4 ms·

It's truly ironic (and unfortunate) that the UK's tribulations to leave the EU have such close parallels to its difficulties joining its predecessor. In many wa

It's truly ironic (and unfortunate) that the UK's tribulations to leave the EU have such close parallels to its difficulties joining its predecessor. In many ways, it demonstrates the weakness (both now and then) of the British economy and (peaceful) political force projection when pit against a united continental core -- led then by France and Germany, nowadays by Germany and France. The UK has much more military leverage than economic leverage. The question of the common market is an economic matter, but the free movement of peoples can go either way. There are factions in all states that would rather treat the latter issue as a matter of civil defence, but that would require the UK engaging in force projection so close to home, which it has for almost half a century closely avoided.

doktrin 9y ago
The UK may be one of the only European countries to take military spending seriously, but attempting to leverage that advantage in any kind of "direct" manner would probably backfire. Aside from lacking the political will to actually press the issue, they're not really that superior to their neighbors : https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-kingdom&country2=france&Submit=COMPARE https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.... Note that France's GFP rank is technically higher than the UK's. This obviously ignores certain intangibles, and I personally would put higher stock in the British armed services than in any continental military - but the fact remains that they're not head and shoulders above the rest. They're not the US with its unquestionable military superiority, and they're not even China who enjoy massive military (and economic) asymmetry vis a vis their neighbors. I do tend to think that UK military capabilities could be a valuable negotiating tool, particularly in uncertain times and in the face of (or fear of) potential Russian aggression - but I honestly don't see how they could successfully bully their way to a favorable resolution.
- temp-dude-87844 9y ago
  The classic way to engage in peaceful force projection is to do something drastic but oriented inward, with international implications, and implicitly challenge the world to do something about it. One way would be to institute unilateral border restrictions not unlike the ones just passed in the US. Other states would balk at such a move, and talks of sanctions would likely follow, but the UK will have proven that they can throw their weight around, framing the narrative to ostensibly take their national interest over a supranational body. Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way.
  - doktrin 9y ago
    > Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way. I don't follow. Isn't the objective to avoid economic punishment? What happens when the EU just says "ok, tough beans" and matches the UK's restrictions while closing off ties? Sounds like a great way for the UK to be left twiddling their thumbs with little to show for all the effort. Also, the US comparison is mislead IMO. The US doesn't depend on Yemen the way the UK depends on the EU. Moreover, note the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia from the travel ban : even the world's hegemon can't completely ignore economic realities.
    - temp-dude-87844 9y ago
      The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common market, such as free movement of peoples and undesired labor, while continuing to enjoy other aspects like rights of UK citizens abroad and ease of exports. This is largely unrealistic, but their weak negotiating position means something has to give. In their efforts to avoid economic disruption, they will compromise on some of the more nationalistic goals, but this will gain little goodwill domestically. More likely than not, they will end up with a weak outcome, with little to show for it. A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. The point wouldn't be to walk away from all treaties -- that's counterproductive -- but to demonstrate a position of strength, while the closed-door negotiations continue until broken off by the other party. A "fast Brexit" is advocated by Tillerson, for example, so it's likely the UK can lean on the US to back it up with this approach. An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own, leveraging bilateral agreements that it makes when beneficial for itself. This requires taking initiative; it doesn't take a nationalist to see that the optics of Britain's negotiations have shown anything but.
      - doktrin 9y ago
        > A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. What long term gain, exactly? I still fail to see how this isn't a slower and more painful way to arrive at (most likely) the same deal they'd get in the first place. What new long-term concession do you envision them getting from a bit of chest thumping? > An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own Except it can't? I scarcely think any country actually can in the modern age, without making significant and dramatic sacrifices that even the most ardent Brexit supporter is most likely not ready to accept. Brexit in and of itself was obviously over-optimistic. Doubling down on those delusions doesn't seem like a recipe for anything but unnecessary hardship - mostly for the Brits themselves.

doktrin 9y ago

The UK may be one of the only European countries to take military spending seriously, but attempting to leverage that advantage in any kind of "direct" manner would probably backfire. Aside from lacking the political will to actually press the issue, they're not really that superior to their neighbors : https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-kingdom&country2=france&Submit=COMPARE https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.... Note that France's GFP rank is technically higher than the UK's. This obviously ignores certain intangibles, and I personally would put higher stock in the British armed services than in any continental military - but the fact remains that they're not head and shoulders above the rest. They're not the US with its unquestionable military superiority, and they're not even China who enjoy massive military (and economic) asymmetry vis a vis their neighbors. I do tend to think that UK military capabilities could be a valuable negotiating tool, particularly in uncertain times and in the face of (or fear of) potential Russian aggression - but I honestly don't see how they could successfully bully their way to a favorable resolution.

temp-dude-87844 9y ago
The classic way to engage in peaceful force projection is to do something drastic but oriented inward, with international implications, and implicitly challenge the world to do something about it. One way would be to institute unilateral border restrictions not unlike the ones just passed in the US. Other states would balk at such a move, and talks of sanctions would likely follow, but the UK will have proven that they can throw their weight around, framing the narrative to ostensibly take their national interest over a supranational body. Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way.
- doktrin 9y ago
  > Since no one is willing to escalate beyond diplomatic and economic punishment, they will get their way. I don't follow. Isn't the objective to avoid economic punishment? What happens when the EU just says "ok, tough beans" and matches the UK's restrictions while closing off ties? Sounds like a great way for the UK to be left twiddling their thumbs with little to show for all the effort. Also, the US comparison is mislead IMO. The US doesn't depend on Yemen the way the UK depends on the EU. Moreover, note the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia from the travel ban : even the world's hegemon can't completely ignore economic realities.
  - temp-dude-87844 9y ago
    The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common market, such as free movement of peoples and undesired labor, while continuing to enjoy other aspects like rights of UK citizens abroad and ease of exports. This is largely unrealistic, but their weak negotiating position means something has to give. In their efforts to avoid economic disruption, they will compromise on some of the more nationalistic goals, but this will gain little goodwill domestically. More likely than not, they will end up with a weak outcome, with little to show for it. A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. The point wouldn't be to walk away from all treaties -- that's counterproductive -- but to demonstrate a position of strength, while the closed-door negotiations continue until broken off by the other party. A "fast Brexit" is advocated by Tillerson, for example, so it's likely the UK can lean on the US to back it up with this approach. An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own, leveraging bilateral agreements that it makes when beneficial for itself. This requires taking initiative; it doesn't take a nationalist to see that the optics of Britain's negotiations have shown anything but.
    - doktrin 9y ago
      > A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. What long term gain, exactly? I still fail to see how this isn't a slower and more painful way to arrive at (most likely) the same deal they'd get in the first place. What new long-term concession do you envision them getting from a bit of chest thumping? > An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own Except it can't? I scarcely think any country actually can in the modern age, without making significant and dramatic sacrifices that even the most ardent Brexit supporter is most likely not ready to accept. Brexit in and of itself was obviously over-optimistic. Doubling down on those delusions doesn't seem like a recipe for anything but unnecessary hardship - mostly for the Brits themselves.