Should the UK have a special relationship with? USA or EU

[Plekhanov]

With the European elections and constitution coming up and with the ongoing occupation of Iraq leading to questions other the UK’s relationship with the US. I got to wandering:

Does the UK have a “special relationship” with the US?

If so who benefits from it?

Who should we really have a special relationship with the US or the EU?

Is it a choice we really have to make, can we be full partners in Europe and maintain a special relationship across the Atlantic?

Please note I’m not just thinking about Blair & Bush here, I’m talking in more long term less administration specific terms.

[Jon]

EU is more economically sound. The only special relationship this country has with the US is the one between Bush and Blair, in the oval room.

[Frank Hipper]

I vote that you can do both.

That kind of relationship would be a stabilising influence in the world, and thanks to Bush, the French bashing rhetoric in Congress last year, and other matters, the world needs as many stabilising influences as we can get.

[TheDarkling]

Europe is the way forward, I don't mind working with the US when necessary but I have no particular desire to be their token voice of international approval.

[Sea Skimmer]

Does the UK have a “special relationship” with the US?

Without question. Its not a common thing for two nations to share nuclear armed ballistic missiles (or weapons that cost a thousandth as much for that matter) but the UK and US do it.

[Rogue 9]

Does the UK have a “special relationship” with the US?

Yes, and for more reasons than the one Sea Skimmer mentioned, though the nuclear arms are a big one.

If so who benefits from it?

Both ends, though frankly the UK benefits more from it simply from the fact that the U.S. has more to give.

The only special relationship this country has with the US is the one between Bush and Blair, in the oval room.

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Actually, the President and PM you're looking for are Roosevelt and Churchill.

[Plekhanov]

Without question. Its not a common thing for two nations to share nuclear armed ballistic missiles (or weapons that cost a thousandth as much for that matter) but the UK and US do it.

But what does it really mean to say we have a special relationship? As far as I can tell the UK’s relationship with the US in primarily military and diplomatic, your example of sharing weapons technology certainly falls into this category. My concern is that Brits see our close military relationship as giving Britain some kind of a special position that somehow negates our need to fully engage in Europe.

The way I see it our relationship and shared interests with the EU are total economic, social, cultural, diplomatic and military everything, our interests are the EU’s interests. We are currently allowing a shared language and close military ties with the US to keep us half in half out of Europe this weakens Europe (eg build up to Iraq war) and also harms our national interest as it means our influence within Europe is much reduced.

I want to keep our close ties with the US but just wish that Brits would stop seeing the “special relationship” as some kind of an alternative to the EU because it just isn’t.

[MKSheppard]

The way I see it our relationship and shared interests with the EU are total economic, social, cultural, diplomatic and military everything, our interests are the EU’s interests. We are currently allowing a shared language and close military ties with the US to keep us half in half out of Europe this weakens Europe (eg build up to Iraq war) and also harms our national interest as it means our influence within Europe is much reduced.

Europe has never liked you. Remember the European Common Market
Fiasco with DeGaulle?

[TheDarkling]

Europe has never liked you. Remember the European Common Market
Fiasco with DeGaulle?

First the French do not equal Europe as much as certain yanks and they like to pretend and second events decades don't dictate current policy.

[Plekhanov]

Europe has never liked you. Remember the European Common Market
Fiasco with DeGaulle?

DeGaulle never liked anybody it's unfair to equate Europe with that pompous git

Pretty much every European I ever met liked us (as long as we weren’t playing them at football at the time of course)

[Plekhanov]

Does the UK have a “special relationship” with the US?

Yes, and for more reasons than the one Sea Skimmer mentioned, though the nuclear arms are a big one.

Such as?

If so who benefits from it?

Both ends, though frankly the UK benefits more from it simply from the fact that the U.S. has more to give.

Sure the US has more to give, but what does it give to the UK that it doesn’t give to numerous other countries in return for far less?

[Tribun]

Europe has never liked you. Remember the European Common Market
Fiasco with DeGaulle?

First the French do not equal Europe as much as certain yanks and they like to pretend and second events decades don't dictate current policy.

And others don't like the French.
Anyway, UK should get closer ties to Europe, since it is before thier doorstep, while the US is far away......

[Sea Skimmer]

But what does it really mean to say we have a special relationship? As far as I can tell the UK’s relationship with the US in primarily military and diplomatic, your example of sharing weapons technology certainly falls into this category.

Sharing mere technology is a bit different, happens all the time within NATO, compared to acutally sharing a stockpile of missiles, which is what the US and UK do, British SSBN's load there ballistic missiles at Kings Bay Georgia.

My concern is that Brits see our close military relationship as giving Britain some kind of a special position that somehow negates our need to fully engage in Europe.

Well it certainly removes the need to get involved in such beached whale ideas as the European Rapid Reaction force.

[TheDarkling]

Well it certainly removes the need to get involved in such beached whale ideas as the European Rapid Reaction force.

Remove the need or not the UK will still be apart of that and I would question whether it does remove the need, with an EU force we could spearhead our own operations by persuading the other members (many who share our interests and still more who are interested just for cohesions sake), as the US's military sidekick we can only follow policy not set it.

[Crazy_Vasey]

(as long as we weren’t playing them at football at the time of course)

And that's probably because half their countries been trashed by our fans.

[Plekhanov]

(as long as we weren’t playing them at football at the time of course)

And that's probably because half their countries been trashed by our fans.

They were asking for it, not only were looking at us funny & eyeing up our birds but they also spilled our collective pints

[Plekhanov]

Sharing mere technology is a bit different, happens all the time within NATO, compared to acutally sharing a stockpile of missiles, which is what the US and UK do, British SSBN's load there ballistic missiles at Kings Bay Georgia.

I know it’s much more significant than using the same calibre bullets and having compatible radios but it’s still military. This isn’t really the issue but I thought we developed our own warheads and used your missile tech, or am I out of date?

Well it certainly removes the need to get involved in such beached whale ideas as the European Rapid Reaction force.

No it doesn’t, there’s a clear need for Europe to look after it’s own security, this doesn’t mean setting up a rival to the US or NATO (which I absolutely support) merely the creation of a subsidiary grouping to enable Europe to act collectively without involving the US, as we won’t always be (and haven’t always been) able to rely upon the US wanting to expend its “blood and treasure” for Europe.

We ERRF may have stalled (in part due to the UK’s half-in half-out position that I’m complaining about) but it needs to be pushed forwards. I think Europe should stop leaning on America and meet it’s own security responsibilities especially locally. The next time there’s a Kosovo I want us to be able to deal with it ourselves without having to rely American largess.

[Ma Deuce]

This isn’t really the issue but I thought we developed our own warheads and used your missile tech, or am I out of date?

Essentially true: The British did build and maintain their own supply of warheads, but the actual Trident II boosters are stored in the United States. Therefore, before a British SSBN can begin a deterrance patrol, it must journey to King's Bay, Georgia (one of the two bases for the USN's fleet of Ohio class SSBNs) to pick up the boosters, which are later "mated" with the British warheads. At any given time, the Royal Navy only has enough Trident II boosters in their posession (16) to arm one Vanguard class SSBN (out of the 4 they have in service), which of course is because only one RN SSBN is ever on patrol at any given time.

The warheads themselves (although built and stored in the UK) are believed to be more or less copies of the American W-76 warhead (100-120kt yield). The Trident IIs carried by the US SSBNs use the W-88 warhead, which has a yield of 300-475kt. Both the British and US warheads are contained in identical RV capsules (this would of course be necessary for them to use the same boosters).

[Plekhanov]

It seems votes for “the UK should have a special relationship with the US” have been creeping up since the EU has gone to bed and the rest of the world has woken up. Would any of those voting for the US care to inform me why they think that the UK should concentrate on the transatlantic rather than the cross channel?

How do you see the “special relationship” benefiting the UK? Specifically what do we get that the French and Germans don’t?

Do you look forward to or fear a united Europe?

Do citizens of the USA, Canada, Australia and so forth represented on this board see their countries as having a “special relationship” if so with whom and what are the costs and benefits?

[Stuart Mackey]

Does the UK have a “special relationship” with the US?

Without question. Its not a common thing for two nations to share nuclear armed ballistic missiles (or weapons that cost a thousandth as much for that matter) but the UK and US do it.

You bet, also, UK PM's also get to play with the Aussie PM under the presidents desk

[Stuart Mackey]

I dont think there is anything wrong with a good relationship with the US, but not to the extent of Blairs toadying and virtual blowjobs of Bush.

[Howedar]

This is obviously not a perfect comparison, but frankly you Brits seem a lot better off dealing more with the US (ie now) than with mostly Europe (ie late 1800s/early 1900s).

[Stuart Mackey]

This is obviously not a perfect comparison, but frankly you Brits seem a lot better off dealing more with the US (ie now) than with mostly Europe (ie late 1800s/early 1900s).

I dont think international relations can be simplified that way. Britian has to deal with both, and being seen to be anything less than your own, indedpendent, nation causes problems.

[Sea Skimmer]

Remove the need or not the UK will still be apart of that

So far the UK hasn't seen it as too important, almost all British units attached to the force have been withdrawn, which had the amusing effect of completely crippling the ground contingent's communications.

and I would question whether it does remove the need, with an EU force we could spearhead our own operations by persuading the other members (many who share our interests and still more who are interested just for cohesions sake), as the US's military sidekick we can only follow policy not set it.

Unless there is a radical funding increase the planned EU RRF will be rather powerless outside of Europe, where it isn't needed. It doesn't have much power even within Europe for that matter, and its mighty planned two month reaction time isn't going to impress many people. But then even to reach that its estimated that another decade is needed.

[Sea Skimmer]

We ERRF may have stalled (in part due to the UK’s half-in half-out position that I’m complaining about) but it needs to be pushed forwards.

The only way that is going to happen is is a vast amount of extra money is thrown at it. As it is there is no way it can meet its objectives, which was suppost to happen in 2003, for at least another decade, though in fact even at full strength it couldn;t meet its objective for sustainability. What a fine effort from the worlds largets combind economy.

I think Europe should stop leaning on America and meet it’s own security responsibilities especially locally. The next time there’s a Kosovo I want us to be able to deal with it ourselves without having to rely American largess.

The next time there's Kosvo the world needs to stay the fuck away and not end up goaded into saving a terrorist group and empowering it to ethnically cleanse a province a because of a media shitstorm over a non existent genocide.