustained, and militarily and economically the country was clearly going to be eclipsed by said superpowers.

So, they divised an approach to international relations, and "Britain's place in the world", which Churchill called the "Three Circles Approach".

Essentially, the UK would become the world's moderator, if you like. It would act as a sort of negotiator between three pillars: The United States, the newly developing European Economic Community (ECSC I think it was at the time), and of course, their own Commonwealth. Each "Circle" was to be given equal priority to every other "Circle".

Of course, over time, this didn't pan out the way Churchill had wished. Rapidly, the "Special Relationship" eclipsed the other Circles, and Britain became more-or-less a stooge to the US; politically, militarily and even economically.

Dirk Gently

At the moment they're just another state of the U.S. in all but name.

They were once the major power in the world and the only way they have of maintaining that mentality is to blindly ally themselves with America. There is a national identity crisis in the UK and they must accept that they are no longer an empire with major influence on world affairs or they will just be seen as the pet poodle of America. If they accept their place in the international community as a nation among equals I feel their national identity would benefit greatly but to brown nose the real superpower they are just prostituting themselves in a futile attempt of not letting go of the past and accepting the realities of the present international climate.

I think what I described above would represent more the state and leaders in the UK more than the citizens though. Not so sure if Scotland and Wales would benefit economically from a split, even though their resources are benefiting the south east of England at the moment. Ireland had a rocky road after independence and it has taken a long time to stand on our own feet economically.

I hope for the sake of the people in the UK that they can declare their independence from America and take pride in making their own mark on the world through diplomacy and leading the way in combating climate change. These would be better goals for a proud nation than blindly following the worlds military superpower in the hope of getting thrown scraps from the spoils of war.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

Actually the UK had a good plan for its role in the world following the Second World War, when their fall from the status of Global Power was more or less complete. At the end of the war, the superpowers were USA and USSR, Great Britain's empire could no longer be sustained, and militarily and economically the country was clearly going to be eclipsed by said superpowers.

So, they divised an approach to international relations, and "Britain's place in the world", which Churchill called the "Three Circles Approach".

Essentially, the UK would become the world's moderator, if you like. It would act as a sort of negotiator between three pillars: The United States, the newly developing European Economic Community (ECSC I think it was at the time), and of course, their own Commonwealth. Each "Circle" was to be given equal priority to every other "Circle".

Of course, over time, this didn't pan out the way Churchill had wished. Rapidly, the "Special Relationship" eclipsed the other Circles, and Britain became more-or-less a stooge to the US; politically, militarily and even economically.

Thats a good point there about being 'the worlds moderator' however as you say it looks like that fell flat on its face. In terms of the EEC, it is often convienently forgotten by the British when they target the EU for their ills, that they were, in fact a poor country when they entered it. I reckon it has benefitted them so much that pulling out is impossible. Theyd lose access to markets and would be on their own.

lostexpectation

i don't know Im continuely realising (and its the only thing I agree with you about) is the the UK is less important then they think they are, and less important they we think they are...

this informed by finding out that Spain used to rule the Netherlands...:eek:

Its just their Monarchy was the strongest most recently, all the other European France, Spain, Germany are no better.

Yes England is now US' bitch... that's key to there existance, but sure we're anybodies.

A Dub in Glasgo

darkman2 wrote:

It wasnt always like that though. I actually think that the reputation the UK now has i.e When the Americans say jump - how high? is the most unfortunate episode in a nation that has a proud history..

A lot in that history is not very proud at all, in fact, it is shameful

I remember reading a book about 22 years ago about how Britian was an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the US. So being in the back of the US pocket is nothing new.

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So being in the back of the US pocket is nothing new.

Seemingly, neither are wide-ranging stereotypes or oversimplifications. But I guess we all knew that already too, right?

homah_7ft

I see a lot of the responses question the military alliance of Britain with the US and them being described as lapdogs. I would like to point out that this is also true of the rest of the EU. It has no ability to stand on it's on feet militarily and we live tacitly under the umbrella of American military spending.

I would see Britain's placement next to America as a reasonable policy at this moment. A lot is said about the future emergence of China as a new superpower but it's not a certainty by any means. It would also be a less convincing ally given the cultural differences between China and Britain. On that note I would suggest that a likey future ally for Britain might, more likely, be India.

Britain has one foot in each of the most powerful camps on the world stage. It, no matter what the internal posturings, is a central member of the EU. An EU without Britain would be severely weakened and vice versa.

For a good indication of the strength of Britain in the world compare it to France. Close in history, population and wealth. France has much less clout when it comes to world politics due to its leaders tendency to distance itself from America.

lostexpectation

homah_7ft wrote:

I see a lot of the responses question the military alliance of Britain with the US and them being described as lapdogs. I would like to point out that this is also true of the rest of the EU. It has no ability to stand on it's on feet militarily and we live tacitly under the umbrella of American military spending.

I would see Britain's placement next to America as a reasonable policy at this moment. A lot is said about the future emergence of China as a new superpower but it's not a certainty by any means. It would also be a less convincing ally given the cultural differences between China and Britain. On that note I would suggest that a likey future ally for Britain might, more likely, be India.

Britain has one foot in each of the most powerful camps on the world stage. It, no matter what the internal posturings, is a central member of the EU. An EU without Britain would be severely weakened and vice versa.

For a good indication of the strength of Britain in the world compare it to France. Close in history, population and wealth. France has much less clout when it comes to world politics due to its leaders tendency to distance itself from America.

How many French went to the new world compared to the English?

Parsley

darkman2 wrote:

The falklands war though was probrably the starting point for this new uncertainty. Britian, a country thousands of miles from a group of Islands off Argentina sent a display of military might to the region to prevent the Argentinians from maintaining control of their newly taken prize.......for what. A few rocks? It pushed the UKs military capabilities to the limit and all just for pride. This was empire mentality at its worst. The British though thought it was great, the rest of the world felt it was childish.

The funny thing about that is that they won only by sheer fluke. A couple of unlucky misses by argentine aircraft would have, had they hit, weakened the fleet's air defence sufficiently to allow subsequent attacks to sink or damage the british carriers. Britain almost defeated by Argentina.... priceless:rolleyes:

Dirk Gently

Britain almost besmirched by the Argies, utter folly old boy.

homah_7ft

lostexpectation wrote:

How many French went to the new world compared to the English?

Greater numbers of British went to the new world compared to the French. I don't really see the relevence of this.

darkman2

Parsley wrote:

The funny thing about that is that they won only by sheer fluke. A couple of unlucky misses by argentine aircraft would have, had they hit, weakened the fleet's air defence sufficiently to allow subsequent attacks to sink or damage the british carriers. Britain almost defeated by Argentina.... priceless:rolleyes:

Indeed, the victory over Argentina wasnt so clear cut as we would be led to believe. Having said that Argentina was really a weak target for the British. If the Americans had of decided they liked the Islands what would the British have done then.............

murphaph

This is one lame thread tbh. It seems to have been created solely to do some brit-bashing. Many events in many nation's pasts are shameful by today's standards or even by the standards of the day). People here seem quite at ease to slag modern day britain off because of events in her past yet wouldn't dream of doing the same to the likes of Germany or Spain or portugal or Belgium (all nasty imperialists, particularly cute little Belgium whom a hero to many here (Casement) reported were absolute tyrants in the Congo).

Anyways, looking at modern day UK, they are US lapdogs, of course, as are most of the western world, INCLUDING US! We are happy to let the US use Shannon, to take US FDI, to fall over orselves getting to ashington for paddies day etc. etc. We're no better and no worse than the UK, we just support the US in a more 'sly' way than actually sending troops into combat with them.

he UK is an incredibly important nation in the EU, let no-one forget that. They have always been large net-contributors compared to say France (and of course ourselves). UK taxpayers' money has built many a road scheme in Ireland and beyond. Compared to nations such as France and Ireland (which suck up CAP handouts like a sponge) the UK is positively pro-European. i wonder how pro-European we'd have been down these years if we hadn't been getting billions each year form them?

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

This is one lame thread tbh. It seems to have been created solely to do some brit-bashing.

I see nothing wrong with this thread.
It's thought out,it contains opinions(which apparently diverge from your own) and is fairly well put together.

So please do not be so disparaging.

darkman2

murphaph wrote:

This is one lame thread tbh. It seems to have been created solely to do some brit-bashing. Many events in many nation's pasts are shameful by today's standards or even by the standards of the day). People here seem quite at ease to slag modern day britain off because of events in her past yet wouldn't dream of doing the same to the likes of Germany or Spain or portugal or Belgium (all nasty imperialists, particularly cute little Belgium whom a hero to many here (Casement) reported were absolute tyrants in the Congo).

Anyways, looking at modern day UK, they are US lapdogs, of course, as are most of the western world, INCLUDING US! We are happy to let the US use Shannon, to take US FDI, to fall over orselves getting to ashington for paddies day etc. etc. We're no better and no worse than the UK, we just support the US in a more 'sly' way than actually sending troops into combat with them.

he UK is an incredibly important nation in the EU, let no-one forget that. They have always been large net-contributors compared to say France (and of course ourselves). UK taxpayers' money has built many a road scheme in Ireland and beyond. Compared to nations such as France and Ireland (which suck up CAP handouts like a sponge) the UK is positively pro-European. i wonder how pro-European we'd have been down these years if we hadn't been getting billions each year form them?

Hi Murphaph

Thats a good and valid point about the contribution the UK make to the EU. Obviously id dispute your assertion this is a 'brit bashing' thread. On the EU, the UK has a troubled relationship with the EU at the moment. (I note you left out the rebate in your comments on the funding) If they felt the EU was that important they would have joined the Euro, taken a risk like the rest of us did. They didnt. That was at the behest of, not the government but the population. They are in my view one of the most Anti EU countries. As has been mentioned in another post, if the Tories get in next time around the relationship may change.

bk

Parsley wrote:

The funny thing about that is that they won only by sheer fluke. A couple of unlucky misses by argentine aircraft would have, had they hit, weakened the fleet's air defence sufficiently to allow subsequent attacks to sink or damage the british carriers. Britain almost defeated by Argentina.... priceless:rolleyes:

Except for the three British Submarines in the area that were carrying ICBM's (nuclear missiles). Britain wasn't going to lose the war either way.

Also the US were preparing to jump in and support the UK if they got in trouble.
The US was very worried that if the UK lost, it would send all the wrong signals to the Soviet Union about the ability of the US partners.

The Falklands has caused a major change in British military planing, they are now building full size aircraft carriers to replace their old mini carriers, this will give them far greater capability to project force over very long distances, just like the US.

Pazaz 21

bk wrote:

Except for the three British Submarines in the area that were carrying ICBM's (nuclear missiles). Britain wasn't going to lose the war either way.

They were going to nuke Argentina :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: !!!!!!!!

darkman2

bk wrote:

Except for the three British Submarines in the area that were carrying ICBM's (nuclear missiles). Britain wasn't going to lose the war either way.

Also the US were preparing to jump in and support the UK if they got in trouble.
The US was very worried that if the UK lost, it would send all the wrong signals to the Soviet Union about the ability of the US partners.

The Falklands has caused a major change in British military planing, they are now building full size aircraft carriers to replace their old mini carriers, this will give them far greater capability to project force over very long distances, just like the US.

With respect, If that is true about the ICBMs, which I suspect it isnt, the US would have demanded that the Britsh withdraw immediately. If it is true they would have gotten an ear full from the Americans. They'd never of tolerated that sort aggression from any state. Anyhow that was very much Britians war with the rest of the world sitting back, making up their own mind as to whether it was justified or not.

On the Aircraft carriers, they have 3 'invincible' class Aircraft carriers.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

On the Aircraft carriers, they have 3 'invincible' class Aircraft carriers.

In the coming decade 3 full sized ~50,000 Tonne aircraft carriers will be built on a Thales (French) design with 2 going to the UK and 1 going to France.

The British versions will be flying F-35's with VTOL(Harrier type launch) capability and the French will fly catapult assisted aircraft just like the US.

All 3 will be non-nuclear as well.

Those Invincible carriers were originally crusiers as the last time they were to build a full sized aircraft carrier the project was scrapped leaving a very sour taste about future aircraft carrier projects.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

With respect, If that is true about the ICBMs, which I suspect it isnt, the US would have demanded that the Britsh withdraw immediately. If it is true they would have gotten an ear full from the Americans. They'd never of tolerated that sort aggression from any state. Anyhow that was very much Britians war with the rest of the world sitting back, making up their own mind as to whether it was justified or not.

You should also remember that those Trident launchers on the UK's 4 nuclear ICBM submarines are US property and only rented to the Uk but carry UK warheads...which are esentially US warheads as they have developed Nuclear weapons in conjunction with the US since the UK tested its Fusion warheads in the 50's(mabye 60's?) in Australia.

Effectively through NATO the US have a veto on whether or not the UK can launch those Tridents....Franch is not part of that veto as it opted out of it in the 60's or similar which is why the NATO headquaters are now in Belgium and not the original home of France!

In terms of the Military there is no way in hell the British will ever give up their "Special Relationship" with the US....not a chance of it!

darkman2

zuma wrote:

You should also remember that those Trident launchers on the UK's 4 nuclear ICBM submarines are US property and only rented to the Uk but carry UK warheads...which are esentially US warheads as they have developed Nuclear weapons in conjunction with the US since the UK tested its Fusion warheads in the 50's(mabye 60's?) in Australia.

Effectively through NATO the US have a veto on whether or not the UK can launch those Tridents....Franch is not part of that veto as it opted out of it in the 60's or similar which is why the NATO headquaters are now in Belgium and not the original home of France!

In terms of the Military there is no way in hell the British will ever give up their "Special Relationship" with the US....not a chance of it!

So effectively the British Navy will have 2 optimum use aircraft carriers without the nuclear capability. The harriers are being taken out of service aswell to be replaced by the hillariously overpriced Eurofighter. They definatley got a bad deal there. I suppose for the carriers its a good compromise as it actually increases their Naval and Air support ability. I agree with you aswell that I no longer see the British military as a stand alone force, rather an extension of the US military. In fairness in terms of their stragtegic interests it is the best ally to have.

lostexpectation

homah_7ft wrote:

Greater numbers of British went to the new world compared to the French. I don't really see the relevence of this.

I was responding becuase you said this.

For a good indication of the strength of Britain in the world compare it to France. Close in history, population and wealth. France has much less clout when it comes to world politics due to its leaders tendency to distance itself from America.

Do you not think these greater numbers led to a significant difference in the connection between Britain and USA and French and USA.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

So effectively the British Navy will have 2 optimum use aircraft carriers without the nuclear capability.

Yes. But non nuclear is better when you have only 2 as refueling and such takes a long time and this might happen when one breaks down leaving you with no carriers at all!!!

darkman2 wrote:

The harriers are being taken out of service aswell to be replaced by the hillariously overpriced Eurofighter. They definatley got a bad deal there.

Eurofighter is not replacing the Harier...the F-35 is.
When compared to fighters of similar capability...the F-22 for example or the Japanese equiv of the F-16 its actually fairly good value but of limited usage!

darkman2 wrote:

I agree with you aswell that I no longer see the British military as a stand alone force, rather an extension of the US military. In fairness in terms of their stragtegic interests it is the best ally to have.

In terms of Economics the UK relies on the EU, for Military its the US and for international affairs they appear to court the commonwealth when it suits them...ie Africa.
The problem is that it believes it can use each as it wishes....but it cant.
Sometime in the future it will have to make a choice between being European or American as the UK will only get weaker on its own in the decades to come!

darkman2

zuma wrote:

Yes. But non nuclear is better when you have only 2 as refueling and such takes a long time and this might happen when one breaks down leaving you with no carriers at all!!!

Eurofighter is not replacing the Harier...the F-35 is.
When compared to fighters of similar capability...the F-22 for example or the Japanese equiv of the F-16 its actually fairly good value but of limited usage!

In terms of Economics the UK relies on the EU, for Military its the US and for international affairs they appear to court the commonwealth when it suits them...ie Africa.
The problem is that it believes it can use each as it wishes....but it cant.
Sometime in the future it will have to make a choice between being European or American as the UK will only get weaker on its own in the decades to come!

Oh rite, I thought
it was the harrier. So what is Eurofighter replacing?

The commonwealth IMO is a bit of a joke, I mean look at some of its member states.

zuma

darkman2 wrote:

Oh rite, I thought
it was the harrier. So what is Eurofighter replacing?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html
The Jaguar and Tornado.....which were incidently also developed with French and german co-operation!

darkman2 wrote:

The commonwealth IMO is a bit of a joke, I mean look at some of its member states.

With the exception of Canada/Australia/New Zealand Im not too impressed with the 50 or so other members.

Its only a talking shop after all and its importance is merely ceremonial.

When Ireland left it in ~1949 it was a bad idea as there was no alternative and we probable lost some markets due to leaving....but now we are part of the EU so in comparison its an utter joke allright.

Recently I think Eamon O'Cuiv(might have the wrong name!) proposed we re-enter the Commonwealth so as to appease the Unionists....but other than that it serves NO PURPOSE.

If it wasnt a representation of the last vestiges of Empire then I think the British would laugh and jeer at it constantly!!!

piraka

darkman2 wrote:

The falklands war though was probrably the starting point for this new uncertainty. Britian, a country thousands of miles from a group of Islands off Argentina sent a display of military might to the region to prevent the Argentinians from maintaining control of their newly taken prize.......for what. A few rocks? It pushed the UKs military capabilities to the limit and all just for pride. This was empire mentality at its worst. The British though thought it was great, the rest of the world felt it was childish.

With a 200nm exclusive fishing zone and rights to the Malvinas continental shelf, it was not a crazy adventure after all. The few rocks could be worth a lot.

http://www.falklandislands.com/business/mineral_res.asp

The battle for the Malvinas was a no contest engagement for the British despite the best efforts of the Argentinean Air Force. The Argentinean ground forces were made up entirely of conscripts.

Islas Malvinas por siempre Argentina

arbeitsscheuer

In any case, from a purely democratic point of view, Britain had to go to war.
All the inhabitants of the Falklands regarded themselves as British, and as such the UK had an obligation to send a military force 8,000 miles to take it back.

1,800 people lived on the islands, and had been of "traditional British stock" (BBC's words) for over 150 years.

Given how poorly prepared Britain's military was to fight such a war, so far from the British Isles and within range of an intimidating Argentine fleet and Air Force, Thatcher's unilateral decision to fight for the Falklands is, in fact, her government's finest hour. Not to mention a decision which would her the subsequent general election in Britain!:D

Defence officials and experts feared the islands could not be retaken. It is a tribute to the Royal Navy and British Army that they were proved wrong.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

In any case, from a purely democratic point of view, Britain had to go to war.
All the inhabitants of the Falklands regarded themselves as British, and as such the UK had an obligation to send a military force 8,000 miles to take it back.

1,800 people lived on the islands, and had been of "traditional British stock" (BBC's words) for over 150 years.

Given how poorly prepared Britain's military was to fight such a war, so far from the British Isles and within range of an intimidating Argentine fleet and Air Force, Thatcher's unilateral decision to fight for the Falklands is, in fact, her government's finest hour. Not to mention a decision which would her the subsequent general election in Britain!:D

Defence officials and experts feared the islands could not be retaken. It is a tribute to the Royal Navy and British Army that they were proved wrong.

Remember the propaganda machine that was going on all the time from British TV? Dont believe everything you heard. Was there ever a democratic vote taken on the status of these Islands by its inhabitants - in keeping with British tradition I would hazard a guess - no.