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

[Plekhanov]

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.

What’s the point in wading through all kinds of shit just so that we can keep hold of the hegemon’s ear when he seems to be profoundly deaf?

[Admiral Valdemar]

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.

What’s the point in wading through all kinds of shit just so that we can keep hold of the hegemon’s ear when he seems to be profoundly deaf?

Maybe some sort of placard would work.

Actually, actions speak louder than words. If we refused to play along, it might just get noticed by Bush.

[Plekhanov]

I just want to precede my comments on your post by saying that I don’t mean to belittle the Commonwealth it is a valuable institution that has great potential to be a force for good but it simply is not an alternative to the EU. If only for the reason that we are part of Europe, we are European I think I’m right in saying the nearest member of the commonwealth is further away than the most distant member of the EU. Also I think a Britain at the heart of Europe will be a wealthier, stronger Britain more able to enact policies that repay our debt to the Commonwealth.

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.

The vast majority of Brits see the fact that the EU is wealthy (1st world) as a good thing; it’s our major motivation to be in it.

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.

If the commonwealth can forgive us for all the shit we pulled I’m grateful and hope that we can repay the debt we owe by working more constructively in the future. However as close as our ties with India and Anglophone Africa maybe they don’t approach the level of shared interest we have with the other EU members.

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.

Congratulations, you must be about the only contributor to N&P who doesn’t think they should be “a highly paid political advisor” I’m still utterly convinced that I should be one anyway, in fact screw advisor I should be PM

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

Absolutely we’ve just lent America the waves for a while because we were bored with them

[Crown]

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.

But that's the thing, it is not just Bush, but it was also Clinton and quite possibly any other President. Consider the EU Rapid Reaction Force (a farse I know), but the US was practically frothing at the mouth of European military capability outside and independant of NATO. They even went so far as to call it as 'the end of NATO' (a grossly over-used term).

While at the same time the US bitches relentlessly about how Europe is dragging its feet in defence and that the US is carrying all the burden. To quote Romano Prodi; We spend 60% of the money on our militaries as the US does on its own, and we have 10% of the US's capabilities.

The obvious reason was the individually European defence spending is inefficient, the answer, try and create more European wide defence projects. The response? More bitchin' from the US.

I am not trying to paint the US as being evil, afterall it is in its interest to keep NATO as the US vs individual European states, rather than US vs EU, and all that. I get it. But would I be any more culpable by openly admitting that I want Europe to have a voice, and I want greater intergration?

[SirNitram]

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?"

Or, for the more meglomaniacal, 'How can we add China to our list of pawns without being revealed as the Empire Reborn?' followed, of course by, 'Recruit Fellow Named Tarkin'.

[Stuart Mackey]

I just want to precede my comments on your post by saying that I don’t mean to belittle the Commonwealth it is a valuable institution that has great potential to be a force for good but it simply is not an alternative to the EU.

I think it was CHOGM Malaysia where one PM said that the Commonweath was an organisation thet Weath was not Common. The Commonweath is what I call the British Empire Old Boys Club. And like any Old Boys Club it can give influence for its members where they would otherwise have none. It also allows for ease of diplomacy and trade contacts. In short its about influence and personal contacts between nations heads of governments.
It is also an excellent excuse for a pissup and freindly sporting events.
But it could never be an economic bloc like the EU..it wa tried befor WW1 and the attempt failed.