Britian's 'Special Relationship' with the US ?

SlabMurphy

Why do the British insist on this so called 'Special Relationship' with America. What do they think is out of it for them ? I watched a recent documentary on the Malvinas/Falklands/tiny bits of rock in the south Atlantic conflict, and it showed how the Thatcher regime went to Washington asking them to pressurise the Argentinians to leave the islands etc. The Americans discussed the matter, then said sort of " Sorry guys, cann't help, we don't want to upset the other countries in South America who are pro Argentina, have a nice day " If you asked the average American in the street what country do they have a so called 'Special Relationship' with, they would probably say Canada, Mexico, or the Zionist state ( isreal ) and be perplexed if you replied britain

But still the british go butt kissing the US at every possible chance, Afghanistan, Iraq etc So, why do they do insist on this so called 'Special Relationship' ??

The only reason I can think is that they see been in an Alliance with the US as a chance to play the fascist imperial power bit again and throw their weight around, but can anyone offer me a better economic/military reason for insisting on their 'Special Relationship'

Fratton Fred

I think it was Thatcher and Reagan that coined the phrase, probably because they were on the same side in the post WWII carve up. They also adopted similar positions within the UN/WTO and G7 on issues such as sanctions against south Africa etc.

to be honest, I think it is used more in jest than anything else, although I think it would be fair to say Britain has the strongest relationship with the US of any European country.

It is also said they are two nations divided by the same language:D

I guess Britain and Ireland has a more "Special Relationship" in that the citizens of one country are afforded pretty much the same rights in the other.

Why do you care?

btw, there are dozens of coountries in ISAF, would you consider them all butt kissers and Imperial Fascists?

SlabMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think it was Thatcher and Reagan that coined the phrase, probably because they were on the same side in the post WWII carve up. They also adopted similar positions within the UN/WTO and G7 on issues such as sanctions against south Africa etc.

to be honest, I think it is used more in jest than anything else, although I think it would be fair to say Britain has the strongest relationship with the US of any European country.

It is also said they are two nations divided by the same language:D

I guess Britain and Ireland has a more "Special Relationship" in that the citizens of one country are afforded pretty much the same rights in the other.

Why do you care?

btw, there are dozens of coountries in ISAF, would you consider them all butt kissers and Imperial Fascists?

Well as far as I know it's a phrase from WW2 but I can be corrected on that. It's more a case that Britian adopts a similiar position to America regardless than the Americans giving a damn about what London has to say. Sure they fly over for talks etc to project an image of international concensus etc, but America does what it preceives in it's best interest and it seems to me couldn't care less about what Tony or Gordon or anyone else for that matter, has to say most of the time. " When your the biggest guy on the block you really don't care what others have to say " as some right wing Senator once said.


Why do I care ? As my previous posting - " they see been in an Alliance with the US as a chance to play the fascist imperial power bit again and throw their weight around. " with the ordinary children, women and men of Iraq and Afghanistan paying the price for this imperial self deception.

" there are dozens of coountries in ISAF, would you consider them all butt kissers " Yes I do. When you get countries ( although in small numbers and from what I know in a back up role ) like Poland, Slovakia, Australia and even the Kiwi's invovled I can think of no other reason than to butt kiss the US for hopefully economic and political pay back and nothing to do with some sort of ' bearing the white man's burden '.

Fratton Fred

SlabMurphy wrote: »

bearing the white man's burden '.

what do you mean by that. How is making people's lives in Afghanistan "Bearing the White man's burden"? as far as I am aware the British. US, Turkish, Canadian and no doubt Spanish armies have non white soldiers there as well.:rolleyes:

kmick

If you are Bristish you cant even get a green card anymore. The only thing special about the relationship is that Britain is like the US's special needs older sibling.

mike65

If you look back over the post war period, its a funny enough special relationship. Suez saw the US take a contrary view, they invaded Grenada without any warning to the UK government, they were reluctant regarding Faklands as noted. British troops fought in Korea but frankly didn't need to play any part, Harold Wilson told the US to not try and get UK to play any part in Vietnam.

Mike.

Fratton Fred

mike65 wrote: »

If you look back over the post war period, its a funny enough special relationship. Suez saw the US take a contrary view, they invaded Grenada without any warning to the UK government, they were reluctant regarding Faklands as noted. British troops fought in Korea but frankly didn't need to play any part, Harold Wilson told the US to not try and get UK to play any part in Vietnam.

Mike.

since Korea, isn't the first iraq war the first time Britain and the US went to war alongside each other?

so we have Iraq (Twice) Afghanistan and korea. Four times in 60 years.

Whereas Australia were in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq both times and A'Stan. So maybe Australia are the nasty butt kissing fascists not britain. Still, Australia don't control 1/3 of this island do they:rolleyes:

mike65

Aussies don't really count.

Mike.

SlabMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what do you mean by that. How is making people's lives in Afghanistan "Bearing the White man's burden"? as far as I am aware the British. US, Turkish, Canadian and no doubt Spanish armies have non white soldiers there as well.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:Ofcourse there are many non white soldiers in the armies over there, bearing the white man's burden is a political experession basically meaning putting the natives down in the name of bringing civilisation to them :rolleyes:

As for " making people's lives in Afghanistan ". Well when you murder, assault and kick in their doors shouting obscenities etc at them, to try and tell the victim that your trying to improve their lives does not go down with them. In Ireland we unfortunately are quite experienced in foreign 'peace keeping actions '. I see in these last few weeks probably the biggest thugs and yahoos in the British army otherwise known as the Parachute regiment have sparked a in insurgent activity against them resulting in 'heros' giving their lives for queen and country, for God's sake, don't ask me why.

Anyway, this thread is a discussion on the so called 'Special Relationship', let's not get side tracked please.

Fratton Fred

mike65 wrote: »

Aussies can't really count.

Mike.

fixed that for ya

Is there a point to this thread, other than another anti British rant by someone who hates British violence yet names himself after someone responsible for god knows how many innocent deaths. (Who did murder Eamonn Collins anyway)

pointless trolling thread imho.

oscarBravo

Don't accuse people of trolling - read the charter.

I don't see a whole lot of point to the thread, but if it's left on-topic it might have some chance.

O'Morris

Don't accuse people of trolling

Unless you're a moderator

brianthebard

Sm-how do you define a fascist imperialist state?I get the imperialist part but not the fascism.Ff i believe it was churchill who coined the term,and i don't think i was meant in jest.

DublinWriter

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Why do the British insist on this so called 'Special Relationship' with America.

It's arguably because Britain is a nuclear power in name only; while they have nuclear missiles they don't have the strategic guidance capability to use them - they rely on America for targeting.

K-9

I thought the Republic had the special relationship.

mike65

Ireland has a special relationship with everyone

Mike.

Manic Moran

It's arguably because Britain is a nuclear power in name only; while they have nuclear missiles they don't have the strategic guidance capability to use them - they rely on America for targeting.

I have no idea where this idea came from, but it's not true. They are American built systems but they are entirely under British control. The only foreign nukes that the US had control over were the Canadian ones, since they were basically just on loan to the RCAF. Even then, that was just release authority. There was nothing physically stopping a Canadian pilot launching off his own bat.

I watched a recent documentary on the Malvinas/Falklands/tiny bits of rock in the south Atlantic conflict, and it showed how the Thatcher regime went to Washington asking them to pressurise the Argentinians to leave the islands etc. The Americans discussed the matter, then said sort of " Sorry guys, cann't help, we don't want to upset the other countries in South America who are pro Argentina, have a nice day "

You watched a crap documentary. Haig did his best to try to create a negotiated settlement (possibly too much: After addressing an OAS meeting, one attendee said "It was as if he could see the Nobel peace prize already within his grasp") but ultimately informed the Argentinians on 18APR82 that if they didn't come to an agreement, the US would side with the UK.

On 30APR82, Reagan announced sanctions against Argentina and material aid to the UK. Of note, the latter announcement was more symbolic, the US had been shipping munitions to Ascension pretty much as soon as the Task Force left: There is a very strong argument that says that the end result of the war would have been different had the US not diverted stocks of the brand new AIM-9L missiles to the UK which caused so much destruction on the FAA.

It was important for the British that it be seen to be a British operation, which is why there was no direct US involvement (Being unable to protect their own dependancies without help is bad). US pilots and Marines on exchange with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines were kicked out (over their protests!). However, the US did take over various NATO duties that the UK routinely covered, allowing the British to divert all their resources to the South Atlantic. They also provided signals intelligence (radio intercepts and the like) to the UK, and the US even offered one of their carriers to the UK in the event that Hermes or Invincible were hit. (No crew, just the ship). The very important Wideawake Airfield the british used (making it for a while the busiest airport in the world) was at the time a US Air Force Base on the British dependancy (It is now a joint base).

Basically, the US did pretty much everything it could short of physically sending forces down themselves, and the UK victory would not have been possible without US assistance.

NTM

irish_bob

britain used to be the biggest kid on the block , now the usa is , the uk wants to be best mates with the biggest boy on the block , therefore somehow remaining relevant in a world they used to dominate
could also be due to the fact that the british are not entirely comfortable with being european so they make a special effort to reach across the atlantic

one of the reasons the uk is so euro sceptic is being a part of the eu makes them feel small and not relevant enough , due to thier past empire , the british find it hard to be just another club in a big leage

ejmaztec

It's about time that the UK forgot about the past and threw its lot in with Europe 100%. I think that what is preventing this is that, even now, it has so many connections with former colonies, it's difficult for them to cut the cord. I remember a ruckus years ago when the EU tried curtail the import of New Zealand lamb. Britain wasn't having that and took steps accordingly. I'm sure that there are other examples of pacifying this kind of trading partner.

As far as I'm concerned, the special relationship is a polite way for the Americans and the British to gloss over the fact that a number was done on the British Empire when it was on its last legs. It was stripped of anything that wasn't bolted down. Neither the Americans nor the British want to mention this as it’s too much of an embarrassment.

I don’t think that the American Empire is going to last as long as its predecessor.

mike65

Manic Moran wrote: »

(Being unable to protect their own dependancies without help is bad)
NTM

Invading an allies dependency is also bad.

Mike.

Fratton Fred

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's about time that the UK forgot about the past and threw its lot in with Europe 100%. I think that what is preventing this is that, even now, it has so many connections with former colonies, it's difficult for them to cut the cord. I remember a ruckus years ago when the EU tried curtail the import of New Zealand lamb. Britain wasn't having that and took steps accordingly. I'm sure that there are other examples of pacifying this kind of trading partner.

As far as I'm concerned, the special relationship is a polite way for the Americans and the British to gloss over the fact that a number was done on the British Empire when it was on its last legs. It was stripped of anything that wasn't bolted down. Neither the Americans nor the British want to mention this as it’s too much of an embarrassment.

I don’t think that the American Empire is going to last as long as its predecessor.

Britain and New Zealand are both members of the commonwealth so of course Britain will try and protect NZ's interests. You might want to check banana imports and the EU/US trade dispute.All the ex imperial powers behave the same way, but no one in Ireland notices what Spain or France are doing.

Britain has a different economy to most of Europe, it's wealth is mainly finance based so linking its currency to poorer countries is not a particulalry good idea. Britain is also a net contributor of billions into the EU which is what puts most people off, it has nothing to do with colonial mentality.

The US shafted Britain after WWII (not as mcuh as they Poland though), but like you say, that is glossed over. What that has to do with the special relationship though I have no idea.

Fratton Fred

Seanies32 wrote: »

I thought the Republic had the special relationship.

the Americans like the Irish vote. Apart from that they think everyone here runs around drinking guinness and chasing leprechauns

Victor

SlabMurphy wrote: »

" there are dozens of coountries in ISAF, would you consider them all butt kissers " Yes I do. When you get countries ( although in small numbers and from what I know in a back up role ) like Poland, Slovakia, Australia and even the Kiwi's invovled I can think of no other reason than to butt kiss the US for hopefully economic and political pay back and nothing to do with some sort of ' bearing the white man's burden '.

Does this include Ireland?

Probably.

mike65 wrote: »

they invaded Grenada without any warning to the UK government, they were reluctant regarding Faklands as noted.

The Queen was advised on Grenada. Argentina was about the closest the USA had to an ally in South America, what with them being big on the whole anti-Communist thing.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

since Korea, isn't the first iraq war the first time Britain and the US went to war alongside each other? so we have Iraq (Twice) Afghanistan and korea. Four times in 60 years.

And Afghanistan 1979-1987? And that whole NATO warsaw Pact thing which they had a whole lot of proxy wars?

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's arguably because Britain is a nuclear power in name only; while they have nuclear missiles they don't have the strategic guidance capability to use them - they rely on America for targeting.

Ballistic missiles have more than GPS for guidance. But yes, the British and American nuclear weapons programs have been Siamese twins.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have no idea where this idea came from, but it's not true. They are American built systems but they are entirely under British control. The only foreign nukes that the US had control over were the Canadian ones, since they were basically just on loan to the RCAF. Even then, that was just release authority. There was nothing physically stopping a Canadian pilot launching off his own bat.

There were about 8 other NATO countries with American weapons - Norway, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy come to mind. The weapons they had in Britain were only finally withdrawn this year.

Google suggests 'Special Relationship' came from Churchill and it also had an Canadian element.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Special+Relationship+origin&meta=
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Special+Relationship+origin+us+britain&meta=

Manic Moran

Victor wrote: »

There were about 8 other NATO countries with American weapons - Norway, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy come to mind. The weapons they had in Britain were only finally withdrawn this year.

I'll be surprised if those weren't retained under American posession within those countries' borders. The Canadian nukes (AIR-2 Genies) were under the physical control of RCAF and flown on RCAF aircraft, as part of NORAD.

NTM

extragon

The idea dates from WW2 and is about Britain's identity problem due to loss of Empire and, nowadays, European integration. It has little substance - from the US side - and none at all for ordinary Brits. But many prefer to ignore this and like to be fooled, and rich and powerful Brits with personal special relations advance their own interests by fooling them.

From a practical point of view ( military adventurism excluded ) Britain has a special relationship with its EU neighbours. As for language and culture in the global village, love it or hate it the US is "special" for everyone.

brianthebard

extragon wrote: »

The idea dates from WW2 and is about Britain's identity problem due to loss of Empire and, nowadays, European integration.

this is incompatible with the facts surrounding the phrase,even though the empire was weakened and would eventually fall apart it was still very much an empire when churchill said those words.Furthermore the phrase is clearly a comment on the relationship between the UK and USA during WWII and their supposed battle against evil,as well as a call for solidarity against the USSR in the times to come.

LordSutch

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Why do the British insist on this so called 'Special Relationship' with America. What do they think is out of it for them ? But still the british go butt kissing the US at every possible chance, Afghanistan, Iraq etc So, why do they do insist on this so called 'Special Relationship' ??

Maybe because Britain "England" gave birth to the USA in the form of 'The Pilgrim Fathers' on the Mayflower.

Just one theory, I'm not saying that this is the definitve answer, just one plausable reason to the questioner as to why Britain has such a close relationship with the US to this very day ???

tallus

ArthurF wrote: »

Maybe because Britain "England" gave birth to the USA in the form of 'The Pilgrim Fathers' on the Mayflower.

Just one theory, I'm not saying that this is the definitve answer, just one plausable reason to the questioner as to why Britain has such a close relationship with the US to this very day ???

Apparently all life began in Africa, so should we have a special relationship with Africa too in that case ?
Do you realise that there was a war of independance between the US and the English way back in teh 1700's?
Not a valid point in my estimation.

extragon

this is incompatible with the facts surrounding the phrase,even though the empire was weakened and would eventually fall apart it was still very much an empire when churchill said those

Yes, but usage of the term has evolved and nowadays it is mostly heard as part of a Eurosceptic argument, implying that because of the "special relationship" Britain can do without aspects of EU integration. And it's a popular argument because the British have an identity problem. I can think of no other country that has had its language and part of its culture taken over by another much larger ( and richer, and possibly more attractive ) society.

ejmaztec

extragon wrote: »

I can think of no other country that has had its language and part of its culture taken over by another much larger ( and richer, and possibly more attractive ) society.

If you're going down that road, I can think of at least one other - Ireland.

SlabMurphy

ArthurF wrote: »

Maybe because Britain "England" gave birth to the USA in the form of 'The Pilgrim Fathers' on the Mayflower.

" Britain "England" gave birth to the USA " I thought that the American War of Independence (1775–1783) gave birth to the America by defeating britian ??

Victor wrote: »

The Queen was advised on Grenada.

Do you seriously beleive that the Americans ( or anyone else for that matter ) give a care about what Mrs Windsor has to say ??


Good stuff there Manic Moran. By what you have to say, the programme was indeed crap. It was called "The Falklands Play*" on BBC 4. Possibly the writer took poetic license in writing the play, but then you cann't believe what you see on TV can you

Interesting about Haig's possible motivation - "Haig did his best to try to create a negotiated settlement (possibly too much: After addressing an OAS meeting, one attendee said "It was as if he could see the Nobel peace prize already within his grasp")

ejmaztec " As far as I'm concerned, the special relationship is a polite way for the Americans and the British to gloss over the fact that a number was done on the British Empire when it was on its last legs. " Yes, I remember watching a documentary on RTE 2 about America and Britiian's relationship in WW2. The british were discussing by telegram with the America on the US navy selling ships to Britian. The Americans were holding a tough line but still holding out for further negoiations. The British replied " Empires don't negoiate " to which the US replied " but Republics do ". Needless to say, Britain had to capitulate to Americas demands.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falklands_Play

SlabMurphy

extragon wrote: »

The idea dates from WW2 and is about Britain's identity problem due to loss of Empire and, nowadays, European integration. It has little substance - from the US side - and none at all for ordinary Brits. But many prefer to ignore this and like to be fooled, and rich and powerful Brits with personal special relations advance their own interests by fooling them.

From a practical point of view ( military adventurism excluded ) Britain has a special relationship with its EU neighbours. As for language and culture in the global village, love it or hate it the US is "special" for everyone.

I think you've nailed it on the head there extragon as to my question - " Why do the British insist on this so called 'Special Relationship' with America. What do they think is out of it for them ? "

Fratton Fred

extragon wrote: »

Yes, but usage of the term has evolved and nowadays it is mostly heard as part of a Eurosceptic argument, implying that because of the "special relationship" Britain can do without aspects of EU integration. And it's a popular argument because the British have an identity problem. I can think of no other country that has had its language and part of its culture taken over by another much larger ( and richer, and possibly more attractive ) society.

I've never heard of it as part of the eurosceptic debate, I've never had an identity crisis either.

The only time I ever hear "Special relationship is when there is a meeting between British and US heads of state, which isn't that often.

There is probably a concern about "English" culture and identity at the moment but that has nothing to do with Europe or America, that is more to do with immigration and devolution. There is a sizeable movement in England to drop GSTQ as the national anthem and St george as the patron saint, replacing them with St Alban (At least he is actually English) and Jerusalem, but that is waay off topic.

Personally I think people are reading too much into this, it's a flippant throw away statement used to make the relationship sound more than it actually is (ie, you do what we tell you and we'll steal your wallet as quoted somewhere on these boards), end of story. All this talk of "Ends of Empires" and identity crisis etc is nonsense.

Manic Moran

Interesting about Haig's possible motivation - "Haig did his best to try to create a negotiated settlement (possibly too much: After addressing an OAS meeting, one attendee said "It was as if he could see the Nobel peace prize already within his grasp")

There was a fair split in the US State Dept. Some people, such as Eagleberger, advocated announcing for the UK right off the bat. Haig preferred to try to do what he could to keep the US ally in South America. Argentina knew of the split, and tried to play it.

NTM

extragon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've never heard of it as part of the eurosceptic debate, I've never had an identity crisis either.

The Eurosceptic press in Britain endorses nearly all things American. Leaving aside a small number of isolationists, anti-European opinion draws its strength from a misty eyed Atlanticism. As M Thatcher said, "In my lifetime all of the problems have come from Europe, and all the solutions from America. "
The exact term "special relationship" may not often be used, but sycophantic pro Americanism seems to go hand in hand with a deep distrust of Europe.

Fratton Fred

extragon wrote: »

The Eurosceptic press in Britain endorses nearly all things American. Leaving aside a small number of isolationists, anti-European opinion draws its strength from a misty eyed Atlanticism. As M Thatcher said, "In my lifetime all of the problems have come from Europe, and all the solutions from America. "
The exact term "special relationship" may not often be used, but sycophantic pro Americanism seems to go hand in hand with a deep distrust of Europe.

I've never noticed it. got any examples?

nacho libre

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've never noticed it. got any examples?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

ejmaztec

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

I would say that the writer of that article, Andrew Roberts, is very much pro-American to start with. It seems to be a collection of paragraphs giving some indications as to why he thinks George W is a modern-day hero of democracy. Roberts may be an historian of note, but his prediction of how George W will be seen as a good president in years to come, I think is wide of the mark by a longshot.

St_Crispin

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Do you seriously beleive that the Americans ( or anyone else for that matter ) give a care about what Mrs Windsor has to say ??

Er... Yeah?

Maybe not with the current administration, but back then yes. The UK was america's closest ally. The queen has been head of state since the 60's. A royal visit somewhere isn't just for sightseers. It's a diplomatic mission. The royal family probably have more training and knowledge in diplomacy and statecraft than any other head of state in the world. And she's probably met more heads of state than any other head of state in the world. Plus every male in the family has military experience and most have seen combat. We may look at her as auld lizzie, but that woman knows more about foreign affairs than our whole dail combined. If I wanted advice I might consider asking her. And if she were to give any I'd give it very serious consideration.

Fratton Fred

nacho libre wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

that's a random news article from a traditionally right wing newspaper. what is this supposed to prove?

magick

yes ive always found this weird given that fact the USA doesnt take a blind bit of notice of what the UK thinks, yet UK politician always fall over themselves touting the "special realtionship". Also you never hear of it in the US.

nacho libre

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's a random news article from a traditionally right wing newspaper. what is this supposed to prove?

You asked for evidence of pro-Americanism and Euroscepticism in the British press.
I gave you an example of the former in but one paper. Nearly every week you'll find examples of articles that are eurosceptic in tone in the Telegraph.

Though, you seem to be making the point that the Telegraph is an exception. I disagree.
I've read countless articles over the years in various British papers that were pro-American in tone and engaged in Euroscepticism.

Fratton Fred

nacho libre wrote: »

You asked for evidence of pro-Americanism and Euroscepticism in the British press.
I gave you an example of the former in but one paper. Nearly every week you'll find examples of articles that are eurosceptic in tone in the Telegraph.

Though, you seem to be making the point that the Telegraph is an exception. I disagree.
I've read countless articles over the years in various British papers that were pro-American in tone and engaged in Euroscepticism.

I wouldn't deny that euroscepticism is not popular in the British press, probably more so than here, but I don't see how that is linked to pro Americanism.

Thinking about this further, there's definately a special relationship between New york and London because of the links between two of the worlds major financial centres (98 Brits were killed in 9/11, the highest number of foreigners) but I can't see how you can link that with anti EU feelings.

I would say if there is a special relationship it is at a Business level as opposed to a national one, whereas euroscepticism comes from the average person who is more than a bit peeved about the billions of taxes Britain has ploughed into the EU coffers.

nacho libre

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't deny that euroscepticism is not popular in the British press, probably more so than here, but I don't see how that is linked to pro Americanism.

Thinking about this further, there's definately a special relationship between New york and London because of the links between two of the worlds major financial centres (98 Brits were killed in 9/11, the highest number of foreigners) but I can't see how you can link that with anti EU feelings.

I would say if there is a special relationship it is at a Business level as pposed to a national one, whereas euroscepticism comes from the average person who is more than a bit peeved about the billions of taxes Britain has ploughed into the EU coffers.

I'm not linking that with anti-eu feeling- just demonstrating the two do exist in the British press. As you say one is not necessarily a consequence of the other. You do bring up an interesting point about why Britsh business tends to be pro-American. You'll also find there is a definite link between pro-Americanism and euro scepticism from many right-wing politicans.

extragon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't deny that euroscepticism is not popular in the British press, probably more so than here, but I don't see how that is linked to pro Americanism.

Many eurosceptic arguments and practices are interchangeable with pro Americanism. For starters....

The idea that society in Britain is more right wing than in the rest of Europe. So the UK should ditch the social chapters of the European treaties and model its labour relations on the US.
The idea that Britain's security depends on its military alliance with the US. So no common EU defence, except under US tutelage. Only America can be relied on, without question. ( Argument include a distorted picture of why the US came into WW2 ).
Support for the dollar as the world's permanent no. 1 reserve currency, at the expense of the Euro.
A Fortress Britain of electronic borders and "Homeland Security," justified by threats caused by the UK following US foreign policy, loved by Eurosceptics, and far from the EU ideal of free movement of people.

Fratton Fred

extragon wrote: »

Many eurosceptic arguments and practices are interchangeable with pro Americanism. For starters....

The idea that society in Britain is more right wing than in the rest of Europe. So the UK should ditch the social chapters of the European treaties and model its labour relations on the US.
The idea that Britain's security depends on its military alliance with the US. So no common EU defence, except under US tutelage. Only America can be relied on, without question. ( Argument include a distorted picture of why the US came into WW2 ).
Support for the dollar as the world's permanent no. 1 reserve currency, at the expense of the Euro.
A Fortress Britain of electronic borders and "Homeland Security," justified by threats caused by the UK following US foreign policy, loved by Eurosceptics, and far from the EU ideal of free movement of people.

I'm not sure about the defence points you raise, I think there are a lot of assumptions there, I'd also disagree about Britain being more right wng than most of Europe. There are strong fascist parties in France, Germany and Italy. If you mean Britain is more of a capitalist society then yes, it probably is.

Britains main industry is finance. The square mile of City of London generates far more income then the rest of the country, so it makes sense that Britain uses a currency that is not linked to countries whose economy is not much more then third world. In terms of second currency, the dollar is the obvious choice. Like it or not, it is every countries second currency.

Ask the majority of eurosceptics about the US and they would be as critical of the Americans as they are of Brussels.

ejmaztec

extragon wrote: »

Many eurosceptic arguments and practices are interchangeable with pro Americanism. For starters....

The idea that society in Britain is more right wing than in the rest of Europe. So the UK should ditch the social chapters of the European treaties and model its labour relations on the US.
The idea that Britain's security depends on its military alliance with the US. So no common EU defence, except under US tutelage. Only America can be relied on, without question. ( Argument include a distorted picture of why the US came into WW2 ).
Support for the dollar as the world's permanent no. 1 reserve currency, at the expense of the Euro.
A Fortress Britain of electronic borders and "Homeland Security," justified by threats caused by the UK following US foreign policy, loved by Eurosceptics, and far from the EU ideal of free movement of people.

I wouldn't say that Britain is more right wing than any other country in Europe. I know that they have had "Nu-Labour" for over ten years, but it is still socialist, despite what some critics may say.

Britain isn't the only European country with a link to US security - Nato?

The British have a begrudging attitude to the US dollar being the main currency. I think that, deep down, they're hankering for the good old days when Sterling was top of the heap. I consider this to be one of the reasons for the UK's not entering the Eurozone. British businesses, I think, would prefer to adopt the Euro. Many of them operate Euro accounts.

I also consider that the entire EU zone is trying to secure its borders, not just the UK. There are several EU countries at risk from terrorist attacks. As for freedom of movement in the UK, I don't see that at all.

You seem to have the impression that the UK is a nazi-style closed society, that might as well be another American state. British people in general have no more regard for the Americans than has anyone else.

Your idea of Britain has probably only existed on the silver screen.

extragon

ejmaztec wrote: »

I wouldn't say that Britain is more right wing than any other country in Europe.....

I didn't say it was, but was presenting a range of eurosceptic positions, without comment, to show the link between them and pro Americanism - which I thought was the issue in question.
No I don't think Britain is a nazi-style society, but is one of the more progressive countries in the world. ( Good way to cut short a debate, though. ) Some eurosceptics present Britain as more capitalistic than "socialist" Europe - and therefore more like the US - which is highly debatable, of course.

ejmaztec wrote: »

As for freedom of movement in the UK, I don't see that at all.

Obviously the point refers to freedom of movement between Britain and mainland Europe.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ask the majority of eurosceptics about the US and they would be as critical of the Americans as they are of Brussels.

Maybe, down in the pub. But can you tell us about any anti American newspaper or politician in the UK? They don't exist. Not supporting GWB is not "anti American" in any profound way. Only the most radical fringes dish it out on Washington like they do all the time on Brussels.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

extragon wrote: »

Maybe, down in the pub. But can you tell us about any anti American newspaper or politician in the UK? They don't exist. Not supporting GWB is not "anti American" in any profound way. Only the most radical fringes dish it out on Washington like they do all the time on Brussels.

Fratton Fred

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

I suddenly feel very ill.:eek:

ejmaztec

extragon wrote: »

I didn't say it was, but was presenting a range of eurosceptic positions, without comment, to show the link between them and pro Americanism - which I thought was the issue in question.
No I don't think Britain is a nazi-style society, but is one of the more progressive countries in the world. ( Good way to cut short a debate, though. ) Some eurosceptics present Britain as more capitalistic than "socialist" Europe - and therefore more like the US - which is highly debatable, of course.

Obviously the point refers to freedom of movement between Britain and mainland Europe.


Maybe, down in the pub. But can you tell us about any anti American newspaper or politician in the UK? They don't exist. Not supporting GWB is not "anti American" in any profound way. Only the most radical fringes dish it out on Washington like they do all the time on Brussels.

I'm glad that you agree that Britain being more like the US is highly debateable.

As far as I can see, there's no problem with EU citizen's having access to The UK. They seem to have a very small list of undesirables, and doubt whether any of them would be EU citizens, unless previously deported - anybody can go to the UK and cause mayhem.

As for anti-Americanism, there's no difference between the UK and Ireland on this. The attitude is different at governmental level. I get the impression that the Irish government sucks up to the American government infinitely more than does the UK's. You can say that the UK created the US and the Irish populated a chunk of it, so both countries, although probably for different reasons, have an interest in maintaining relations with it.