Bye bye, Britain

[rvg]

I consider the special relationship to be very much a two-way street. It's not nearly as lopsided as some try to portray it.

[rvg]

The recent Syria crisis for example: the way the vote went on the British House of Commons had a huge impact on our ultimate decision not to get involved.

[Fisherking]

Elaborate? I often find myself wondering what exactly they bring to the table, outside of the war on terror (In which they admittedly play a large role, but still niggling in comparison to what the US does). A british perspective on this would be interesting too: just what do Britons think they have to offer?

The Brits have always been better at spying for one thing. Not nearly so many embarrassments in that field. Then over the years there have been little things like Ultra, chobham armor, radar, sonar, just to name a few.

So it is not exactly a one way street, even if we think we came up with all that stuff.

[rvg]

No one should doubt their past contributions, but what do they have to offer now that suggests anything other than a lopsided relationship?

Britain still has some serious weight within the Commonwealth.

[Papewaio]

Well there is the five eyes alliance which puts UK and the rest in a special level of trust. I doubt the same is happenkng between USA and Korea or Japan.

As for the EU it is spying or at least attempting to spy as much as the US and UK. I wonder if that was reported in the EU?

[rvg]

Britain is a side-kick nation with a moderate ability to project power on an international scale.

Sidekicks don't make decisions. Britain does.

Canada has closer ties with us than it does with Britain, and Australia has been making a point of going their own way in the last few years as the world turns its focus towards the Pacific.

Canada is still very much enamored with Britain, it's very British in its style of government and values. Much more British than American. As for Australia, while they do their own thing, they rarely contradict Britain.

As part of the EU, they are more valuable to us than if they weren't. They are certainly more valuable to the EU in general than they are to us. It is very hard to make the case for our special relationship being equal in any sense of the word.

As part of the EU, they made EU stronger. That was a good thing back when EU wasn't a bloated bureaucratic mess it has become. Nowadays I'm surprised it has taken Britain this long to decide to jump ship. It was very prudent of them to shun the Euro though.

[Papewaio]

The five eyes alliance consists of US-UK-NZ-Canada-AU it is a level of trust and on a world scale similar attitudes.

The economic stability in the UK helps its social stability and fund a larger military. The norm for societies is social unrest when there is a lack of bread and circuses or in more modern times fast food and TV.

[Brenus]

“What I do claim is that Britain has a stronger military than most European countries, and a stronger economy than most European countries, along with a more stable and resilient social structure than most European countries. “ Jokes. UK without EU is nothing (1 Aircraft Carrier without planes?) and thanks to Cameron, the entire British Army fits in one medium football stadium. As the stability of UK, that probably why there will be a referendum in Scotland about independence. As the economy is going, the last three years, between my wife and I we lost 1 year of employment from redundancies to agencies works. And we still earning less than 4 years ago.
“If you take the UK out of the EU, or if you make the UK have to compete with the EU, the EU loses”: Yeah, sure… You should check your figures…
“If there is ever to be an EU Military, for example, good luck doing it without Britain or having to do it in spite of Britain.” Ah yeah, France relied on the UK in Mali, Central Africa and others countries. Not that I support these interventions but at least Italy, France, Germany produce their own material, so can you tell me what Europe, if finally succeed to create a European Army (and I am against this) would miss with UK out? I can tell what UK would.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As for the EU, I don't claim to be an expert on how it works or what needs to happen for it to be better or worse or whatever. What I do claim is that Britain has a stronger military than most European countries, and a stronger economy than most European countries, along with a more stable and resilient social structure than most European countries.

Which? In fact, the UK is culturally a country with very, very, weak social structure when it comes to a safety net. They were probably relatively advanced in the 1800s or so, but this is 2014. Large parts of North England are still a dump, 30 odd years on. Wales and Scotland fare better only because they've sort of convinced to let London pretend they're really the UK equivalent of East Germany and therefore deserve lots of special privileges and tax breaks and funds. Still, were Scotland to say "bye" to the UK the prospects for the Scottish economy are quite bleak since, eh, the Scottish economy is basically nonexistent. (It's pretty much in service to England, it's the English that basically pay for the Scots to have a job).

These days economic growth means that they've restarted a few coal mines 'cause that the price of coal has risen enough for that to be worthwhile. Not that they employ a similar number of people, of course, it's not nearly profitable enough.

The UK is simply more valuable to Europe than it is to the USA. Heck, Australia is more valuable to the USA right now as they are openly courting China, Japan, Canada, and us for their cooperation in that part of the world, economically.

Well of course, but let's not pretend that the growth is in the UK or that the EU can't do without the UK or that the UK can't do without the EU. The growth is in countries like Poland. Or China. For the EU, common cause with assertive emerging economies (Brazil, India, China, Indonesia) are a far better bet than Whitehall. It's simply not 1950 anymore, and not having the UK as a member of your club is not nearly as significant as it once would have been.

[Papewaio]

I can't take anything you say as worthwhile when you can't even see Scottish oil as a positive to the economy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I can't take anything you say as worthwhile when you can't even see Scottish oil as a positive to the economy.

Would that be the "Scottish" oil currently being drilled/pumped/managed by British Petroleum and KCA Deutag? With, from the looks of the company list, a fair number of Scots working as hired help.

I might have that wrong though.

[Beskar]

I can't take anything you say as worthwhile when you can't even see Scottish oil as a positive to the economy.

It is technically 'British Oil', since they are actually outside the zones under international law and only granted to Britain due to historical reasons and "We were here first before the law", so one of those legal exceptions. Since Scotland is leaving the Union, it would be entitled to what is given under international law and the oil fields are further away than that and granted to Britain, so they would lose all right even though Scotland is closer to said fields than England.

Scotland does benefit financially from the Union as well. In terms of 'Tax paid' and 'Tax-income received', Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are Net-receivers. Under the current system, everyone pays into the 'same pot' then receive an equal share. England pays the most in taxes.. as such.. you understand.

Scotland has a very nice and cushion position within the Union with their own parliament and own rules. Independence will start to bring some serious issues to the table. Apparently Spain is going to attempt to veto Euro-membership, if they do join the EU (due to own internal issues with Catalonia and Basque's), it would be as a new member meaning they have to adopt the Euro and have none of the exceptions that Britain currently enjoys. Also issue of setting up their own armed forces, security branches and other operations of the state.

There is quite a lot to the debate that is overlooked. Scotland leaving the Union will be a negative to the country, however, which is more important, sovereignty of a nation-state or the benefits to the people? That is what the vote is between.

As a non-Londoner, Scotland leaving the Union would make things worse for us as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A big part of what I consider social stability is the society-wide sense of inevitable governance. A habit of civilization, if you will. The sense that revolution, civil war, or true large-scale disorder is not only doomed to failure but more or less impossible, even if it is desirable. While it is true that the UK has problems, I think the idea of revolution or civil war is just as far-fetched there as it is here--something that resides purely in the realm of fiction. A strong safety net is negligible compared to that.

There's some real merit in this.

Theoretically, France has a better democracy, but the French are wont to "go to the barricades" over anything they don't like - which makes the country rather harder to govern than the UK.

[Brenus]

"the French are wont to "go to the barricades" over anything they don't like - which makes the country rather harder to govern than the UK." Agree. That makes things more difficult to a French Government to impose laws restraining freedom than in UK. You tell a British striker the strike is illegal he goes home, you tell a French he just will tell it will be one more thing to negotiate.

[Beskar]

Elaborate? I often find myself wondering what exactly they bring to the table, outside of the war on terror (In which they admittedly play a large role, but still niggling in comparison to what the US does). A british perspective on this would be interesting too: just what do Britons think they have to offer?

Actually, sorry to say, the treaty is awfully biased in favour of America. As such, an American can deport anyone within the UK to the USA without much of a hearing (lipservice) whilst in contrast, if an American has to be put through the American legal-system and tried there before they can be deported to the United Kingdom. There are many cases to illustrate this, such as the Gary McKinnon one about an autistic individually who illegally accessed the Pentagon computer systems to find traces of UFOs/Aliens, this is when the lopsided-ness of the treaty starts to become exposed. He signed a statement saying he broke UK law and he is more than happy to be sentenced and jailed within the UK, it took a lot of political wrangling at the home office and a lot of ruffled American feathers due to the public outcry of the incident.