It is a strange dynamic because Europe values the UK far higher than the US do. Ultimately the US only care about themselves because they are big enough to only care about themselves, anyone deluded enough to think that they have a special bond with the US will ultimately look silly.
I agree, though is that because we are a major contributor to the EU budget, second only to Germany?
Militarily we are much closer to the Americans yet also the biggest single power in Europe (exc.Russia). That is probably another reason why we are valued.
Australia is even more in bed with the US than the UK is. At least we stayed out of Vietnam, and I don't recall a UK PM ever calling himself the US's deputy sheriff like John Howard did. Economically, unlike the UK, it has a huge amount of mineral resources ready to be dug up and shipped to China. And, most pertinently to all these debates about country A or country B standing alone, these countries have not developed their economies over the last 40 years around being part of the economic community and then single market. It is possible to extract ourselves and build a new model but, beyond Trump-style waffle, I have yet to hear any convincing argument why this huge and risky undertaking is worth the time, effort and sacrifices that will inevitably be required.
I agree politically the Aussies are closer to the US and sending warships through the Taiwan Straits a few years ago was unwise, it seriously annoyed the Chinese.
I agree about the mineral wealth too, although that mining focus weakened their economy in the global downturn.
Re building a new model, I would expect in these current negotiations with Trudeau for example that perhaps it is a sounding out process to see if this is feasible.
A lot of these people in the old colonies consider England the mother country, they even watch Coronation Street ( that shocked me) and most like our Monarchy.
That trade deficit will still exist in some way or other unless by some miracle the UK manufactoring sector can turn the clock back. In fact it will now probably widen as it becomes more difficult to export goods and services into the huge market on our doorstep. In any case, even if you reduce the leave/remain argument to a simple matter of the membership fee (and I find that too simplistic), potential savings will be whittled down by the increase in bureaucracy needed to set up and run the new system if we are not to have "lorries backed up at Dover". And, for me, the most over-looked point is the opportunity cost. The government should be focused on the big challenges of the present and near future - overhauling the education system, funding health care for an ageing population, how to deal with increased automation. Instead, the focus of the government and civil service will be dominated by how to reinvent this particular wheel.
At the moment we are paying for 2 political systems Westminster and Brussels MEPs , so some of that money would go to the new bureaucracies etc.
Govts are too close to corporations to care about really improving health, I know from fixing a lot of my own problems and helping others. Does not mean that it can't change?
No, but it needs Britain to contribute its spending towards NATO defence. If we don't meet our 2% commitment the financial burden falls on the Americans and with Trump in charge and his 'relaxed view' about Russia, he won't think twice about ditching the defence, of certain states in Europe. The Baltic states and other East European Countries are hoping like mad that Britain outside the EU, will still continue to contribute to the overall NATO budget at the same rate and won't do a new deal with the US which just affects the defence of Western Europe only.
I think if the US play hardball, we should remind them we are buying US military hardware yet if they don't appreciate that, mention we have heard from Turkey that Russia s-400 missiles look very useful and see if their attitude changes!
There are strange undercurrents about the military I hear we are continuing a strong bond with the French with building shared defences from alt news sources!!!!
The difference is what kind of stature and influence you want the UK to actually have. Neither Australia or NZ punch anywhere near the UK's weight either economically or on the world stage. Some of that comes from population size and location, but a lot of it comes from historical power and diplomatic influence. Obviously Britain could cut itself off from the EU (and the US if it chose) and still be a significant economy, but it would be a much less significant economy than it is currently, and the effect on our global influence would be greatly reduced. That's the big threat of Brexit, and its not just the 'still thinking we're a superpower' idea that a lot of people on the left think. That influence gives us a huge amount of power regarding trade and diplomatic dealings with other countries, and benefits British people greatly.
I agree about the UK on the world stage and the challenge it represents yet with growing Islamic terror do British people still want this global role? Has anyone asked them?
British people are largely close to Canada, Australia and NZ. The old English speaking colonies. I don't think most care about the rest, it is more the Westminster elite wanting to be seen as global players.
As De Gaulle aptly put it, "No nation has friends only interests". People need to remember that.
Good point to consider yet the fellow English speaking colonies (except the US) are like cousins with so many ex-pat Brits there.
Its not about being harsh its about preserving the integrity of the single market.
Let put the ball in the UK court. Imagine if there's hard brexit. One find day Scotland decides to leave the UK and join the EU. However, its planning to do it in a bold new way, were it basically cherry picks between the two deals. The idea behind is to sell EU products to UK market on a cheap (ie no tariffs etc) and viceversa. Any UK companies interested in exploiting this loophole must move their operations to Scotland and pay all their taxes there.
Now do you think that Westminster will accept that?
Do you think that any refusal can ever be interpreted as harsh or cruel?
We both know the answer to that.
The single market exist because everyone has the same level of playing field which include the 4 freedoms and the ECJ. It cant open its door wide to a third country who isnt governed by such rules/regulations else it risks to create a loophole were other third countries can dump its products and services on cheap through the UK. Such situation would create an environment were it wouldn't even be worth be an EU member and that will destroy the Union forever
What I believe will happen is that the UK will settle its bill in exchange for a transitional period. The EU will will balance the books and the UK will be given some breathing space to think and sign trade deals. Thanks to that the UK will also leave the EU in an amicable way. That means that it would be too weird to knock the door again if the voters/economy push the government into a rethink
Re Scotland they could get their exit bill yet would be given their sum of the debt like RBS, that would seriously hurt their economy.
Is the EU really a level playing field, I have heard we play by the rules and the others don't like protecting their utility companies from UK competition and Spain for example insisting that all business are at least 51% Spanish owned.
It is a strange dynamic because Europe values the UK far higher than the US do. Ultimately the US only care about themselves because they are big enough to only care about themselves, anyone deluded enough to think that they have a special bond with the US will ultimately look silly.
Remember JPR we nearly always back the US in the UN, we nearly always send troops to show support in their conflicts and we are buying their military hardware, if they play hardball we can entertain the prospect of speaking with Putin the representative of our fellow WWII ally, just like Turkey a fellow NATO member is doing.
No, but it needs Britain to contribute its spending towards NATO defence. If we don't meet our 2% commitment the financial burden falls on the Americans and with Trump in charge and his 'relaxed view' about Russia, he won't think twice about ditching the defence, of certain states in Europe. The Baltic states and other East European Countries are hoping like mad that Britain outside the EU, will still continue to contribute to the overall NATO budget at the same rate and won't do a new deal with the US which just affects the defence of Western Europe only.
Good point
every country would want to make a deal with the UK. Whether that deal will be beneficial to the UK is a completely difficult cup of tea. Most will try to capitalise on the UK's relatively small size, its inexperience in signing trade deals, its lack of trade deals already in place, its wobbly government and its desperation in signing trade deals. Its not hatred or lack of friendship but business.
That's why the UK needs to prepare itself well. A long transitional period will give it the necessary time it needs to sign trade deals and, if things go wrong, plan for a plan B. The EFTA deal isn't that horrible
True though the cost of any transitional deal will need careful scrutiny and negotiation.
As De Gaulle aptly put it, "No nation has friends only interests". People need to remember that.
Like the quote though many countries consider us as family, when the British and Irish Lions go to NZ they get a massive financial windfall. Most love the Royals too.