The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving)

[Myrddraal]

I wasn't really that offended, or my persiflage wouldn't have been at all genteel. Apology accepted in any case .

OT:

I'm not trying to suggest that the cheap purchase of BPs shares by American investors is the sole motivation for the ongoing PR campaign against BP, however I am suggesting that there is more to this than righteous fury. As you note yourself, BP is largely American owned already, with 39% of its shares held in the US. Whatever the motivation for it, the loud noises emanating from Washington have contributed in a significant manner to the plummet in BP share prices, 52% in 50 days. Let's not forget that BP also employs a very large number of Americans. Why would the US government damage the interests of its own citizens?

There are several reasons, not least that building the oil spill into a national crisis might be thought to be good for the polls, but I don't think it's so far fetched to suggest that the economic benefits of full American ownership of BP are hard to ignore, especially when you've got a powerful lobby group reminding you of the fact. BP is a hugely profitable company, previously paying out $10.5 billion dollars per year in dividends. 39% of that currently goes to US investors, and a slightly bigger share of that pie wouldn't do any harm to the US economy.

EDIT:

I don't think Myddraal was saying the US government was trying to take over BP, but that the US government was being used by those who want to take over BP.

Indeed. I'm not suggesting that President Obama has sat down in the oval office and spelt out this strategy for the take over of BP, but given the economic arguments in favour of a fully American BP, how hard would it be to persuade a few government advisers that stepping up the pressure on BP is the sound and just thing to do.

Note that I'm also not trying to defend BP. The payments they will make, and the suspension of dividends are justified and fair. The witch hunt which is being performed by American politicians on both sides of the political divide, which has resulted in an excessive drop in BP's share price, is not justified or fair (one could say).

[tibilicus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10691609

So would anyone care to point out what authority the US Senate has in the affairs of another sovereign nation state? Try and deny this has gone beyond a leaking oil well now. It appears there are those within the US who wish to see the witch hunt of BP continue and would also like to see it extended to the scrutiny of how another country conducts its foreign affairs. Actually, make that two countries, if you count the fact the release of the Lockerbie bomber was authorised by Scottish authorities..

[ajaxfetish]

It's been in the news here that apparently [...]

This phrase contains everything I find offensive. Something about the mixture of the passive voice with unsourced assertions ...

One would suggest that there is no use of passive voice in the quoted material*, but perhaps that would be pedantic of one . . .

Sorry to take it back to the grammar, but I couldn't resist.

Ajax

*or anywhere in the post, for that matter

[Hosakawa Tito]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10691609

So would anyone care to point out what authority the US Senate has in the affairs of another sovereign nation state? Try and deny this has gone beyond a leaking oil well now. It appears there are those within the US who wish to see the witch hunt of BP continue and would also like to see it extended to the scrutiny of how another country conducts its foreign affairs. Actually, make that two countries, if you count the fact the release of the Lockerbie bomber was authorised by Scottish authorities..

You are aware that there are mid-term elections this November with control of the House & Senate at stake? There's windmills to tilt at, mud to sling, patriotic penis contests, and miles to go before they sleep. And the worst part, no adults in charge.

[tibilicus]

You are aware that there are mid-term elections this November with control of the House & Senate at stake? There's windmills to tilt at, mud to sling, patriotic penis contests, and miles to go before they sleep. And the worst part, no adults in charge.

And still, mid-terms or no mid-terms, I would advise these Senators (I gather they are Democrats right?) to keep things subdued, less they forget the UK is one of the biggest contributors to the War in Afghanistan and we sacrificed a great deal to be involved in that other war.

Or is oil truly thicker than blood?

[Vladimir]

In the short-term, the UK has very little choice but to continue its close relationship with the U.S. Congressional politics focus on short-term objectives; namely, to get reelected.

[drone]

And still, mid-terms or no mid-terms, I would advise these Senators (I gather they are Democrats right?) to keep things subdued, less they forget the UK is one of the biggest contributors to the War in Afghanistan and we sacrificed a great deal to be involved in that other war.

Or is oil truly thicker than blood?

I wouldn't worry about it. In case you haven't been paying attention, the Senate can't do anything. All talk and theatre.

[Vladimir]

Has anyone posted this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38313409/ns/politics/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

U.K. PM comes to talk Mideast, economy, war, anything but BP
Newly elected Cameron makes first official visit to White House

WASHINGTON — On the way to Washington, British Prime Minister David Cameron said he wants to talk about Afghanistan, Middle East peace prospects and the global economy.

Everyone else wants to talk about BP...

Just noticed this:

"Cameron's first trip to Washington as prime minister begins Tuesday and is being overshadowed by anger in the United States over BP's spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the British oil giant's alleged involvement in the decision to free Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from jail last year and send him home to Libya."


*clears throat*

[Myrddraal]

Perhaps because Afghanistan, Middle East peace prospects and the global economy are important issues which face our national government, but critically sticky and difficult subjects with no easy answers, whereas BP is a nice easy target which doesn't have very much to do with the UK government (if anything).

If the senators want to score political points, they could do well to score them against each other. No individual senator will benefit greatly from a race to see who can criticise BP, or the British government, but it does have a nasty diplomatic effect.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Perhaps because Afghanistan, Middle East peace prospects and the global economy are important issues which face our national government, but critically sticky and difficult subjects with no easy answers, whereas BP is a nice easy target which doesn't have very much to do with the UK government (if anything).

If the senators want to score political points, they could do well to score them against each other. No individual senator will benefit greatly from a race to see who can criticise BP, or the British government, but it does have a nasty diplomatic effect.

Hehehe, when it comes to re-election or having to actually work for a living *I hear Wall Street is always looking for a few good weasels* rest assured many politicians of any stripe would throw their grandmother under the bus to serve another term. These are anti-incumbency times, and all the low hanging fruit shall be harvested. Sound and fury signifying nothing, played out before a TV camera, kinda like the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees. Don't let your media coverage upset you too much, it's just business, the dirty business of politics.

[Incongruous]

In the short-term, the UK has very little choice but to continue its close relationship with the U.S. Congressional politics focus on short-term objectives; namely, to get reelected.

Bollocks. The UK could tell the U.S to take a hike and leave it alone in the Middle East, and start using its security council vote to join with Russia and China in pissing on America's attempts to do anything at every turn, the UK could decide to become European again. The "special" relationship is just a massive piss take and the joke is on us.

[Beskar]

Bollocks. The UK could tell the U.S to take a hike and leave it alone in the Middle East, and start using its security council vote to join with Russia and China in pissing on America's attempts to do anything at every turn, the UK could decide to become European again. The "special" relationship is just a massive piss take and the joke is on us.

The "Special-Relationship" is so one sided anyway. We have to bend over for American interests, while they roger our own. Also, by working with Europe, will can work together with common nations such as France and Germany and shape a new destiny.

[Vladimir]

Bollocks. The UK could tell the U.S to take a hike and leave it alone in the Middle East, and start using its security council vote to join with Russia and China in pissing on America's attempts to do anything at every turn, the UK could decide to become European again. The "special" relationship is just a massive piss take and the joke is on us.

What would the UK gain from joining Russia and China? The Russians already violated British sovereignty by killing a defector in Britain while he was under British protection. What does China care about some cold, wet islands other than to get them out of the way? The UK has done it's best to separate itself from Europe; without the U.S. on their side, they're little better than Spain.

The "Special-Relationship" is so one sided anyway. We have to bend over for American interests, while they roger our own. Also, by working with Europe, will can work together with common nations such as France and Germany and shape a new destiny.

It's clear you have no idea how much we give the UK. I'm just talking about intelligence and defense assistance but we open up areas of the world your country can barely influence any more. For example: Without our support, the Falklands would be the Maldives.

[Beskar]

It's clear you have no idea how much we give the UK. I'm just talking about intelligence and defense assistance but we open up areas of the world your country can barely influence any more. For example: Without our support, the Falklands would be the Maldives.

Erm, nope, you are wrong. America doesn't support us at all in that matter.

[Myrddraal]

They did during the Falklands war, although they remained officially neutral. In the more recent diplomatic disputes the US has been sweet talking the Argentines, whilst trying at the same time to appear neutral. Not the best behaviour you might expect from an ally, though not the worst either...

[Vladimir]

Erm, nope, you are wrong. America doesn't support us at all in that matter.

Wow. You really don't know, do you?

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Vladimir: don't overdo it. It is certainly true that the UK can do little more than throw a few hissy fits when the USA decides to ignore the UK (again). But then again, the exact same applies in reverse -- neither party can make a solid case why the other is little more than ungrateful dead weight in an increasingly awkward relationship. As for the Falklands: the British have more of an army there than Saddam had in the entire Iraq, and I need hardly remind you that within the Near East Iraq was something of a military power to be reckoned with which Argentina is definitely not (in South America, that is).

[Vladimir]

@Vladimir: don't overdo it. It is certainly true that the UK can do little more than throw a few hissy fits when the USA decides to ignore the UK (again). But then again, the exact same applies in reverse -- neither party can make a solid case why the other is little more than ungrateful dead weight in an increasingly awkward relationship. As for the Falklands: the British have more of an army there than Saddam had in the entire Iraq, and I need hardly remind you that within the Near East Iraq was something of a military power to be reckoned with which Argentina is definitely not (in South America, that is).

I apologize if I made anyone feel bad. Some time the nationalists, especially the anti-U.S. ones, need a reminder of how much we need each other. I swell with pride when thinking of our British friends and would gladly serve along side their armed forces.

[Beskar]

Wow. You really don't know, do you?

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110526
Plus the recent trip by Hiliary Clinton on the matter, etc.

I swell with pride when thinking of our British friends and would gladly serve along side their armed forces.

Ours aren't so cheery, they know an American will shoot them in a friendly fire incident.

[Myrddraal]

Note: Beskar (hereafter referred to as "the above poster") does not represent the views or opinions of the British government, British Armed Services, or the British people. I wish to distance myself from the position of the above poster. American soldiers and British soldiers have successfully worked together in many fields and the unfortunate incidents of friendly fire are much more rare than the media makes them out to be.

Having said all that, there is a strong feeling over here that the US is somewhat abusing the "special relationship". Lets just look at the recent extradition case as an example. Compare and contrast the process for extradition from the UK to the US with the process for extradition from the US to the UK and you'll see quite an imbalance. The US appears to favour strong links which benefit them, but want to give a minimum in return, and know they have the muscle to get away with it.

[tibilicus]

It's clear you have no idea how much we give the UK. I'm just talking about intelligence and defense assistance but we open up areas of the world your country can barely influence any more. For example: Without our support, the Falklands would be the Maldives.

You are aware the Americans initially denied us access to our own sovereign air base on Ascension Island? Yes, because we let you share the airfield, you initially wouldn't allow our own planes to take off from a dependency of the UK. Besides, you only helped us because Ronnie and Maggie got along. I wouldn't bet on the same outcome happening if such an incident was to happen again. In fact, the nation backing us strongly during the Falklands conflict was France I believe. I'm pretty certain they sent some jets over here so our jets could practice dog fighting with their jets in the highlands.

Also, the way in which the US uses UK bases is also unfair when you consider the extensive, none-restricted use of our air bases in comparison to the little use we get of US bases. Beskar also raises a valuable point, the way in which foreign relations work within Europe is much more communal than our relationship with the US and I believe we could benefit from it. I think it's much more desirable that we ditch the coattails of the US and instead work with Europe to build a common European foreign policy, distinct from that of the US. We would probably actually have more leverage in such an arrangement. It isn't even about being pro or anti-European. I have my reservations about an integrated Europe, but that doesn't mean I oppose further cooperation in the foreign policy area. Unfortunately, some Euro-sceptics have a fear of anything Europe and would much rather see the lackey relationship continue, at the expense of our national dignity.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the US as a country, I just think the special relationship is redundant. The world is a very different place from when the "special" relationship was first struck. I think we should change with the times and not hold onto the past. Inevitability, as Britain's position in the world has declined, so has our position in the relationship. In particular, recent events have smeared our national dignity, at least in my opinion.

[tibilicus]

Double post..

[Furunculus]

In the short-term, the UK has very little choice but to continue its close relationship with the U.S. Congressional politics focus on short-term objectives; namely, to get reelected.

wrong, is america family or not?

if their politicking leads to the distrucxtion to BP and consequently the knackering of British pension funds then we are entitled to say the US is not treating us as family, so the return will be reciprocal.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Having said all that, there is a strong feeling over here that the US is somewhat abusing the "special relationship". Lets just look at the recent extradition case as an example. Compare and contrast the process for extradition from the UK to the US with the process for extradition from the US to the UK and you'll see quite an imbalance. The US appears to favour strong links which benefit them, but want to give a minimum in return, and know they have the muscle to get away with it.

My impression is that most countries do that if they can. How does england treat other countries besides the US?

[Incongruous]

What would the UK gain from joining Russia and China? The Russians already violated British sovereignty by killing a defector in Britain while he was under British protection. What does China care about some cold, wet islands other than to get them out of the way? The UK has done it's best to separate itself from Europe; without the U.S. on their side, they're little better than Spain.

Joining with Russia and China? I said joining in with them by also voting down anything the U.S proposes, I expect France could be persuaded to do the same if it would increase the chances of EU intergration, don't be so god damned arrogant.
I don't care what China thinks of us, that's not the issue. If the U.S lost the support of the UK, what major allies would it have left? The EU suffers from absurd amounts of hubris alot of the time and I expect it would love to supprt the U.K in giving the middle finger to America, kicking you off our collective military bases and such. Ace! Then we can all leave NATO and leave you guys nice and isolated in the Middle East and wherever else you touch down with boots. Oh! Then we can start backing the Palestinians and gain precious diplomatic relations with our Middle Eastern neighbours.

We would be better off without this "special" relationship.

[Tellos Athenaios]

My impression is that most countries do that if they can. How does england treat other countries besides the US?

Well exactly the same. The UK isn't a shining light of tireless and selfless work of benevolence towards all humankind, peace upon the world and happiness for all, so on and so forth. I don't think that is quite the problem they (the British posters commenting in this thread) are pointing out. I think the real problem that they see, is not unlike something that is (now less due to domestic preoccupations) seen in the Netherlands as well: public isn't quite so convinced that we need the USA that bad. Not bad enough to put up with the semi-regular embarrassments that come our way from having the relationship, that is.

[Myrddraal]

My impression is that most countries do that if they can. How does england treat other countries besides the US?

Well for starters our extradition treaties with other countries are a little more... fair? But that's besides the point, I thought this was supposed to be a 'special' relationship, with both President and Prime Minister saying "We do thinks together". More often than not, you could rephrase that as "We do things for America".

This topic is straying from BP, but this is all relevant. What you are seeing is the expression of a growing sentiment in the UK that the US will piss all over us at the drop of a hat, and that the political attacks on BP, which have definitely gone beyond reasonable, are just another sign of that attitude in the US. If senators think that making accusations of our government and Prime Minister is fair game for political capital, then it betrays a certain arrogance with regards to the special relationship.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well for starters our extradition treaties with other countries are a little more... fair? But that's besides the point, I thought this was supposed to be a 'special' relationship, with both President and Prime Minister saying "We do thinks together". More often than not, you could rephrase that as "We do things for America".

This topic is straying from BP, but this is all relevant. What you are seeing is the expression of a growing sentiment in the UK that the US will piss all over us at the drop of a hat, and that the political attacks on BP, which have definitely gone beyond reasonable, are just another sign of that attitude in the US. If senators think that making accusations of our government and Prime Minister is fair game for political capital, then it betrays a certain arrogance with regards to the special relationship.

Well, I don't follow international relations much, but I can't think of a foreign country that I would expect to help us out. Sometimes we have mutual interests, sometimes our beliefs coincide.

I've only ever heard british people talk about the "special relationship". To me it sounds like "america is violating the special relationship" is your politicians equivalent of "britain to blame for bp" i.e. it's something they say to gain political capital in a "we britons won't be bossed around by arrogant americans" sort of way.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Dear oh dear.

Once again, they show themselves to be most unreliable friends. You've treated them so well for all this time, spilled blood for them, and then they give you this, nothing but scorn, in return? When they need you, they are full of talk about being family and blood brothers, but whenever push comes to shove they put their own interests first. As has often been noted before, in the end they simply only care about their own interest, their own wallet.

Most ungrateful, very deplorable behaviour.

Know though, that France supports your side, and that our support is with you, with our good overseas friends.

[Brenus]

"Know though, that France supports your side, and that our support is with you, with our good overseas friends."
Well said, watever the sea...
Louis, do you think about becoming a politician?