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

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-23 05:18am

Sea Skimmer wrote: 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.

The idea is to just get a foot in the door with the smaller forces aimed for 2007 and then build up from there, it is essentially a proof of concept program at the moment. Meanwhile other integration will happen around the edges (common Franco-German Helicopter Academy, aircraft carrier sharing agreement, joint procurement agency and so on) so that eventually the EU troops will be deployed and they will get more money thrown at them.

A Big Flying Fish · Post by **A Big Flying Fish** » 2004-05-23 07:08am

We should try and get both as far as I'm concerned. We have far too much too lose by shying away from one side in favour of another, and so long as one side doesn't try to maintain a "them or us" approach (I doubt it'll happen but I can hope), there should be little problem with doing so.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-23 04:50pm

They should do both. Europe is Britan's hood, so having a good working relationship with their fellow EU-ers can only be a good thing, especially since I see the Brits as a moderating force for the frogs and Germans.

However, the UK and the US have had a rather close relationship for almost a hundred years. We speak the same language (mostly

) and have alot in comon culturally. I see no reason why the UK should shy away with a good solid relationship with the US if only to get snuggly with France and Germany.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-23 05:08pm

Knife wrote: However, the UK and the US have had a rather close relationship for almost a hundred years.

Have we?

You guys didn't want into WW1 and only got involved eventually for your own reason, then while we were fighting the Nazi’s your public wanted to remain out of it (with FDR doing everything he could to provoke Hitler until he declared upon you). You putting a gun at our economy over Suez's, there were prominent voices in the US government who wanted you to support Argentina during the Falklands, while we may have found it advantageous in some small way to bond together don't think that bond it strong or that it has been long lasting.

and have alot in comon culturally.

We also have a lot in common with Europe culturally, politically and historically.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-23 05:12pm

TheDarkling wrote:We also have a lot in common with Europe culturally, politically and historically.

Then why did Winston Churchill chose to turn the British Empire over
to the US of A?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-23 05:14pm

MKSheppard wrote:Then why did Winston Churchill chose to turn the British Empire over
to the US of A?

Correction, bad choice of words on my part. "Hedgemon" is a more accurate description.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-23 05:21pm

TheDarkling wrote: Have we?

You guys didn't want into WW1 and only got involved eventually for your own reason, then while we were fighting the Nazi’s your public wanted to remain out of it (with FDR doing everything he could to provoke Hitler until he declared upon you).

Yeah, cuz we didn't send freighter after freighter over yonder at all did we. Nope, my great grandfather isn't at the bottom of the Alantic because he was shipping shit over to the Brits and other allies. Nope, that damn Nazi sub torpedoed his boat because he was shipping equipment and foodstuff to New Zealand.

You putting a gun at our economy over Suez's, there were prominent voices in the US government who wanted you to support Argentina during the Falklands, while we may have found it advantageous in some small way to bond together don't think that bond it strong or that it has been long lasting.

Yup, because the question was really 'which nation, who speaks with one and only one voice, should the UK have a relationship with?'

There is plenty of loonies on all sides to go around.

and have alot in comon culturally.

We also have a lot in common with Europe culturally, politically and historically.

Which is PROBABLY why I said that the UK should go with BOTH, you duderhead.[/i]

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-23 05:22pm

MKSheppard wrote: Correction, bad choice of words on my part. "Hedgemon" is a more accurate description.

Britain was forced to give up a lot to the US during the war in order to get something back in return (which met with mixed success before US entry not the war), after the war Britain was no longer able to run the world so it was either you or the Soviets (and let us not forget he carved up eastern Europe with the Soviets), in the end you guys proved to be closer to our way of thinking than totalitarian communists and since you held our economy ransom making nice with you seemed a prudent course of action.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-23 05:30pm

MKSheppard wrote:Then why did Winston Churchill chose to turn the British Empire over to the US of A?

What are you talking about? When did this hand over take place?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-23 05:30pm

Knife wrote:
TheDarkling wrote: Yeah, cuz we didn't send freighter after freighter over yonder at all did we. Nope, my great grandfather isn't at the bottom of the Alantic because he was shipping shit over to the Brits and other allies. Nope, that damn Nazi sub torpedoed his boat because he was shipping equipment and foodstuff to New Zealand.
Like I said your public was unwilling to help and FDR had to try and provoke the Axis.

Yup, because the question was really 'which nation, who speaks with one and only one voice, should the UK have a relationship with?' There is plenty of loonies on all sides to go around.
Yes but these loonies affected policy, the US sat on the fence at first because of them.

What about Grenada, in effect declaring war upon the Queen during the supposed modern height of the special relationship? I am given to understand the Queen had Thatcher brought to the Palace and given a right talking to about our closest Allies invading one of her nations without even notification.

Which is PROBABLY why I said that the UK should go with BOTH, you duderhead.[/i]

Ah but you reason for the US applies equally to the EU as it does to the US yet you laid it out in terms of , We should be friends with the EU because we are neighbours and the US because we are similar, however my point was that the latter applies to Europe and thus isn’t an equal reason in the US's favour beyond those in the EU's favour.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-23 05:38pm

Ah but you reason for the US applies equally to the EU as it does to the US yet you laid it out in terms of , We should be friends with the EU because we are neighbours and the US because we are similar, however my point was that the latter applies to Europe and thus isn’t an equal reason in the US's favour beyond those in the EU's favour.

Perhaps my bad for poor phrasing. The context was that, Europe is right next door to the limies and so has a lot in common and alot of shared issues being so close. America, while being further away, shares alot culturally and so forth and so on.

The same context could be mirrored on this side of the pond with US, Canada and the UK. We share a good relationship with Canada (even with the stupid political postering of late) because of they are right next door and shared and simular culture and economics, but we maintain a special relationship with the UK.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-23 05:50pm

Knife wrote:They should do both. Europe is Britan's hood, so having a good working relationship with their fellow EU-ers can only be a good thing, especially since I see the Brits as a moderating force for the frogs and Germans.

A moderating force? These are hardly extremists nations that need reigning in.

However, the UK and the US have had a rather close relationship for almost a hundred years.

We only got close during WWII and began to drift apart when the cold war finished.

I see no reason why the UK should shy away with a good solid relationship with the US

But what does this “good solid relationship consists of? How does it benefit Britain?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-23 06:02pm

I voted both. It would be wise to stay on speaking terms with our offspring but also keep close ties with the Old World as it shapes up for a new dawn of power. The Commonwealth is besides the point, it's something that we have anyway and is not entitled to the same problems the EU or US relationships could yield.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-05-23 06:03pm

A moderating force? These are hardly extremists nations that need reigning in.

No, but IMNSHO, the UK seems more moderate (atleast its mainstream politics) than some of the other Europeans. Granted, this is coming from a dreaded American but....

We only got close during WWII and began to drift apart when the cold war finished.

Gee, sorry for refering to 65-70 years as "Almost a hudred years." How silly of me to round off a little.

The close military ties have dried up a bit since the mid 80's but the cultural simularities are still there.

But what does this “good solid relationship consists of? How does it benefit Britain?

Meh, if anything else, a good strong buddy. Not really paying off for them right now, I know. Seriesly though, I did say and vote for the 'they should be in good with both' didn't I?

Alienating one for the other would not be in the UK's best interest. Certainly alienating one of the biggest economic monsters in the globe won't help the Brits nor will pissing off an up and coming economic powerhouse.

Plus, forgetting politics and such, the people of the States and Briton seem to have a general attitute of brotherhood because of the simular culture, heritage (we were your colony at one time after all), and languge (you say we butcher it, I just say we are evolving it.

).

If not for the French getting in the way of a perfectly normal stamping out of rebellion, the States might very well be part of the common wealth.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-23 06:06pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I voted both. It would be wise to stay on speaking terms with our offspring but also keep close ties with the Old World as it shapes up for a new dawn of power. The Commonwealth is besides the point, it's something that we have anyway and is not entitled to the same problems the EU or US relationships could yield.

I only put the commonwealth in because initially we refused to join the EU because people said we had the commonwealth, which was clearly much better.

Anhaga · Post by **Anhaga** » 2004-05-23 06:08pm

There's really nothing left in the "Special Relationship" for the UK. The US doesn't need the unsinkable aircraft carrier anymore since there's no longer any threat of the russians overrunning Western Europe. The UK should cut its losses while it can or else it'll be perpetually condemned to running at the heels of the US.

I'd love to see the UK getting more involved in the Commonwealth but since there are too many residual bad feelings on all sides regarding imperialism and all that, it probably wouldn't work. Although a stronger commonwealth dominated by the UK, India, Canada, Australia and NZ would be fantastic.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-23 06:09pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:I voted both. It would be wise to stay on speaking terms with our offspring but also keep close ties with the Old World as it shapes up for a new dawn of power. The Commonwealth is besides the point, it's something that we have anyway and is not entitled to the same problems the EU or US relationships could yield.
I only put the commonwealth in because initially we refused to join the EU because people said we had the commonwealth, which was clearly much better.

It's not quite the same as the EU though, at least the new EU plans. With the EU, we can expect a USA like structure instead of a closely knit club of economic trading partners from a bygone age, we can have a superstate that may just work. That's the theory at least.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-23 06:11pm

Anhaga wrote:There's really nothing left in the "Special Relationship" for the UK. The US doesn't need the unsinkable aircraft carrier anymore since there's no longer any threat of the russians overrunning Western Europe. The UK should cut its losses while it can or else it'll be perpetually condemned to running at the heels of the US.

I'd love to see the UK getting more involved in the Commonwealth but since there are too many residual bad feelings on all sides regarding imperialism and all that, it probably wouldn't work. Although a stronger commonwealth dominated by the UK, India, Canada, Australia and NZ would be fantastic.

The Commonwealth is as big as it's ever been with 50-odd states within it and ties with the bigger powers in there such as those you listed are hardly delicate threads. The problems with the US and EU are what we need to focus on since it's make or break with those and it could mean losing a lot more that we could otherwise benefit from.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-23 06:56pm

Knife wrote:
But what does this “good solid relationship consists of? How does it benefit Britain?
Meh, if anything else, a good strong buddy. Not really paying off for them right now, I know.

Thing is though you’ve been a protector to the whole of Europe and Japan and a bunch of other places & I expect you’ll continue to do so as it is clearly in your national interest to have a stable Europe, Japan and so forth to trade with. + as has already been mentioned the buddy didn’t really come through during the Falklands, then again luckily Blair wasn’t around at the time so we didn’t help out too much in nam

Seriesly though, I did say and vote for the 'they should be in good with both' didn't I?

I also think that we should do both, but what concerns me is that many in Britain mistake the “special relationship” for some kind of alternative to proper engagement with Europe, which is really hurting our ability to shape the direction of Europe.

Plus, forgetting politics and such, the people of the States and Briton seem to have a general attitute of brotherhood because of the simular culture, heritage (we were your colony at one time after all), and languge (you say we butcher it, I just say we are evolving it. ).

I agree brother

if only you’d spell properly all those unnecessary letters were put there for a reason you know

If not for the French getting in the way of a perfectly normal stamping out of rebellion, the States might very well be part of the common wealth.

Bloody French just have to spoil stuff for everybody, still it’s your loss

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-05-23 07:10pm

I voted for the Commonwealth for two reasons.

First, I think it could be a legit. pole of world influence, what with recent development in India and all that. Unlike the EU, it includes third world nations that are on the up and coming. Europe united is more influential than any European nation alone, but it's still a first-world service based economy. Also, I'm not convinced that the fallout from imperialism is worse than the fallout from 1,000 years of various European wars. Looking at how close India and the UK have been ever since independence, and improvements in lots of Africa (except for AIDS, eek), I think there's a future there.

Mind you, the interests of the Commonwealth states are still widely divergent, but I think that they should be working to make it more than a sports league. If I knew how, well, I'd be a highly paid political advisor.

Second, Rule Britannia! Sorry, I can't resist. (Anglophilia)

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-23 07:19pm

Britain is in a unique and enviable position. It's a part of the EU, the closest ally of the United States, and it's the lynchpin of the Commonwealth. The question for Britain shouldn't be "which one should we be closest to" but "how do we play both ends against the middle?"

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-23 07:30pm

RedImperator wrote:Britain is in a unique and enviable position. It's a part of the EU, the closest ally of the United States, and it's the lynchpin of the Commonwealth. The question for Britain shouldn't be "which one should we be closest to" but "how do we play both ends against the middle?"

We don't, out interests lie in getting hip deep into the EU and steering it in the directions we desire. This cannot be achieved while we sacrifice our interests for those of the US (as we did when we spent over a year tap dancing trying to get the autonomous EU planning cell whilst trying not to offend the US by giving the impression Europe may want military ability outside NATO). We don't really get much out of the Special relationship and so we should take a more pragmatic view, you want our help then we what this in return (we tried this over Iraq by asking for something on the IvP situation and we didn't seem to get our payment) and if you don’t come through then we aren't coming along next time. Having the ear of the Whitehouse is seen as the big benefit for the UK but I see little evidence we are being heard in Washington under the current administration, as such we shouldn’t be particularly interested in our end of the bargain.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-23 07:45pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It's not quite the same as the EU though, at least the new EU plans. With the EU, we can expect a USA like structure instead of a closely knit club of economic trading partners from a bygone age, we can have a superstate that may just work. That's the theory at least.

I'm well aware of that it’s the successive post war British governments that thought we didn’t need Europe who were confused over the issue,

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-23 07:51pm

TheDarkling wrote:Having the ear of the Whitehouse is seen as the big benefit for the UK but I see little evidence we are being heard in Washington under the current administration, as such we shouldn’t be particularly interested in our end of the bargain.

At worst, this administration is gone in five years. It seems short-sighted to let go of the hegemon's ear because George W. Bush is a git.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-05-23 08:05pm

RedImperator wrote: At worst, this administration is gone in five years. It seems short-sighted to let go of the hegemon's ear because George W. Bush is a git.

And what if the next guy is similar to Bush, how many years do we follow the US's lead in the hopes of some future pay off? I don't mind co-operating with the US on areas of common interest but blindly following the US because we can't afford to annoy them isn't my cup of tea.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

Who should the UK have a special relationship with?