The UKs place in the world

A Dub in Glasgo

SebtheBum wrote:

in fact, her government's finest hour.

Considering it included the warcrime inflicted on the Belgrano, that was no great acheivement

arbeitsscheuer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Considering it included the warcrime inflicted on the Belgrano, that was no great acheivement

lollers... Warcrime? Last time I checked, the Belgrano was an Argentine naval vessel, and in fact was also carrying Exocet missiles as well. Oh, and we were at war.

Warcrime, right...:rolleyes:

Granted, it wasn't anything to be exceptionally proud of or anything, but given some of the posts about the war here, you'd think that; a) the UK was acting like a big evil imperialist against the poor, dispossessed people's of Argentina, and b) the UK were a shoe-in to win anyway, and only came close to losing because its military was incompetent.

Oh, and as for this:

darkman2 wrote:

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.

Well... That's just insane mate. Got much of a chip on your shoulder? By the sounds of that post I'd say you do. Seriously, cop the f**k on.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

lollers... Warcrime? Last time I checked, the Belgrano was an Argentine naval vessel, and in fact was also carrying Exocet missiles as well. Oh, and we were at war.

Warcrime, right...:rolleyes:

Granted, it wasn't anything to be exceptionally proud of or anything, but given some of the posts about the war here, you'd think that; a) the UK was acting like a big evil imperialist against the poor, dispossessed people's of Argentina, and b) the UK were a shoe-in to win anyway, and only came close to losing because its military was incompetent.

Oh, and as for this:

Well... That's just insane mate. Got much of a chip on your shoulder? By the sounds of that post I'd say you do. Seriously, cop the f**k on.

I assure you Ive no chip on my shoulder and Im very serious. The Argentinian military at the time was defunct, bankrupted and corrupt. Which member of the Royal family was it who happened to be 'involved' in that 'war'?. That was a nice photo opportunity, dont you think. Of course it seems to have clouded the judgement somewhat of revisionists who thought this 'war' was justified. It wasnt really a war of course, more a skirmish. But the Argentinians equally have claim to those Islands and unfortunatley the British (liking to screw countries up for decades after they concede, look at NI!) have always put politics and dialouge on the back foot. A very conservative party trait though, it must be said.

darkman2

SebtheBum wrote:

lollers... Warcrime? Last time I checked, the Belgrano was an Argentine naval vessel, and in fact was also carrying Exocet missiles as well. Oh, and we were at war.

Oh I see now - your British. Well dont take things too personally for goodness sake.

Blackjack

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.

I would agree to most points however I don't believe that the Argentine Air Force was a particularly large threat. They were quite fortunate to have some impact in sinking the HMS Sheffield in an attack with what I am lead to understand were quite dated aircraft.
There's an interesting part in same Wiki Article about the Sinking of the Belgrano.

bk

darkman2 wrote:

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.

It would be useful if you checked the history of the island. It was first discovered by the Dutch in 1600, no people lived on the Island at that time. The first settlement was French in 1765, independently the British set up a colony in 1766, not knowing that the French were already there. The Spanish later took offer the French colony. When Argentina declared independence from Spain, they claimed the Islands, but only used them as a prisoner camp. The British returned in 1833 and setup another colony. Nearly all the residents are now of English descent and were fully in support of the British. They certainly didn't want the Argentina.

In fact the Falklands islanders are given the right to self determination under UN rulings (unlike Ireland ironically) and the British reclaimed the islands under this ruling.

About the nuclear submarines:

In 2005, a book written by President Mitterrand's psychoanalyst, Ali Magoudi, gave a different account of French cooperation, quoting him as saying: "I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman! With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind."

You are right, the nuclear missiles were rented from the US, however the Brits had complete operational control over them.

The Brits had only got mini carriers (invincible class) because the British Navy was designed to be a part of an overall larger Nato force with the US having the full size carriers. The British carriers were designed for anti-submarine operations against the Soviets in the North Atlantic, not long distance invasions (called a Blue Water Navy).

The problems with this approach were discovered by the Brits during the Falklands war were they discovered that without the large US carriers, it made it much more difficult for them to project force around the world as the SVTOL Harrier craft launched from such carriers had limited capabilities.

The Brits are trying to correct that mistake now with two full size carriers. These will carry up to 50 F35 SVTOL aircraft.

The F35 is the very capable, partly stealth, US Joint Strike Fighter. They aren't using the Eurofighter, the Eurofigter will replace the Tornados and Jaguars. Both the F35 and Eurofighters are probably two of the best aircraft in the world, they are only bettered by the US F22 Raptor.

Along with their new Type 45 Destroyers, the British are rebuilding their Navy into an impressive blue water navy.

Yes the newer carriers aren't Nuclear powered, however given the trouble the French have had with their Nulcear powered carrier (it has rarely left port), that is a good thing.

Dar

darkman2 wrote:

I assure you Ive no chip on my shoulder and Im very serious. The Argentinian military at the time was defunct, bankrupted and corrupt. Which member of the Royal family was it who happened to be 'involved' in that 'war'?. That was a nice photo opportunity, dont you think. Of course it seems to have clouded the judgement somewhat of revisionists who thought this 'war' was justified.

Actually the Argentinian army was well financed and equipped with modern, predominantly French, weaponry. The Brits did, however, have vastly superior training.

You seem to be implying that Prince Edward was along for the publicity, when in fact he flew missions as a decoy for exocet missles.

As for justification, the Argentine government thought taking the Falklands would be a nice little PR move to quell internal dissent. They considered western democracies to be weak-willed and did not expect any retaliation. Slightly baffling trait to attribute to Margeret Thatcher really.

Hydroquinone

Dar wrote:

You seem to be implying that Prince Edward was along for the publicity, when in fact he flew missions as a decoy for exocet missles.

Sorry to go into nit pick mode, but Edward wasn't there, it was Prince Andrew who was in the Navy and served in the Falklands at the time.

Interesting thread.

RedPlanet

I see Britian as a lapdog of the yanks for the time being, with ever dimishing self-respect and consequently, world influence.

One particular incident springs to mind:
During the Iraq war buildup this British Colonel (Collins, i think was his name from NI) gave a rable-rousing speech that the Brit-centric press just adored.
During all the platitudes and interviews w/ him he said how they (the British) were going to take Basra, then head toward Baghdad. In this one interview he claimed they would even beat the yanks to Baghdad.

Sure a couple of weeks later the yanks had bashed their way into the middle of Baghdad while the British were still pussyfooting around Basra!:rolleyes:

Jimboo_Jones

Humm, what is the alternative though? I united European defense force? Would that make Britain the lapdog of the French and Germans? .. would British self-respect be improved any more by that? somehow I doubt that. Also given the fiasco of the EU total inability to get their collective fingers out of their arses over Kosovo I would rather throw my lot in with the Americans.

Remember that Britain wasn’t the only European nation to invade Iraq, and I would suspect that Irelands Shannon airport also would have been used in some form and other to help with the invasion. Yes Britain where by far the largest European presence in Iraq, but I suspect that more to do with the size of the British force compared to the rest of the participating European nations.

So what is Britain current place in the world? … Well I guess its one of the largest world ecomenies, one of the best armed forces in the EU (if not the best). Close allies to the US. Also I guess they are seen as a Nuclear ‘power’, a member of the G7, a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

In short I would suspect that Britain is seen as a large European country that is still slightly more independent to Europe than most but closer to America than most European countries.

zuma

Hydroquinone wrote:

Sorry to go into nit pick mode, but Edward wasn't there, it was Prince Andrew who was in the Navy and served in the Falklands at the time.

Interesting thread.

Edwards Early Career

On leaving university, Prince Edward joined the Royal Marines to train as an officer. But Marines proved to be too demanding for the Prince, and he resigned his commission in January 1987, before graduation. This led to strong public criticism of the Prince for being "too weak".

He appears to be the weak one

Prince Andrew appears to be a pretty sound man!
When I was younger the Den sent a crew over to interview him and tour his ship, whether it was docked in Ireland or the Uk I cant remember.
He appeared to be a very nice person indeed.

bk

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

Humm, what is the alternative though? I united European defense force? Would that make Britain the lapdog of the French and Germans? .. would British self-respect be improved any more by that? somehow I doubt that. Also given the fiasco of the EU total inability to get their collective fingers out of their arses over Kosovo I would rather throw my lot in with the Americans.

This is starting to change. The various EU forces are increasingly closely integrating their forces and are building their own weapon systems, relying less and less on US systems, for example:

- The Eurofighter
- New British/French carriers
- New European built very long range and fast air to air missiles.
- New British Destroyers

Their military forces are now working much more closely together. It seems that in the Future the EU would have the capability to deal with a Kosovo type situation without US intervention.

Hogmeister B

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.

There is no possibility whatsoever that the UK would have used nuclear weapons in the Falklands conflict. It would have been completely insane- aside from being illegal under international law and morally repugnant (even by Ms Thatcher's standards)-, the voters would NEVER have let her get away with it! Anyhow the risk of nuclear war with the Sovs would be to great- at the time noone planned to check where any nukes that were launched were headed before launching their own.

As for the US joining in, I very much doubt it. It was essentially a colonial war, and the US public is unlikely to have permitted the government to risk war with the USSR by directly intervening. Even if they had joined in after an Argentine defeat of the Brits, Parsley's point about the Brits almost getting their asses kicked still stands.

The near-loss of the war had a huge effect on military planning worldwide, primarily in the field of weapons effectiveness- it was repeated breakdowns in Britain's much-touted Sea Dart and Sea Wolf systems that almost led to the fleet's defeat- and close-in defence. Not only are weapons systems now tested and maintained better, secondary armament for close-in defence from air attack is now standard equipment on modern warships.

bk

Hogmeister B wrote:

As for the US joining in, I very much doubt it. It was essentially a colonial war, and the US public is unlikely to have permitted the government to risk war with the USSR by directly intervening. Even if they had joined in after an Argentine defeat of the Brits, Parsley's point about the Brits almost getting their asses kicked still stands.

The US had plans to indirectly support the Brits, by giving them the use of a full size carrier, if any of the Brit mini-carriers were sunk

Hogmeister B wrote:

The near-loss of the war had a huge effect on military planning worldwide, primarily in the field of weapons effectiveness- it was repeated breakdowns in Britain's much-touted Sea Dart and Sea Wolf systems that almost led to the fleet's defeat- and close-in defence. Not only are weapons systems now tested and maintained better, secondary armament for close-in defence from air attack is now standard equipment on modern warships.

Another important lesson learned was the importance of having long range offensive bombing capabilities and air superiority.

The problem for the Brits was that they only had mini-carriers designed for anti-submarine operations. That meant that the Harriers had only a short range of operation. That meant they could only work defensively around the British ships, despite their brilliant performance, it was impossible to stop all of the Argentine fighters from slipping through the net and sinking British ships.

Had Britain had full size carriers, with proper long range fighters like the US, they could have easily flown to Argentina and destroyed all the Argentine fighters on the ground, therefore neutralising any threat from the start.

The US learned this lesson and has used it with spectacular success in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Brits also learned the lesson and that is why they are now going to build two full size carriers, armed with F35 stealth fighters. With this type of fire power the Falklands would have been a very different war.

Ping Chow Chi

Hogmeister B wrote:

As for the US joining in, I very much doubt it. It was essentially a colonial war, and the US public is unlikely to have permitted the government to risk war with the USSR by directly intervening. Even if they had joined in after an Argentine defeat of the Brits, Parsley's point about the Brits almost getting their asses kicked still stands.

America offered to loan the Brits an aircraft Carrier if needed, and also gave them the sidewinder missiles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4495457-103690,00.html

Now this appears to be more support than any of the UK's european neighbours seemed to offer. Maybe being their 'lap dog' does hold more benifits than hoping for help from a united europe.

Parsley

bk wrote:

The US had plans to indirectly support the Brits, by giving them the use of a full size carrier, if any of the Brit mini-carriers were sunk.

My point is that if one of the British mini-carriers had been sunk, the British fleet would, with its air defences crippled, have been wiped out. So said Sandy Woodward, the taskforce commander, in his memoirs.

If that had happened, a loaned American carrier would have been too late to prevent the utter humiliation and defeat of the Brits to which I was originally referring.

Anyhow loaning a carrier and some missiles isn't joining in.

zuma

bk wrote:

The US had plans to indirectly support the Brits, by giving them the use of a full size carrier, if any of the Brit mini-carriers were sunk.

Actually the US had offered the UK a Vietnam era full sized carrier but it was refused due to the time it would take to train Royal Navy personell in its operation.

Also the Monroe Doctorine was a major issue for the US government to work with concerning what the war was about!

Hogmeister B

zuma wrote:

Also the Monroe Doctorine was a major issue for the US government to work with concerning what the war was about!

Indeed. Imperialist c*nts.

Pocari Sweat

Hogmeister B wrote:

Indeed. Imperialist c*nts.

The Belgrano was bought off the yanks. It narrowly missed being sunk by the Japanese in Pearl Harbour in 1942, when the US then decided, maybe Hitler was a bad one after all and pull their fingers out their bums. So it was due for a sinking anyway, especially with the daft Junta in control.

Pocari Sweat

Whats the Brits role in world today?

It seems they are losing their way and therefore similar to Ireland; binge drinking themselves silly, a bit over patriotic, nationalistic etc, they get their backs up easily, kick one and they all limp. The old Irish charm is being lost to the Celtic Tiger in pursuit of money, ego, one up manship, similar to the bolshyness of the Brits. Remember, Brits being - English, Welsh, Scots and those up in the six counties who count themselves as Brits.

Despite all their sh*te, they export all of the news tabloids Ireland reads, they export all the soaps Ireland watch most of, Corry, Eastenders etc, they export all products and services Ireland get right stuck into, they exported the language Ireland uses, they have over 200 Tescos in Ireland now, about one in every ten euros spent in Ireland goes into Tesco alone. They exported St Patrick, from South West of England, (then Roman/Saxon territory) and sent him on through Wales to get rid of the snakes.

Well, call them c*nts but, he who is without sin....

clearz

murphaph wrote:

UK taxpayers' money has built many a road scheme in Ireland

OK so they raped this country for 800 years and then they supply a bit of cash in the last couple of years to buid a few roads. What do you want me to do? Thank them!

अधिनायक

let's see

• Nuclear power
• Permanent member of the UN security council
• Sixth largest world economy
• Second largest economy in the EU
• Founder member of NATO
• Massive cultural influence due to the dominance of the English language and popularity of British literature, music and sports.
• One of the largest financial centres in the world

Is their influence waxing or waning? It seems to have stabilised in the past 20 years. The Iraq war might look a bit humiliating but sometimes sucking up to the boss pays off. Britain has a large role in the EU behind all the rhetoric.

They have purged themselves of socialism and seem more likely to succeed economically now than the Germans and French with their love of statism. They're not yolked to agriculture and they seem to be recovering from their industrial decline. I'd guess we will be rightly screwed if they make sudden cuts to corporate tax rates.

India may beat China in the economic races and this could help Britain as they are a major trading partner.

Their dimwitted aristocrats have lost power and the huge number of immigrants has revitalised them. I'd say they're doing OK for now.

fly_agaric

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

let's see

• Nuclear power
• Permanent member of the UN security council
  ...
• Founder member of NATO
• Massive cultural influence due to the dominance of the English language and popularity of British literature, music and sports.
  ...

As outlined on the thread, the UK's position as a nuclear and military power is heavily dependent on the UK's easy access to US technology and resources. In a few decades, will they even have the native industry to maintain the capabilities they have? Labour seem keen on building new nuke plants. I wonder if by the time they get around to doing it, UK industry will be so decimated that the plants will have to be constructed for them as turnkey systems built by foriegn companies!

The current influence of English globally is mostly a result of the power and wealth of the US and benefits the UK merely by accident.
In fact, the UK and Ireland's own dialect(s) of English have been pretty much destroyed and replaced by American English. The main holdover now is the spelling, and MS does its best to stamp that out too. All those people around the world busy learning English are learning American English. Most of the books, music, film [err...movies] etc in Engish now come from there too!
About sports - the British/English origin of many of the worlds' most popular games is pretty much completely irrelevant to the people who play them and may even annoy them if it is pointed out!
Even pointing out some of the great giants of English literature were from this country or that country can seem a bit crass at times. The Irish do this alot.:)

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Britain has a large role in the EU behind all the rhetoric.

Yes, but I'd say most of the English public (and many of the "British") despise the EU and would like to see the UK quit. The political rhetoric and tabloid nonsense has firm roots in popular public opinion. There will be some fireworks between the UK and EU when the Tories get in again. I predict the UK will try to unilaterally renegotiate all the bits of the EU treaties they disagree with and keep the bits they like.:) The other EU members will be very píssed off about this. I can't see the UK "leaving" the EU and agreeing a parting of the ways - their arrogance and insecurity (about what the countries still in the EU may cook up behind their back) means they'll have to try and completely ruin it before they take their ball home. "I mean how can the EU ever continue without *us* in it?":rolleyes:

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

They're not yolked to agriculture

You make it sound like "agriculture" is an activity that is bad for the economy or something. Why such a negative attitude to countries at least making the attempt to grow a good proportion of their own food?
I find it sooo funny that at they same time as NuLabour go on about improving standards in food, they want to see Europe turn away from food production.
How can you force a big food producing region like the US or South America to supply a necessity like food for you to your exacting standards when you become a completely captive consumer? Maybe not even an important captive consumer as Europes' population continues to decline relative to other regions of the world.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

and they seem to be recovering from their industrial decline.

How so? Industry and manufacturing is still in decline. So much so that services, finance, construction and property speculation [feg building houses on farmland which it is no longer economical to grow crops on:)] now drive the UK economy.

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Their dimwitted aristocrats have lost power

Who is "in power" in the UK now?
Have they made smart decisions lately, do you think?
Can you tell the men from the pigs? (/jk:) )

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

the huge number of immigrants has revitalised them.

Just so long as not too many of the wonderful immigrants and their children decide their adoptive country is actually the spawn of satan which must be destroyed and/or its current culture needs to be made over (violently if necessary) in the image of the cultures of the countries they/their parents ran away from.

Just so long as the the level of immigration (and actions of the above kinds of immigrants) doesn't cause a destructive racist impulse on the part of the "natives".

Viewed from here, things seem to be gradually deteriorating in the UK on this score.
Muslims parade around London with placards inciting violence.
The press is busily stoking fears of terrorism and immigrant criminals while some people in poorer areas vote for Fascists. It looks bad.

अधिनायक

fly_agaric wrote:

Labour seem keen on building new nuke plants. I wonder if by the time they get around to doing it, UK industry will be so decimated that the plants will have to be constructed for them as turnkey systems built by foriegn companies!

Why not? Get them built by cheap labour.

In fact, the UK and Ireland's own dialect(s) of English have been pretty much destroyed and replaced by American English. The main holdover now is the spelling, and MS does its best to stamp that out too. All those people around the world busy learning English are learning American English.

The languages are converging. Listen to any Southsider. Speaking English is an advantage and will help any country.

About sports - the British/English origin of many of the worlds' most popular games is pretty much completely irrelevant to the people who play them and may even annoy them if it is pointed out!

Fair enough. Does Britain do well in Sports relative to its population? I don't know.

Yes, but I'd say most of the English public (and many of the "British") despise the EU and would like to see the UK quit. The political rhetoric and tabloid nonsense has firm roots in popular public opinion.

They seem to spend half their time and money in Europe. They eat European food. The most significant anti-european sentiment is found amongst the plebs. Businessmen like Europe because that's where their money comes from and where they have their second homes.

There will be some fireworks between the UK and EU when the Tories get in again.

I don't think the new tories have any beliefs. They're a little like Fianna Fail. Whatever the focus groups tell them. They'll just do whatever is pragmatic.

You make it sound like "agriculture" is an activity that is bad for the economy or something. Why such a negative attitude to countries at least making the attempt to grow a good proportion of their own food?

This is an argument for another thread. Is subsidised agriculture good or bad for a large economy? Is it necessary for food security? (No and no)

Industry and manufacturing is still in decline. So much so that services, finance, construction and property speculation [feg building houses on farmland which it is no longer economical to grow crops on:)] now drive the UK economy.

But this is good. The old idea that you have to make things to get rich is now dead. The real money is in design, strategy and sales. If there is an actual product, it can be built in China or made by robots.

Who is "in power" in the UK now?

Middle class populist ex-socialists, some of whom had working class parents. I would say it is more meritocratic now than before.

Just so long as not too many of the wonderful immigrants and their children decide their adoptive country is actually the spawn of satan and its current culture needs to be made over (violently if necessary) in the image of the cultures of the countries they/their parents ran away from.

There's always racial tension when you mix cultures but there are also benefits and to me it seem the Uk is a better mixed society than France or the US. Again this is for another thread.

One bad thing about the UK is their education system. If you want to be a knowledge economy you need a super educated workforce. They seem to be dropping standards for second and third level exams, their attitude to education is very passive. It doesn't seem to go much beyond 'education should be free' or a view of private schools as places to maintain class status rather than learn anything.

Will the UK maintain its position as sixth largest economy in ten years time? I would say so if they sort out their schools and drop their corporate taxes. It's hard to know whether not joining the euro was a good idea. UK businesses bear the cost of exchange rate fluctuations but the bank of england can set interest rates appropriate to their economic cycle, something that we have lost. Only time will tell.

fly_agaric

Why not? Get them built by cheap labour.

No, no reason why not.
If the UK hasn't got (or will not have) the scientific and technical expertise, or more likely the manufacturing capability to design and build their own nuke plants, or to use another prestige/big power example, manufacture sophisticated weapons for their military - what does that say about the waxing/waning of their status as a big power?

Sure Ireland or any old country not classed as a terrorist state by the US etc can buy some plants off Siemens if they have the money, have them built with cheap labour and then import fuel which has been purified in another country with the technology to do so.

The languages are converging.

Yes. The point of convergence is American English.
Anyway, you are right. The ubiquity of English is an advantage for the UK but it is the US which is now driving that process. Its part of the ongoing Americanisation/Westernisation of planet Earth and it is completely and utterly beyond the UK's control/influence.

They seem to spend half their time and money in Europe. They eat European food. The most significant anti-european sentiment is found amongst the plebs. Businessmen like Europe because that's where their money comes from and where they have their second homes.

Lovely sentiment about the "plebs" that! Anyway, I was talking about anti-EU, not anti-Europe sentiment in the UK.
I know the British love the food, their holidays in Spain, Italy, France etc and the rich like their 2nd houses on the continent. I think they will all be a bit bewildered and surprised when the rest of Europe gets angry with them when the EU-wrecking project kicks off once the Tories get in again. The cry will be "but we are doing you fellas a favour - the EU is bad for us all!".

I don't think the new tories have any beliefs. They're a little like Fianna Fail. Whatever the focus groups tell them. They'll just do whatever is pragmatic.

Maybe, but I think being anti-EU is one thing that unites almost the entire Tory party apart from a few dissidents and old-stager Europhiles who fought with Thatcher over her euroscepticism. Remember when William Hague ran his entire election campaign on Europe and keeping the pound - and the Tories were surprised when the rest of the great British public were not quite as excised about it as they are?

The old idea that you have to make things to get rich is now dead.

No, the trick is you have to produce, make, or do something useful, that people want. That hasn't stopped being true today. The UK manufactures almost nothing now, useful or otherwise. However much services and financial jiggery-pokery try to fill that yawning gap left by the shrinking primary and secondary sectors, I don't think they can.

You mentioned the problems with its education system if the UK is to find a niche as a country that invents things and lets others with plenty of cheap labour and/or automation develop and manufacture.

The UK still has some really excellent uni's that do world-beating basic science research - but for how much longer? Shutting University chemistry departments in this era of technological progress is not a healthy sign IMO. Just the opposite. I wonder will most of the students in the UK's engineering and science dept's be immigrants in the years to come thanks to failures in the rest of the UK education system?

Another problem with this idea of the UK as an inventors/researchers paradise is that the big countries that manufacture, will, surprisingly, also design and invent too - and will be better placed to gain from it because of large numbers of scientists and engineers and natural connections between researchers/inventors and the countries' manufacturing industry.
Japan and Germany and the US already do, so why not China and India?

Will the UK maintain its position as sixth largest economy in ten years time?

Bar the unprecedented - no way in hell IMO.:)

Jimboo_Jones

Yes manufacturing as a whole is on the decline in the UK and has been since the 70’s, yet it still accounts for around a quarter of their GDP. In a lot of instances the manufacturing the UK has lost has been lower skilled jobs, often to developing countries, where the UK has no chance of matching the low salary demands. The UK is still is a key manufacture in aerospace, pharmaceutical and importantly, defense. I believe the UK is still the forth largest arms exporter in the world.

Now I expect that the UK will remain Europe’s second largest economy for some time in the future. Given the catalogue of bad things about the UK that you have listed above, I have to wonder what that says about the rest of Europe’s large economies.

zuma

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

Now I expect that the UK will remain Europe’s second largest economy for some time in the future. Given the catalogue of bad things about the UK that you have listed above, I have to wonder what that says about the rest of Europe’s large economies.

Not a hope of that Im afraid.

France is only very slighly behind the UK in terms of economy size....Im talking:

8 United Kingdom $ 1,869,000,000,000 2005 est.
9 France $ 1,822,000,000,000 2005 est.

Thats a difference of only 49 Billion USD!!!

Its expected that Frances population will jump to 75Million in the coming decades while the population of the UK will increase by a far smaller amount!

Right now they are pretty much identical....so if you do tha math!

Jimboo_Jones

It would appear that you are right, looks like France is already has a higher population (I didn't know this before) than the UK but France's nominal GDP per capita is only 92% that of the UK, but as France gets more people they will probably take over the UK. (Ireland rank much higher up both countries on that table by the way)

Been looking in to the Demographics of Europe, quite interesting stuff.

Pocari Sweat

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

It would appear that you are right, looks like France is already has a higher population (I didn't know this before) than the UK but France's nominal GDP per capita is only 92% that of the UK, but as France gets more people they will probably take over the UK. (Ireland rank much higher up both countries on that table by the way)

Been looking in to the Demographics of Europe, quite interesting stuff.

Well the main thing going for France's development in overtaking the UK in the next decade is that while the UK was getting ****e about its nuclear programme in the 70's and 80's and built its last Magnox nuclear reactor - Sizewell B in the mid 1980's, the French just put them to shame and powered on to nearly 100 nuclear reactors giving them 70% overall energy supplied by nuclear and the UK getting very worried that the last of their reactors built - Sizewell B in 1984/5?, is now shortly due for decommission as is the last of the 15 or so reactors in the UK.

The UK were going to be looking at dependence from the continent and importing nuclear electric from France when it had actually an extremely strong track record of being not only the first European country to go nuclear but a world leader in reprocessing and the building of new forms of nuke station.

Last night Blair announced, the commitment to go all out for nuclear, due to the obvious benefits it has brought france, and although it will be another 10 years before the first are commissioned and probably alot of arguing along the way, because the UK have less land than France and more population per sq. mile, they have to do something now or its going to be too late.

Pocari Sweat

France do also have a lot more going for them overall. They know their food and put the UK to shame on their basics on that score, have a better climate, much better rail system with SNCF always being a world leader on this, not far off the Japanese, the French property market is not over-valued and there is plenty of scope for building and buying in France. Compare education, underage pregnancies and certainly being able to drink a bit more maturely without getting wrecked like the binge drinking in the UK and you have a much better scope for eco-social development.