The UKs place in the world

Blackleaf you are not allowed to call another poster stupid here
Read the charter
1 week ban

ISAW

Blackleaf wrote:

Considering the Falklands belonged to Britain BEFORE Argentina even existed and they have NEVER been Argentinian, I think Britain had a right to defend them where Argetina invaded them.

Buy the same reasoning Tasmanians (none of them are left since redcoats killed tham all) or aboroginies or Africans have a right to kill British peole for invading their homeland.

Britain is the second-biggest EU Member State. It has a larger economy and population than France.

But it has never committed fully to the EU. they dipped their toe in and allowed Germany and France to dominate the Agenda. In contrast Ireland a country of about five percent of their population has a bigger and more respected voice in many cases.

Britain will also overtake Germany to become Europe's largest economy within the next 20-25 years.

But sterling will still not have the weight of the Euro.

They didn't support the War in Iraq as they had made plenty of nice little money-making deals with Saddam - also, their militaries aren't capable of such a thing.

Britian and the US also had money making deals with Saddam. The only losers with Saddam were Ireland who lost about 400 million in Beef money!

Rubbish. More money is spent, per person, on Health, Education and Transport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than in England.

More money is spent on impoverished areas of Greece and Portugal Poland etc. as well. dont you think that showing up the fact of more public spending is an argument that the region is more impoverished and actually is an argument against you point rather than for it?

Ireland only became rich because it has ridden the EU Gravy Train. And that's thanks, in part, to Britain which, after Germany, is the second biggest contributor to the EU budget.

Clearly not the case. Ireland did not become rich ONLY because of the EU! There are about five fairly agreed economic factors which facilitated Irelands growth. EU membership is one. The suggestion the Ireland got loads of free money out of the EU is not proven. Ireland got tens of billions that is probably true. But in fisheries alone Ireland contributed probably as much as they got. fifty miles of the sea has been fished by the Portugese Spanish and French for decades.

darkman2

Blackleaf wrote:

Don't be stupid. Most members of the Commonwealth, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, India, the Caribbean nations, are democracies.



Yeah - that's why we had the support of the United Nations.

Considering the Falklands belonged to Britain BEFORE Argentina even existed and they have NEVER been Argentinian, I think Britain had a right to defend them where Argetina invaded them.



Britain is the second-biggest EU Member State. It has a larger economy and population than France.

Britain will also overtake Germany to become Europe's largest economy within the next 20-25 years.

They didn't support the War in Iraq as they had made plenty of nice little money-making deals with Saddam - also, their militaries aren't capable of such a thing.



Rubbish. More money is spent, per person, on Health, Education and Transport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than in England.


Ireland only became rich because it has ridden the EU Gravy Train. And that's thanks, in part, to Britain which, after Germany, is the second biggest contributor to the EU budget.

Fair enough, I put forwad an argument, and youve challenged it. Thats the idea of debate.

But Britain was a poor country entering the EU.

Fance and Germany each have populations of 70 - 80 million so Britian never has been the second biggest nation in Europe.

The part about Europes largest Economy in 20 - 25 years. Do you honestly think France and Germany are going to be uncompetitive for that long? If you knew anything about economics you would know that the tables can turn very quick. Im sure I dont need to remind you that the UK is currently not enjoying a boom and wont because its tax regime is uncompetitive.

The UKs population is aging at a much faster rate now then it was 10 years ago. Do I sense a pension crisis on the horizon?

You need to re-examine your statistics or at least dont cherry pick them. Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast are 3 of the most deprived areas in the UK and in the EU. If you dont believe me the stats are at www.nationmaster.com

fly_agaric

Blackleaf wrote:

Most Western economies are now mostly consisting of services.

But Britain has a larger manufacturing sector than France and the United States -

Italy
industry: 28.8%
services: 69.1% (2005 est.)

---

Germany
industry: 28.6%
services: 70.3% (2005 est.)

---

Britain
industry: 26%
services: 72.9% (2005 est.)

---

France
industry: 24.4%
services: 71.5% (1999)

---

United States
industry: 20.7%
services: 78.3% (2005 est.)

Source: CIA World Factbook

Interesting figures. Thanks for that.
This thread seems to prove I'm out of date in my ideas about a countries' power and its manufacturing capacity. Unless there is a war or something.:)

BTW, fair play to you for managing to get banned after just a few posts.

Blackleaf wrote:

As Europhiles like to think, Britain is NOT dependent on trade with the EU.

That sentence reads the opposite of how you meant it - but anyway...

That would seem to make the big showdown between the the other EU member-states and the next Tory govt. [the election of which I am sure you are looking forward to greatly - If only Maggie could lead it - ah well:) ] more likely rather than less.

Blackleaf wrote:

Britain will also overtake Germany to become Europe's largest economy within the next 20-25 years.

Well, we'll see. The thing is, when I made that "no way in hell" post about the UK being the worlds 6th largest economy I was thinking about the possible progress other some parts of the world may make rather than considering the UK relative to other parts of Europe.

Blackleaf wrote:

Ireland only became rich because it has ridden the EU Gravy Train. And that's thanks, in part, to Britain which, after Germany, is the second biggest contributor to the EU budget.

Always funny the way a certain type of little-Englander [with your posts about the "Argies" and the Falklands I think it is fair to call you that] just can't stomach the fact that Ireland isn't poverty-stricken anymore.
What better place to pin all the blame for this sorry state of affairs than that ole bogey the EU!

Captain Trips

The UK, more than any other country in the world as far as I can see, has it's finger in every pie. The sun never will really set...

1. The Commonwealth - still there, trade and diplomatic relations and they are at the centre of it
2. NATO - they are right up at the top of this
3. EU - not in at the start at with continentals, but firmly at the table now
3. US - they have a much more viable relationship with the US than other countries and the EU


So what is the result? Negotations and trade links for it's businesses and companies, at a local national level, in Europe and across the planet. They are of the oil-dependent economies, and yet have to front a small amoutn of it's military forces to maintaining this as the US (it's colonies!) send hundreds of thousands of it's citizens abroad and maintain military forces around the globe.

The British Empire is still evident, in everything except name. It's business schools and their relationships now, and they have some of the best in the UK. Maybe it's no longer the East India Company of yesteryear, but the principle hasn't changed.

walshb

The US and the UK always have been the closest of allies and always will be. Sure the US is so heavily influenced by Britain, right from its creation to the present day. I'd say it's the UK that is the leader and the US are more the puppets. Just take a look at the Gulf war of 1990, it was the British that led and coordinated that war, they were the brains behind the whole operation. Also in Iraq it's the US that are losing so many men, not the UK.

zuma

walshb wrote:

The US and the UK always have been the closest of allies and always will be. Sure the US is so heavily influenced by Britain, right from its creation to the present day. I'd say it's the UK that is the leader and the US are more the puppets. Just take a look at the Gulf war of 1990, it was the British that led and coordinated that war, they were the brains behind the whole operation. Also in Iraq it's the US that are losing so many men, not the UK.

Oh come on now!

The US are looseing so many men simply because they are viewed, and rightly so, as the leaders of this occupation!
Donald Rumsfeld stated before March 2003 that they would go to war with or without UK assistance.
The US have over 10 times as many troops in iraq as the UK...and that is why their losses are far higher.

The US and UK really only got very friendly since the British Empire desintegrated and the British determined that a close as possible co-operation between themselves and the US would be a far better idea than getting cosy with the USSR.
A marriage of convenience that has built up into an extremely close military relationship....and the main reason why "the special relationship" will continue for decades to come if only in the military sense.

Also take a look at the body language between GWB and Blair....Blair trys his best to mimic GWB as he looks up to him and views him as his superior...in terms of Political power....and not intellect:p

Regan...Thatcher....on paper a good relationship.
(Right)...(Right)

Bush......Blair..........on paper an impossible relationship.
(Right)...(Left)
No matter the political persuasion of the British PM....he/she will always end up following the US Presidents lead.....because they are the JUNIOUR partner!

ScottishDanny

Thatcher was warned by Military Intelligence that the junta in Argentina were mobilising to invade the Falklands, she didn't do anything about it (like send the RN down there as a deterrent) because she wanted it to happen. Why? because there would be a small war, Britain would win (yes it was close, a lot of ships were sunk by French made exocets) and the resultant wave of flag-waving jingoism back in Blighty would give her a landslide win in the election the following year. The Argentinian dictatorship invaded the Falklands to whip up nationalist feeling and divert the publics attention from the problems the country was facing both leaderships wanted the war to happen for the same reason.
The result was loads of blokes getting killed for politics. The British asked the US to help them but they didn't want to intervene because one - it was a British colonial war and two - they were buddies with the right-wing dictatorship in Argentina who were keeping the reds down in the region (by throwing them out of helicopters into the sea).

magick

walshb

I'd say it's the UK that is the leader and the US are more the puppets.

LOL please pass the crack pipe ur smoking cos that must be good stuff!

sigh

magick-humourous as your comment is-please read the charter regarding attacking the post and not the poster

no ban this time but there better not be a next time.

darkman2

zuma wrote:

Oh come on now!

The US are looseing so many men simply because they are viewed, and rightly so, as the leaders of this occupation!
Donald Rumsfeld stated before March 2003 that they would go to war with or without UK assistance.
The US have over 10 times as many troops in iraq as the UK...and that is why their losses are far higher.

The US and UK really only got very friendly since the British Empire desintegrated and the British determined that a close as possible co-operation between themselves and the US would be a far better idea than getting cosy with the USSR.
A marriage of convenience that has built up into an extremely close military relationship....and the main reason why "the special relationship" will continue for decades to come if only in the military sense.

Also take a look at the body language between GWB and Blair....Blair trys his best to mimic GWB as he looks up to him and views him as his superior...in terms of Political power....and not intellect:p

Regan...Thatcher....on paper a good relationship.
(Right)...(Right)

Bush......Blair..........on paper an impossible relationship.
(Right)...(Left)
No matter the political persuasion of the British PM....he/she will always end up following the US Presidents lead.....because they are the JUNIOUR partner!

The US has a far larger contingent of troops in Iraq as the UK basks in the relative safety of Basra. US troops are at the coal face. Of course they are going to have more casualties.

Sand

Bush......Blair..........on paper an impossible relationship.
(Right)...(Left)

Not really - Blair isnt Old Left, and Bush isnt a rabidly freemarket (He introduced solidly socialist/protectionist tariffs on steel imports for example). Either way, their domestic polices dont affect their foreign relations all that much (Theyre both democracies, with checks and balances built in so neither country swings wildly from right to left depending on the mood of their leader, unlike populist regimes).

The UK feels - rightly or wrongly - that their main interest in Europe is economic, so they dont desire ever closer union beyond that realm. They also feel strategically that their best interests are served by an alliance with the US. Those two pillars of the UKs foreign policy arent likely to change simply because the PM does, no more than Irelands foreign policy changes simply because FF/PDs is replaced by FG/Lab...

And on a personal level, they both (claim) to make decisions on a moral basis - I.E. Bush tells the world God told him to invade Iraq (Which I hope means he felt it was the right thing to do?), Blair argues that deposing Saddam was morally correct - and indeed I understand hes a bit of a Christian himself.

Dirk Gently

zuma wrote:

Bush......Blair..........on paper an impossible relationship.
(Right)...(Left)

They're not actually that far off each other politically. Although the labour party is traditionally on the left this is not the case with new Labour and Blair in particular. Not sure how accurate this graph is but it seems to have Bush and Blair well placed. It's the former Pope JPII that surprises me. he was a lefty.

political.jpg

walshb

Look, the US is what it is today largely from European colonialism and Britain were without doubt the most influential power in the US for centuries. It's enshrined with Britains views, culture, laws etc etc. I know the US are independent and are the worlds superpower, but do not think for a minute that the British are anybody's puppets. That's where people are fooled. They're too darn proud to be like that. Like it or not, the British and the US no matter what will stand shoulder to shoulder as regards any invasions both now and in the future. They are almost as one and though I disagree with the Iraq occupation (downright disgusting), Britain had no option but to go in with the US, they are brothers in arms so to speak.

Sgt Sensible

Sand wrote:

Not really - Blair isnt Old Left, and Bush isnt a rabidly freemarket (He introduced solidly socialist/protectionist tariffs on steel imports for example).

Bush really a pinko shocker. :eek:

I suppose if you're far enough to the left (and not too bright), Bush = Hitler, and if you're far enough to the right then he's a socialist, in the same sort of way that the DNVP believed the NSDAP were ideologically dodgy because they didn't start doing in the lefties promptly enough.

Sgt Sensible

clown bag wrote:

It's the former Pope JPII that surprises me. he was a lefty.

political.jpg

What are you basing this on? Apart from a diagram.