I think we agree on a lot. I usually just don't respond to the pieces I agree to since it's a lot of "Yup. Yup. You're right" (although reading your reply, I ca

I think we agree on a lot. I usually just don't respond to the pieces I agree to since it's a lot of "Yup. Yup. You're right" (although reading your reply, I can see why those are important, so that's more about a flaw in me than in what one should do). > I should point out that any nation with a history of importance would be daft not to play it up I don't think so. For the most part, this feels more like rubbing salt on recent wounds than helping the UK in any way. A good way to think about this: How would you feel about Russia playing up Soviet glory? Germany playing up Nazi glory? You want to signal you moved the f- on. Old glory is sometimes okay, even if violent. There are few wounds remaining from the Roman or Mongolian empire, so Italy and Mongolia can leverage those, if they don't overdo it (for an example of "overdo," see Mussolini). Good glory: * Islamic Golden Age? Awesome. That's about scientific and intellectual progress. * US, 1940-1980? Economic superpower. Center of innovation. A few nasty incidents, but overall, the world's policeman providing rule-of-law and stability. * Polish Winged Hussars saving Vienna (and Europe, by proxy) from Ottoman invasion? Good. That's coming to help * China, during the late Tang dynasty? Known for massive progress in governance, poetry, architecture, science/engineering, etc. The British Empire didn't help (almost) anyone and didn't leave the world a better place. You conquered and looted a lot of land. Many places -- like India -- have still not come close to recovering, having moved from one of the wealthiest to one of the poorest places in the world. It's striking how much history has been rewritten in England to paper over this stuff, but English history is increasingly presented more honestly in former colonies, and that disconnect in narrative hurts. > I really wish we were a lot less active on the world stage (except as part of a multinational grouping like the EU or UN). To be honest, I'm not opposed to how active the UK is. Most recent times I've seen it active, it's had a positive impact. It took a leadership position a few times in military aid to Ukraine, which I really appreciated. It provides a lot of educational and medical interventions in former colonies and Commonwealth countries, which are a win-win (it almost certainly probably provides more economic benefit back to Britain than it costs, and it leads to a lot of goodwill to people who would otherwise hate you). I just wish it wasn't draped in that English superiority complex. That buys you nothing and costs you a lot. > our permanent seat and veto on the Security Council for example is a little ridiculous (as is that of France). For your benefit: * Permanent members of the UN security council: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China * First countries with nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China (India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea came later) You might notice a 100% overlap. A lot of the justification for not changing it was to avoid a nuclear veto option. I agree the structure is obsolete, and I'm not sure we want a security council at all. However, I'm in no rush to change it. At some point, if we even have a security council, moving seats to the EU as a whole would make a heck of a lot of sense. The EU has a ways to go before it's organized enough to manage something like that (it seems to be on-track to get there). In the meantime, I'm okay with the UK and France keeping the seat warm. For all your criticisms of UK politicians -- which I probably agree with -- I think UK is better structured to do a good job on the security council than the EU. A lot of the role involves things like being able to make reasonable decisions quickly, as a situation evolves, and that's something the UK excels at.