5 ms·

> Now Britain is basically irrelevant on the world stage. This sort of statement is something regularly repeated in the UK, but it doesn't make much sense. The

> Now Britain is basically irrelevant on the world stage. This sort of statement is something regularly repeated in the UK, but it doesn't make much sense. The UK has the world's 6th biggest GDP, is one of the few nuclear powers, has significant soft power, is a permanent UN security council member, etc. Brexit has been an act of astonishing self-harm, but talking about "trying to survive" is a bit ridiculous.

dTal 4y ago
UK is a nuclear power on sufferance of the US. It hasn't built its own nukes since 1960 or so. Which by an odd coincidence is right around when it lost its empire as well. GDP is not a reliable metric of prosperity, but in any case the UK's GDP is built on financial services. The "moat" for that is essentially a "network effect" - people do business where other people do business. Interfere with that and it can vanish overnight. "Soft power" is essentially a function of money. See above.
- wbl 4y ago
  The UK maintains its own warheads and its own designs. The only thing it gets from the US is the submarine missile: the hulls are also domestic.
  - dTal 4y ago
    I stand partially corrected; however it is worth noting that its "own designs" consist of a single warhead "closely based on" a US one. Although nominally the UK maintains the capacity to design a new weapons system, this capacity has not been tested.
NoboruWataya 4y ago
Compared to how it was in the "good old days" it is certainly much less relevant. Having the 6th largest GDP doesn't really give you much sway in the developed world when you are up against vastly larger economies like the US, the EU and China. The US and the EU, at least, are exporters of rules and standards in the way that the UK is not (it effectively was when it was a member of the EU, as it had a lot of influence on the EU position). Being a nuclear power is again not that relevant today besides giving the UK a slightly greater chance of avoiding a nuclear strike (a remote possibility anyway). It's certainly more relevant on the global stage than a lot of countries but it's not controversial to say it is in a much different position now than at the height of the empire. As for trying to survive, Brexit has bolstered the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements and created severe, intractable problems in Northern Ireland in particular. England will survive and London will survive, but the UK? Time will tell.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak. After all the Empire was wound down deliberately, the people didn't want to continue with it. "The US and the EU, at least, are exporters of rules and standards in the way that the UK is not (it effectively was when it was a member of the EU, as it had a lot of influence on the EU position)." No, that's a common claim but not really true. The UK had very little influence inside the EU and the EU rules were almost always made to satisfy the needs of either the EU institutions themselves, or the domestic economies of France and Germany. A good way to see this is to look at the fate of the "single market for services". The UK is uniquely strong in the services market, so guess what the EU never made much progress with? Compare to its obsession with harmonizing everything to do with goods trading, which benefits primarily Germany. Another way is to look at how responsive the EU was to the concerns of British voters on immigration levels. Answer: they hold voters in contempt and weren't willing to budge an inch. There was no influence, that's why the UK voted to leave. "As for trying to survive, Brexit has bolstered the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements" The latter maybe yes. The former, probably not. Scotland would have to apply to join as a regular country and its finances are in no state that would allow that.
  - NoboruWataya 4y ago
    > It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak. After all the Empire was wound down deliberately, the people didn't want to continue with it. Absolutely agree it is a good thing. Probably not everyone sees it that way though. As for the British people choosing to wind the empire down, I must have missed that referendum. > No, that's a common claim but not really true. The UK had very little influence inside the EU and the EU rules were almost always made to satisfy the needs of either the EU institutions themselves, or the domestic economies of France and Germany. All I can say is that as a lawyer in the EU (who works closely with the UK) that is not my perception or experience. EU financial regulation heavily bears a British stamp, and the single market was immensely beneficial for London. One of the main EU initiatives that was in full swing just as Brexit happened was the Capital Markets Union which was absolutely a UK-led initiative, headed by UK Commissioner Jonathan Hill. Since Brexit happened and Hill resigned, that initiative has trundled on, but has completely lost momentum and not really delivered what it was supposed to. > Scotland would have to apply to join as a regular country and its finances are in no state that would allow that. This seems as over-confident a prediction as the predictions that the UK would never vote to leave. The EU took in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria for political reasons, it is not that much of a stretch to say it could take in Scotland.
devnull3 4y ago
> Nuclear powers meh. It is a deterrence at best. Contributes nothing in terms of economic might. > Soft power Agree. The royal family which was a major attraction seems to be on wane (imo) after Queen's death > permanent UN security council member This is rooted in post-World-War-2 setup. If the council had to be setup fresh today, UK will not figure in top 5 for sure. There are many countries which are more deserving. > Brexit has been an act of astonishing self-harm Agree. > Talking about "trying to survive" is a bit ridiculous. Agree here too. The key thing is that UK is declining. Its the trend that is important here.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
The question is whether the UK can continue to justify its substantial spending on military and foreign-policy influence. When the UK maintained a global empire, the answer was "obviously yes." When the UK held a dominant position in European governance (along with the various benefits that came with that), the answer was still "yes." But now the UK has given both of those things. So it's reasonable to ask if these are expensive luxuries from another era.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  The UK never held anything close to a dominant position in European governance.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    The UK was one of the top 3-4 nations by voting power (depending on the time) in the 27-member EU and a very important player in EU politics. Their negotiating power is evidenced by the fact that they were able to secure opt-outs from a number of treaty obligations.
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      In the past! Over time less and less was decided by voting and we saw what the UK's influence was worth when Cameron took voters concerns to the other leaders. Answer: shut up and do as you are told. The EU hasn't been interested in votes for a long time and will certainly be even less interested in future.
  - orwin 4y ago
    It was dominant though. Top2 or top3 in research orientation. I don't think a single project was ever done without major UK participants and researchers. Granted, we mostly excluded 'public schools' in favor of UK universities, at least for research and engineering projects, but Edinburgh had more power than Hamburg and Hannover, and I think only Paris-Lyon had more projects than them. Mostly because we had space projects.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dTal 4y ago

UK is a nuclear power on sufferance of the US. It hasn't built its own nukes since 1960 or so. Which by an odd coincidence is right around when it lost its empire as well. GDP is not a reliable metric of prosperity, but in any case the UK's GDP is built on financial services. The "moat" for that is essentially a "network effect" - people do business where other people do business. Interfere with that and it can vanish overnight. "Soft power" is essentially a function of money. See above.

wbl 4y ago
The UK maintains its own warheads and its own designs. The only thing it gets from the US is the submarine missile: the hulls are also domestic.
- dTal 4y ago
  I stand partially corrected; however it is worth noting that its "own designs" consist of a single warhead "closely based on" a US one. Although nominally the UK maintains the capacity to design a new weapons system, this capacity has not been tested.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

Compared to how it was in the "good old days" it is certainly much less relevant. Having the 6th largest GDP doesn't really give you much sway in the developed world when you are up against vastly larger economies like the US, the EU and China. The US and the EU, at least, are exporters of rules and standards in the way that the UK is not (it effectively was when it was a member of the EU, as it had a lot of influence on the EU position). Being a nuclear power is again not that relevant today besides giving the UK a slightly greater chance of avoiding a nuclear strike (a remote possibility anyway). It's certainly more relevant on the global stage than a lot of countries but it's not controversial to say it is in a much different position now than at the height of the empire. As for trying to survive, Brexit has bolstered the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements and created severe, intractable problems in Northern Ireland in particular. England will survive and London will survive, but the UK? Time will tell.

fidgewidge 4y ago
It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak. After all the Empire was wound down deliberately, the people didn't want to continue with it. "The US and the EU, at least, are exporters of rules and standards in the way that the UK is not (it effectively was when it was a member of the EU, as it had a lot of influence on the EU position)." No, that's a common claim but not really true. The UK had very little influence inside the EU and the EU rules were almost always made to satisfy the needs of either the EU institutions themselves, or the domestic economies of France and Germany. A good way to see this is to look at the fate of the "single market for services". The UK is uniquely strong in the services market, so guess what the EU never made much progress with? Compare to its obsession with harmonizing everything to do with goods trading, which benefits primarily Germany. Another way is to look at how responsive the EU was to the concerns of British voters on immigration levels. Answer: they hold voters in contempt and weren't willing to budge an inch. There was no influence, that's why the UK voted to leave. "As for trying to survive, Brexit has bolstered the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements" The latter maybe yes. The former, probably not. Scotland would have to apply to join as a regular country and its finances are in no state that would allow that.
- NoboruWataya 4y ago
  > It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak. After all the Empire was wound down deliberately, the people didn't want to continue with it. Absolutely agree it is a good thing. Probably not everyone sees it that way though. As for the British people choosing to wind the empire down, I must have missed that referendum. > No, that's a common claim but not really true. The UK had very little influence inside the EU and the EU rules were almost always made to satisfy the needs of either the EU institutions themselves, or the domestic economies of France and Germany. All I can say is that as a lawyer in the EU (who works closely with the UK) that is not my perception or experience. EU financial regulation heavily bears a British stamp, and the single market was immensely beneficial for London. One of the main EU initiatives that was in full swing just as Brexit happened was the Capital Markets Union which was absolutely a UK-led initiative, headed by UK Commissioner Jonathan Hill. Since Brexit happened and Hill resigned, that initiative has trundled on, but has completely lost momentum and not really delivered what it was supposed to. > Scotland would have to apply to join as a regular country and its finances are in no state that would allow that. This seems as over-confident a prediction as the predictions that the UK would never vote to leave. The EU took in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria for political reasons, it is not that much of a stretch to say it could take in Scotland.

devnull3 4y ago

> Nuclear powers meh. It is a deterrence at best. Contributes nothing in terms of economic might. > Soft power Agree. The royal family which was a major attraction seems to be on wane (imo) after Queen's death > permanent UN security council member This is rooted in post-World-War-2 setup. If the council had to be setup fresh today, UK will not figure in top 5 for sure. There are many countries which are more deserving. > Brexit has been an act of astonishing self-harm Agree. > Talking about "trying to survive" is a bit ridiculous. Agree here too. The key thing is that UK is declining. Its the trend that is important here.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

The question is whether the UK can continue to justify its substantial spending on military and foreign-policy influence. When the UK maintained a global empire, the answer was "obviously yes." When the UK held a dominant position in European governance (along with the various benefits that came with that), the answer was still "yes." But now the UK has given both of those things. So it's reasonable to ask if these are expensive luxuries from another era.

fidgewidge 4y ago
The UK never held anything close to a dominant position in European governance.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  The UK was one of the top 3-4 nations by voting power (depending on the time) in the 27-member EU and a very important player in EU politics. Their negotiating power is evidenced by the fact that they were able to secure opt-outs from a number of treaty obligations.
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    In the past! Over time less and less was decided by voting and we saw what the UK's influence was worth when Cameron took voters concerns to the other leaders. Answer: shut up and do as you are told. The EU hasn't been interested in votes for a long time and will certainly be even less interested in future.
- orwin 4y ago
  It was dominant though. Top2 or top3 in research orientation. I don't think a single project was ever done without major UK participants and researchers. Granted, we mostly excluded 'public schools' in favor of UK universities, at least for research and engineering projects, but Edinburgh had more power than Hamburg and Hannover, and I think only Paris-Lyon had more projects than them. Mostly because we had space projects.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]