Britian's 'Special Relationship' with the US ?

SlabMurphy

extragon wrote: »

The idea dates from WW2 and is about Britain's identity problem due to loss of Empire and, nowadays, European integration. It has little substance - from the US side - and none at all for ordinary Brits. But many prefer to ignore this and like to be fooled, and rich and powerful Brits with personal special relations advance their own interests by fooling them.

From a practical point of view ( military adventurism excluded ) Britain has a special relationship with its EU neighbours. As for language and culture in the global village, love it or hate it the US is "special" for everyone.

I think you've nailed it on the head there extragon as to my question - " Why do the British insist on this so called 'Special Relationship' with America. What do they think is out of it for them ? "

Fratton Fred

extragon wrote: »

Yes, but usage of the term has evolved and nowadays it is mostly heard as part of a Eurosceptic argument, implying that because of the "special relationship" Britain can do without aspects of EU integration. And it's a popular argument because the British have an identity problem. I can think of no other country that has had its language and part of its culture taken over by another much larger ( and richer, and possibly more attractive ) society.

I've never heard of it as part of the eurosceptic debate, I've never had an identity crisis either.

The only time I ever hear "Special relationship is when there is a meeting between British and US heads of state, which isn't that often.

There is probably a concern about "English" culture and identity at the moment but that has nothing to do with Europe or America, that is more to do with immigration and devolution. There is a sizeable movement in England to drop GSTQ as the national anthem and St george as the patron saint, replacing them with St Alban (At least he is actually English) and Jerusalem, but that is waay off topic.

Personally I think people are reading too much into this, it's a flippant throw away statement used to make the relationship sound more than it actually is (ie, you do what we tell you and we'll steal your wallet as quoted somewhere on these boards), end of story. All this talk of "Ends of Empires" and identity crisis etc is nonsense.

Manic Moran

Interesting about Haig's possible motivation - "Haig did his best to try to create a negotiated settlement (possibly too much: After addressing an OAS meeting, one attendee said "It was as if he could see the Nobel peace prize already within his grasp")

There was a fair split in the US State Dept. Some people, such as Eagleberger, advocated announcing for the UK right off the bat. Haig preferred to try to do what he could to keep the US ally in South America. Argentina knew of the split, and tried to play it.

NTM

extragon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've never heard of it as part of the eurosceptic debate, I've never had an identity crisis either.

The Eurosceptic press in Britain endorses nearly all things American. Leaving aside a small number of isolationists, anti-European opinion draws its strength from a misty eyed Atlanticism. As M Thatcher said, "In my lifetime all of the problems have come from Europe, and all the solutions from America. "
The exact term "special relationship" may not often be used, but sycophantic pro Americanism seems to go hand in hand with a deep distrust of Europe.

Fratton Fred

extragon wrote: »

The Eurosceptic press in Britain endorses nearly all things American. Leaving aside a small number of isolationists, anti-European opinion draws its strength from a misty eyed Atlanticism. As M Thatcher said, "In my lifetime all of the problems have come from Europe, and all the solutions from America. "
The exact term "special relationship" may not often be used, but sycophantic pro Americanism seems to go hand in hand with a deep distrust of Europe.

I've never noticed it. got any examples?

nacho libre

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've never noticed it. got any examples?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

ejmaztec

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

I would say that the writer of that article, Andrew Roberts, is very much pro-American to start with. It seems to be a collection of paragraphs giving some indications as to why he thinks George W is a modern-day hero of democracy. Roberts may be an historian of note, but his prediction of how George W will be seen as a good president in years to come, I think is wide of the mark by a longshot.

St_Crispin

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Do you seriously beleive that the Americans ( or anyone else for that matter ) give a care about what Mrs Windsor has to say ??

Er... Yeah?

Maybe not with the current administration, but back then yes. The UK was america's closest ally. The queen has been head of state since the 60's. A royal visit somewhere isn't just for sightseers. It's a diplomatic mission. The royal family probably have more training and knowledge in diplomacy and statecraft than any other head of state in the world. And she's probably met more heads of state than any other head of state in the world. Plus every male in the family has military experience and most have seen combat. We may look at her as auld lizzie, but that woman knows more about foreign affairs than our whole dail combined. If I wanted advice I might consider asking her. And if she were to give any I'd give it very serious consideration.

Fratton Fred

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

that's a random news article from a traditionally right wing newspaper. what is this supposed to prove?

magick

yes ive always found this weird given that fact the USA doesnt take a blind bit of notice of what the UK thinks, yet UK politician always fall over themselves touting the "special realtionship". Also you never hear of it in the US.

nacho libre

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's a random news article from a traditionally right wing newspaper. what is this supposed to prove?

You asked for evidence of pro-Americanism and Euroscepticism in the British press.
I gave you an example of the former in but one paper. Nearly every week you'll find examples of articles that are eurosceptic in tone in the Telegraph.

Though, you seem to be making the point that the Telegraph is an exception. I disagree.
I've read countless articles over the years in various British papers that were pro-American in tone and engaged in Euroscepticism.

Fratton Fred

nacho libre wrote: »

You asked for evidence of pro-Americanism and Euroscepticism in the British press.
I gave you an example of the former in but one paper. Nearly every week you'll find examples of articles that are eurosceptic in tone in the Telegraph.

Though, you seem to be making the point that the Telegraph is an exception. I disagree.
I've read countless articles over the years in various British papers that were pro-American in tone and engaged in Euroscepticism.

I wouldn't deny that euroscepticism is not popular in the British press, probably more so than here, but I don't see how that is linked to pro Americanism.

Thinking about this further, there's definately a special relationship between New york and London because of the links between two of the worlds major financial centres (98 Brits were killed in 9/11, the highest number of foreigners) but I can't see how you can link that with anti EU feelings.

I would say if there is a special relationship it is at a Business level as opposed to a national one, whereas euroscepticism comes from the average person who is more than a bit peeved about the billions of taxes Britain has ploughed into the EU coffers.

nacho libre

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't deny that euroscepticism is not popular in the British press, probably more so than here, but I don't see how that is linked to pro Americanism.

Thinking about this further, there's definately a special relationship between New york and London because of the links between two of the worlds major financial centres (98 Brits were killed in 9/11, the highest number of foreigners) but I can't see how you can link that with anti EU feelings.

I would say if there is a special relationship it is at a Business level as pposed to a national one, whereas euroscepticism comes from the average person who is more than a bit peeved about the billions of taxes Britain has ploughed into the EU coffers.

I'm not linking that with anti-eu feeling- just demonstrating the two do exist in the British press. As you say one is not necessarily a consequence of the other. You do bring up an interesting point about why Britsh business tends to be pro-American. You'll also find there is a definite link between pro-Americanism and euro scepticism from many right-wing politicans.

extragon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't deny that euroscepticism is not popular in the British press, probably more so than here, but I don't see how that is linked to pro Americanism.

Many eurosceptic arguments and practices are interchangeable with pro Americanism. For starters....

The idea that society in Britain is more right wing than in the rest of Europe. So the UK should ditch the social chapters of the European treaties and model its labour relations on the US.
The idea that Britain's security depends on its military alliance with the US. So no common EU defence, except under US tutelage. Only America can be relied on, without question. ( Argument include a distorted picture of why the US came into WW2 ).
Support for the dollar as the world's permanent no. 1 reserve currency, at the expense of the Euro.
A Fortress Britain of electronic borders and "Homeland Security," justified by threats caused by the UK following US foreign policy, loved by Eurosceptics, and far from the EU ideal of free movement of people.

Fratton Fred

extragon wrote: »

Many eurosceptic arguments and practices are interchangeable with pro Americanism. For starters....

The idea that society in Britain is more right wing than in the rest of Europe. So the UK should ditch the social chapters of the European treaties and model its labour relations on the US.
The idea that Britain's security depends on its military alliance with the US. So no common EU defence, except under US tutelage. Only America can be relied on, without question. ( Argument include a distorted picture of why the US came into WW2 ).
Support for the dollar as the world's permanent no. 1 reserve currency, at the expense of the Euro.
A Fortress Britain of electronic borders and "Homeland Security," justified by threats caused by the UK following US foreign policy, loved by Eurosceptics, and far from the EU ideal of free movement of people.

I'm not sure about the defence points you raise, I think there are a lot of assumptions there, I'd also disagree about Britain being more right wng than most of Europe. There are strong fascist parties in France, Germany and Italy. If you mean Britain is more of a capitalist society then yes, it probably is.

Britains main industry is finance. The square mile of City of London generates far more income then the rest of the country, so it makes sense that Britain uses a currency that is not linked to countries whose economy is not much more then third world. In terms of second currency, the dollar is the obvious choice. Like it or not, it is every countries second currency.

Ask the majority of eurosceptics about the US and they would be as critical of the Americans as they are of Brussels.

ejmaztec

extragon wrote: »

Many eurosceptic arguments and practices are interchangeable with pro Americanism. For starters....

The idea that society in Britain is more right wing than in the rest of Europe. So the UK should ditch the social chapters of the European treaties and model its labour relations on the US.
The idea that Britain's security depends on its military alliance with the US. So no common EU defence, except under US tutelage. Only America can be relied on, without question. ( Argument include a distorted picture of why the US came into WW2 ).
Support for the dollar as the world's permanent no. 1 reserve currency, at the expense of the Euro.
A Fortress Britain of electronic borders and "Homeland Security," justified by threats caused by the UK following US foreign policy, loved by Eurosceptics, and far from the EU ideal of free movement of people.

I wouldn't say that Britain is more right wing than any other country in Europe. I know that they have had "Nu-Labour" for over ten years, but it is still socialist, despite what some critics may say.

Britain isn't the only European country with a link to US security - Nato?

The British have a begrudging attitude to the US dollar being the main currency. I think that, deep down, they're hankering for the good old days when Sterling was top of the heap. I consider this to be one of the reasons for the UK's not entering the Eurozone. British businesses, I think, would prefer to adopt the Euro. Many of them operate Euro accounts.

I also consider that the entire EU zone is trying to secure its borders, not just the UK. There are several EU countries at risk from terrorist attacks. As for freedom of movement in the UK, I don't see that at all.

You seem to have the impression that the UK is a nazi-style closed society, that might as well be another American state. British people in general have no more regard for the Americans than has anyone else.

Your idea of Britain has probably only existed on the silver screen.

extragon

ejmaztec wrote: »

I wouldn't say that Britain is more right wing than any other country in Europe.....

I didn't say it was, but was presenting a range of eurosceptic positions, without comment, to show the link between them and pro Americanism - which I thought was the issue in question.
No I don't think Britain is a nazi-style society, but is one of the more progressive countries in the world. ( Good way to cut short a debate, though. ) Some eurosceptics present Britain as more capitalistic than "socialist" Europe - and therefore more like the US - which is highly debatable, of course.

ejmaztec wrote: »

As for freedom of movement in the UK, I don't see that at all.

Obviously the point refers to freedom of movement between Britain and mainland Europe.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ask the majority of eurosceptics about the US and they would be as critical of the Americans as they are of Brussels.

Maybe, down in the pub. But can you tell us about any anti American newspaper or politician in the UK? They don't exist. Not supporting GWB is not "anti American" in any profound way. Only the most radical fringes dish it out on Washington like they do all the time on Brussels.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

extragon wrote: »

Maybe, down in the pub. But can you tell us about any anti American newspaper or politician in the UK? They don't exist. Not supporting GWB is not "anti American" in any profound way. Only the most radical fringes dish it out on Washington like they do all the time on Brussels.

Fratton Fred

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

I suddenly feel very ill.:eek:

ejmaztec

extragon wrote: »

I didn't say it was, but was presenting a range of eurosceptic positions, without comment, to show the link between them and pro Americanism - which I thought was the issue in question.
No I don't think Britain is a nazi-style society, but is one of the more progressive countries in the world. ( Good way to cut short a debate, though. ) Some eurosceptics present Britain as more capitalistic than "socialist" Europe - and therefore more like the US - which is highly debatable, of course.

Obviously the point refers to freedom of movement between Britain and mainland Europe.


Maybe, down in the pub. But can you tell us about any anti American newspaper or politician in the UK? They don't exist. Not supporting GWB is not "anti American" in any profound way. Only the most radical fringes dish it out on Washington like they do all the time on Brussels.

I'm glad that you agree that Britain being more like the US is highly debateable.

As far as I can see, there's no problem with EU citizen's having access to The UK. They seem to have a very small list of undesirables, and doubt whether any of them would be EU citizens, unless previously deported - anybody can go to the UK and cause mayhem.

As for anti-Americanism, there's no difference between the UK and Ireland on this. The attitude is different at governmental level. I get the impression that the Irish government sucks up to the American government infinitely more than does the UK's. You can say that the UK created the US and the Irish populated a chunk of it, so both countries, although probably for different reasons, have an interest in maintaining relations with it.

Fratton Fred

ejmaztec wrote: »

You can say that the UK created the US and the Irish populated a chunk of it, so both countries, although probably for different reasons, have an interest in maintaining relations with it.

Every western country has an interest in maintaining relations with the US, they are simply too powerful economically to not have a relationship with.

ejmaztec

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Every western country has an interest in maintaining relations with the US, they are simply too powerful economically to not have a relationship with.

I was trying to keep it simple.

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm glad that you agree that Britain being more like the US is highly debateable.

As far as I can see, there's no problem with EU citizen's having access to The UK. They seem to have a very small list of undesirables, and doubt whether any of them would be EU citizens, unless previously deported - anybody can go to the UK and cause mayhem.

As for anti-Americanism, there's no difference between the UK and Ireland on this. The attitude is different at governmental level. I get the impression that the Irish government sucks up to the American government infinitely more than does the UK's. You can say that the UK created the US and the Irish populated a chunk of it, so both countries, although probably for different reasons, have an interest in maintaining relations with it.

" You can say that the UK created the US " - as per post #31 - " I thought that the American War of Independence (1775–1783) gave birth to America by defeating Britian ?? "

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

" You can say that the UK created the US " - as per post #31 - " I thought that the American War of Independence (1775–1783) gave birth to America by defeating Britian ?? "

"America" existed for almost 300 years prior to the American War of Independence.

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

"America" existed for almost 300 years prior to the American War of Independence.

Really :eek:, was there a concept of American nationality and statehood 300 years before 1776 etc.....fascinating, details please ??

Fratton Fred

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Really :eek:, was there a concept of American nationality and statehood 300 years before 1776 etc.....fascinating, details please ??

the seed was planted long before anyone threw a few crates of tea off a boat in Boston.

The seed started with the first British settlers, which is why they happen to speak English in the US.

is this relevant?

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Really :eek:, was there a concept of American nationality and statehood 300 years before 1776 etc.....fascinating, details please ??

So, what's your problem Mr Slab?

The vast majority of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, for which the US is well known, had their origins in Britain.

SlabMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the seed was planted long before anyone threw a few crates of tea off a boat in Boston.

The seed started with the first British settlers, which is why they happen to speak English in the US.

is this relevant?

No it's not relevant Fred, we are indeed way off topic, this discussion might be more appropriate over on the history forum, but since our friend made the assertion - "America" existed for almost 300 years prior to the American War of Independence. - I just asked him to back it up, that's all.
( BTW, their were Spainish settlers in Florida a century before the Pilgrims Colony etc, not to mention French and Dutch colonies also present before the first English settlements. )

Fratton Fred

SlabMurphy wrote: »

( BTW, their were Spainish settlers in Florida a century before the Pilgrims Colony etc, not to mention French and Dutch colonies also present before the first English settlements. )

there may have been a few natives as well.

Hagar

The official name of this "Special Relationship" is the "Bilateral Intelligence, Trade & Commerce Hegemony" but the acronym BITCH was too obvious.