4 ms·

The classic way to engage in peaceful force projection is to do something drastic but oriented inward, with international implications, and implicitly challenge

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

> 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.