He's just some random MEP. It's like saying something Farage tweets is "The UK".
He's the leader of the largest party in the parliament.
So what? He isn't "the EU".
The EU have on the whole acted like utter bellends throughout this whole thing, including this guy, but it's hysterical to keep highlighting everything he's saying as "the EU". I'm sure there's MEPs saying the opposite too.
I was pointing out the comparison to Farage is ridiculous. He's probably the second most important politician in the parliament, after the parliament president.
You mean that irrelevant parliament that has no power? Yeah I remember that one.
Yeah, I'm sure he has absolutely no influence within the parliament or with members of the commission.
What's your point? This is ridiculous.
Is he a bellend? Yes.
Does he represent the EU? No.
Therefore he isn't "the EU".
You people are completely obsessed.
Sorry, why am I obsessed again? I was pointing out it was ridiculous to claim he was just "some MEP" with about as much influence as Farage.
I never said anything about influence.
OK, but you made a comparison to Farage. I think a leader of the largest grouping in the parliament is a little more than "some random MEP".
Farage, sadly, was the face of Brexit in the European Parliament and we wonder why the other 27 nations might not have much time for us now he has won and led us out of the EU.
There is a price to pay for the constant vilification that Farage and his media cheerleaders used for years to stoke up opposition to the EU. It's no use turning round now and bleating that the EU27 don't seem to like us much.
A dignified and rational argument for leaving the EU could have been made by the leavers but that wasn't the path they chose to take.
He's just some random MEP. It's like saying something Farage tweets is "The UK".
He's the leader of the largest party in the parliament.
So what? He isn't "the EU".
The EU have on the whole acted like utter bellends throughout this whole thing, including this guy, but it's hysterical to keep highlighting everything he's saying as "the EU". I'm sure there's MEPs saying the opposite too.
I was pointing out the comparison to Farage is ridiculous. He's probably the second most important politician in the parliament, after the parliament president.
You mean that irrelevant parliament that has no power? Yeah I remember that one.
Yeah, I'm sure he has absolutely no influence within the parliament or with members of the commission.
What's your point? This is ridiculous.
Is he a bellend? Yes.
Does he represent the EU? No.
Therefore he isn't "the EU".
You people are completely obsessed.
Sorry, why am I obsessed again? I was pointing out it was ridiculous to claim he was just "some MEP" with about as much influence as Farage.
I never said anything about influence.
OK, but you made a comparison to Farage. I think a leader of the largest grouping in the parliament is a little more than "some MEP".
Brexiteers: The European Parliament is just a body of meaningless rubber stampers.
Also Brexiteers: The leader of the biggest party of the European Parliament is a very important person who has huge influence on the EU.
Lol.
So you accept he's not just "some random MEP"?
Not at all. His view is as important as some "random MEP". I.e. not important whatsoever. We can safely ignore him.
I consider the European Parliament to be weak, but not irrelevant. You're going further and consider it entirely unimportant?
Then I'm assuming you consider the EU entirely undemocratic then?
So you think we were wise to leave? Or do you think democracy is overrated?
My position is simply that Brexiteers seem to spend their days unpicking the statements of every single politician of a foreign power. Why? Why so obsessed?
We're out of the EU. We don't need to concern ourselves with this anymore.
A person who's confident in Britain does not need to get worked up about this sort of thing. They should take a leaf out of the Government's book and rise above it.
Why?
Maybe because we're politics nerds on a politics website discussing the politics of our neighbours and how it directly relates to us.
In case you missed it we also discuss US politics a lot too. We aren't in the United States. If Nancy Pelosi said something similar regarding the United Kingdom then I have no doubt we'd be discussing that.
If Nancy Pelosi said something negative about Britain on Twitter we'd discuss it, sure, but we wouldn't start crying about how the USA hates Britain.
I think there's a good chance we'd be speculating as to whether the Democrat Party specifically was long-term committed to the US alliance with the UK.
Which is also fine. But I wasn't objecting to that. I was objecting to the characterisation that what this guy is saying is what "the EU" is saying which is clearly nonsense.
I feel like our end of this argument would be happy to agree that he does not represent the entirety of thought within the EU, that other opinions may be found, and that he is not senior enough to singlehandedly alter the course of EU policy towards the UK, if you similarly accept that he is not a nobody, and likely has at least some influence on proceedings.
So THAT'S why the EU really wanted our vaccines: they DO work.....
Unfortunately it’s just Pfizer, in the data, at the moment. However
‘SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea on Wednesday said it would grant its first approval for a coronavirus vaccine to AstraZeneca, and will allow use in people 65 years or older, despite advisory panels’ warning of a lack of data on its efficacy for the elderly’
If there’s one foreign country I really trust on Covid19, it’s South Korea. A smart, advanced nation that has handled a potentially horrific outbreak incredibly well, far better than anywhere in the West. So this is properly good news.
It isn't just Pfizer...from the Sun being briefed on this.
Scientists say early data also shows the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab — which was rolled out a month after Pfizer — offers similar levels of protection across all age groups.
Getting imperfect vaccines rolled out quickly is better than banging out a perfect one in a year's time from now with this pandemic. As Van Tam says, we can have another vaccine later.
The Irish said it well: the best vaccine is the one available to you today.
...and the worst, one only available to your neighbours.
He's just some random MEP. It's like saying something Farage tweets is "The UK".
He's the leader of the largest party in the parliament.
So what? He isn't "the EU".
The EU have on the whole acted like utter bellends throughout this whole thing, including this guy, but it's hysterical to keep highlighting everything he's saying as "the EU". I'm sure there's MEPs saying the opposite too.
I was pointing out the comparison to Farage is ridiculous. He's probably the second most important politician in the parliament, after the parliament president.
You mean that irrelevant parliament that has no power? Yeah I remember that one.
Yeah, I'm sure he has absolutely no influence within the parliament or with members of the commission.
What's your point? This is ridiculous.
Is he a bellend? Yes.
Does he represent the EU? No.
Therefore he isn't "the EU".
You people are completely obsessed.
Sorry, why am I obsessed again? I was pointing out it was ridiculous to claim he was just "some MEP" with about as much influence as Farage.
I never said anything about influence.
OK, but you made a comparison to Farage. I think a leader of the largest grouping in the parliament is a little more than "some MEP".
Brexiteers: The European Parliament is just a body of meaningless rubber stampers.
Also Brexiteers: The leader of the biggest party of the European Parliament is a very important person who has huge influence on the EU.
Lol.
So you accept he's not just "some random MEP"?
Not at all. His view is as important as some "random MEP". I.e. not important whatsoever. We can safely ignore him.
I consider the European Parliament to be weak, but not irrelevant. You're going further and consider it entirely unimportant?
Then I'm assuming you consider the EU entirely undemocratic then?
So you think we were wise to leave? Or do you think democracy is overrated?
My position is simply that Brexiteers seem to spend their days unpicking the statements of every single politician of a foreign power. Why? Why so obsessed?
We're out of the EU. We don't need to concern ourselves with this anymore.
A person who's confident in Britain does not need to get worked up about this sort of thing. They should take a leaf out of the Government's book and rise above it.
Why?
Maybe because we're politics nerds on a politics website discussing the politics of our neighbours and how it directly relates to us.
In case you missed it we also discuss US politics a lot too. We aren't in the United States. If Nancy Pelosi said something similar regarding the United Kingdom then I have no doubt we'd be discussing that.
If Nancy Pelosi said something negative about Britain on Twitter we'd discuss it, sure, but we wouldn't start crying about how the USA hates Britain.
I think there's a good chance we'd be speculating as to whether the Democrat Party specifically was long-term committed to the US alliance with the UK.
Which is also fine. But I wasn't objecting to that. I was objecting to the characterisation that what this guy is saying is what "the EU" is saying which is clearly nonsense.
I feel like our end of this argument would be happy to agree that he does not represent the entirety of thought within the EU, that other opinions may be found, and that he is not senior enough to singlehandedly alter the course of EU policy towards the UK, if you similarly accept that he is not a nobody, and likely has at least some influence on proceedings.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
India, with its immense size and population, and ancient history and culture, seeks to be a Hindu superpower by itself. And will surely get there (and a UNSC seat). It is not part of this debate, tho it is a vital ally - especially when dealing with China
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
But Philip doesn't want India in the "Anglosphere".
Yes, we're establishing a secret society in a treehouse we built, and we're having a "No Indias" policy.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
He's just some random MEP. It's like saying something Farage tweets is "The UK".
He's the leader of the largest party in the parliament.
So what? He isn't "the EU".
The EU have on the whole acted like utter bellends throughout this whole thing, including this guy, but it's hysterical to keep highlighting everything he's saying as "the EU". I'm sure there's MEPs saying the opposite too.
I was pointing out the comparison to Farage is ridiculous. He's probably the second most important politician in the parliament, after the parliament president.
You mean that irrelevant parliament that has no power? Yeah I remember that one.
Yeah, I'm sure he has absolutely no influence within the parliament or with members of the commission.
What's your point? This is ridiculous.
Is he a bellend? Yes.
Does he represent the EU? No.
Therefore he isn't "the EU".
You people are completely obsessed.
Sorry, why am I obsessed again? I was pointing out it was ridiculous to claim he was just "some MEP" with about as much influence as Farage.
I never said anything about influence.
OK, but you made a comparison to Farage. I think a leader of the largest grouping in the parliament is a little more than "some random MEP".
Farage, sadly, was the face of Brexit in the European Parliament and we wonder why the other 27 nations might not have much time for us now he has won and led us out of the EU.
There is a price to pay for the constant vilification that Farage and his media cheerleaders used for years to stoke up opposition to the EU. It's no use turning round now and bleating that the EU27 don't seem to like us much.
A dignified and rational argument for leaving the EU could have been made by the leavers but that wasn't the path they chose to take.
Bovine manure.
A dignified and rational argument for leaving the EU was made by the likes of Johnson, Gove and others in Vote Leave that explicitly excluded Faragists. Johnson refused to share a stage with Farage, for very good reason.
Farage is now a meaningless unelected hack chasing after migrants on a dinghy in the night with a camera phone while Johnson is First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
That's a win in my books.
But Boris & Gove weren't the face of Brexit in Europe, Farage was and they were quite happy to hide behind him and his pettiness and nastiness to achieve their ends. They can't just ignore it now it suits them.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
The "Anglosphere".
A racist retro fantasy.
But, weirdly, working
Sounds a bit Ian Fleming to me.
The chaps you can trust.
Whatever. Your tediously Woke view of the world is as boring as it is pointless
The Anglosphere is no fantasy. It clearly exists politically - Five Eyes, the Commonwealth. It clearly exists culturally - language, movies, literature, TV. It also exists demographically - more Brits live in Australia than live in the entire EU.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
The irony is that the Anglosphere is far more racially diverse and "Woke" than the EU. Nor it is retro - most world-leading Western companies are based or HQ'ed there.
It's the fact that its genesis was through the British Empire that offends the Left.
Brexit will change the face of the European Union in many ways. For one, it will make it a lot whiter.
In a bloc that hasn’t placed much focus on increasing the political representation of minorities, the U.K. stands out. Its history of conversations about race relations is wholly different from most of Europe. It’s home to some of the most extensive anti-discrimination legislation and scholarly discussions around race. And it tracks and actively promotes minority leadership in politics and businesses through government-funded programs.
Activists and some politicians in Brussels have called for U.K.-esque policies to be implemented in the EU for years — but Brexit makes that far less likely.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
But Philip doesn't want India in the "Anglosphere".
I never said that.
I said that India don't want to be in the Anglosphere. There's a difference.
India will work with us when it's in their interests. Their interests are aligned when it comes to China but not as much on other issues.
That's why they're not a part of Five Eyes today - what I want is neither here nor there.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
He's just some random MEP. It's like saying something Farage tweets is "The UK".
He's the leader of the largest party in the parliament.
So what? He isn't "the EU".
The EU have on the whole acted like utter bellends throughout this whole thing, including this guy, but it's hysterical to keep highlighting everything he's saying as "the EU". I'm sure there's MEPs saying the opposite too.
I was pointing out the comparison to Farage is ridiculous. He's probably the second most important politician in the parliament, after the parliament president.
You mean that irrelevant parliament that has no power? Yeah I remember that one.
Yeah, I'm sure he has absolutely no influence within the parliament or with members of the commission.
What's your point? This is ridiculous.
Is he a bellend? Yes.
Does he represent the EU? No.
Therefore he isn't "the EU".
You people are completely obsessed.
Sorry, why am I obsessed again? I was pointing out it was ridiculous to claim he was just "some MEP" with about as much influence as Farage.
I never said anything about influence.
OK, but you made a comparison to Farage. I think a leader of the largest grouping in the parliament is a little more than "some random MEP".
Farage, sadly, was the face of Brexit in the European Parliament and we wonder why the other 27 nations might not have much time for us now he has won and led us out of the EU.
There is a price to pay for the constant vilification that Farage and his media cheerleaders used for years to stoke up opposition to the EU. It's no use turning round now and bleating that the EU27 don't seem to like us much.
A dignified and rational argument for leaving the EU could have been made by the leavers but that wasn't the path they chose to take.
Bovine manure.
A dignified and rational argument for leaving the EU was made by the likes of Johnson, Gove and others in Vote Leave that explicitly excluded Faragists. Johnson refused to share a stage with Farage, for very good reason.
Farage is now a meaningless unelected hack chasing after migrants on a dinghy in the night with a camera phone while Johnson is First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
That's a win in my books.
But Boris & Gove weren't the face of Brexit in Europe, Farage was and they were quite happy to hide behind him and his pettiness and nastiness to achieve their ends. They can't just ignore it now it suits them.
Nonsense.
Boris is the face of Brexit. He is the one who has been elected Prime Minister to Get Brexit Done and he is the one who has for nearly two years now been negotiating with them.
Farage is a pub bore. He's not been speaking to them at all.
Bit of a lazy post because it's not really relevant to what I was saying.
Leon asserted that it isn't hard to envisage a world whether the "Anglosphere" makes their "union" more politically linked.
I said fine, but do they want that? What level of political integration is the limit? Do they want free movement of people, for example?
There's several giant leaps from "5 Eyes" to "deeper ties" to "political union".
I'm not opposed to further integration with the "Anglosphere" by the way.
I dunno, all he said was "slightly more formal and political" (emphasis mine). I agree that (obviously) the exact working structure would be harder in practice to agree on than a vague desire to deepen ties. But the general principle seems to have some (albeit not necessarily overwhelming) support.
But surely the point is that he is just one MEP - however influential some might or might not claim him to be. What he is suggesting in his idiotic tweet is exactly what the EU President mooted and tried to enforce a couple of weeks ago and look where that got her.
If the President of the EU cannot bring in such a policy then I don't think we have to worry about one MEP, however influential he might want to think he is. It genuinely is like someone reading Farage or Starmer tweets as UK policy.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In reference to your last paragraph, I'm not sure that's fair. I've been very open to the fact that I support membership of CPTPP and deeper ties with CANZUK in response to us leaving the EU. My concern and question, although not worded very thoroughly, was to the level of "deeper ties".
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
Unstoppable force meets immovable object.
I wonder how many more times they can say "no" to each other in succession?
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
The "Anglosphere".
A racist retro fantasy.
But, weirdly, working
Sounds a bit Ian Fleming to me.
The chaps you can trust.
Whatever. Your tediously Woke view of the world is as boring as it is pointless
The Anglosphere is no fantasy. It clearly exists politically - Five Eyes, the Commonwealth. It clearly exists culturally - language, movies, literature, TV. It also exists demographically - more Brits live in Australia than live in the entire EU.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
That you auto emit the "woke" trope is a tell. But look, seriously, these 'anglo' links are real - of course they are - but they will not solidify into a coherent bloc in the 21st century to rival USA, China, Europe. It's just not going to happen. The opposite in fact. The echoes of Empire are fading and will continue to fade. To think otherwise is a retro fantasy. If Brexit has raised your hopes on this front, it is yet one more delusion being cruelly fed.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
India, with its immense size and population, and ancient history and culture, seeks to be a Hindu superpower by itself. And will surely get there (and a UNSC seat). It is not part of this debate, tho it is a vital ally - especially when dealing with China
Absolutely. India has its own interests. It is imperialistic nonsense to suggest we can or should override that.
Hmm. Including Australia on that list might be a little unfortunate given they get all their vaccine currently from Belgium and the EU has them on a list of countries that are to be covered by the export ban.
This Five Eyes business gets completely overstated. In reality there is One Eye that occasionally throws a few scraps at the other four as its interests dictate. Though Canada gets a level of privilege and access through NORAD of which the other three can only dream.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
A truly bizarre point of view.
An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In reference to your last paragraph, I'm not sure that's fair. I've been very open to the fact that I support membership of CPTPP and deeper ties with CANZUK in response to us leaving the EU. My concern and question, although not worded very thoroughly, was to the level of "deeper ties".
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
The answer is we don't know. We're only just out of the EU and finding out who our real friends are in the world. There's still a lot to figure out at the moment but there's definitely been a rekindling of old friendships between the UK and Anglo allies not in the EU since we've left. I don't know how far we will go with it but CPTPP membership and getting the US on board for it would reshape world trade and cooperation.
We're definitely going to be in it sooner rather than later, after that it's about convincing Biden that the trade offs for agriculture (none of the countries will want to deal with them if they stick chlorinated chicken into it) are worth it for reasserting US presence in APAC and having a three quarter trade deal with the UK.
If it does work out that way I expect the UK will further dilute the existing UK-EU deal in 5 years to something a lot more barebones on just trade.
This Five Eyes business gets completely overstated. In reality there is One Eye that occasionally throws a few scraps at the other four as its interests dictate. Though Canada gets a level of privilege and access through NORAD of which the other three can only dream.
Knowing someone who is involved in this on the UK side I can confidently say you are talking rubbish - and not for the first time.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In reference to your last paragraph, I'm not sure that's fair. I've been very open to the fact that I support membership of CPTPP and deeper ties with CANZUK in response to us leaving the EU. My concern and question, although not worded very thoroughly, was to the level of "deeper ties".
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
Free movement is unlikely but is endorsed by some in all the nations concerned. Notably of course CANZUK excludes the USA.
The difference between the EU and those countries is that they're not wondering if their health services will survive the quarter, and have less of an economic imperative to get vaccines out quickly and return to normality.
Hmm. Including Australia on that list might be a little unfortunate given they get all their vaccine currently from Belgium and the EU has them on a list of countries that are to be covered by the export ban.
The Oceanian countries could be in a pickle. Neither Australia nor New Zealand have vaccinated a single citizen; their borders are closed, and it's late summer there.
Are they going to be able to get jabs in arms quickly enough?
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
A truly bizarre point of view.
An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
No it wouldn't, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand even combined are no match for China and even adding the USA at most comes to a score draw.
India, with the second largest military in the world and soon to be the 3rd largest economy would tip the balance in the West's favour and is pivotal for an alliance to contain China to have real effect
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In reference to your last paragraph, I'm not sure that's fair. I've been very open to the fact that I support membership of CPTPP and deeper ties with CANZUK in response to us leaving the EU. My concern and question, although not worded very thoroughly, was to the level of "deeper ties".
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
Free movement is unlikely but is endorsed by some in all the nations concerned. Notably of course CANZUK excludes the USA.
There's a difference though between viewing these as our closest allies and going as far as free movement.
So when we say "deeper ties with CANZUK" what we basically mean is "trade deals and foreign policy objectives".
That's fine but it's a long way from political integration on the level seen by the EU and it remains to be seen what the economic benefit of that will be.
What will be interesting is whether republicanism jumps once QEII passes away and the effect (if any) that will have on cultural ties and goodwill.
@HYUFD for example seems to treat rejection of the monarchy as a personal insult.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
A truly bizarre point of view.
An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
No it wouldn't, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand even combined are no match for China and even adding the USA at most comes to a score draw.
India, with the second largest military in the world and soon to be the 3rd largest economy would tip the balance in the West's favour and is pivotal for an alliance to contain China to have real effect
But surely the point is that he is just one MEP - however influential some might or might not claim him to be. What he is suggesting in his idiotic tweet is exactly what the EU President mooted and tried to enforce a couple of weeks ago and look where that got her.
If the President of the EU cannot bring in such a policy then I don't think we have to worry about one MEP, however influential he might want to think he is. It genuinely is like someone reading Farage or Starmer tweets as UK policy.
He was the EPP (the biggest party) Spitzenkandidat for UvdL's job - so not just "any MEP".
Hmm. Including Australia on that list might be a little unfortunate given they get all their vaccine currently from Belgium and the EU has them on a list of countries that are to be covered by the export ban.
The Oceanian countries could be in a pickle. Neither Australia nor New Zealand have vaccinated a single citizen; their borders are closed, and it's late summer there.
Are they going to be able to get jabs in arms quickly enough?
Trouble is they ned to get vaccine. The Pfizer supplies are not due until the end of February - if the EU lets them have them. I suppose New Zealand is in less of a pickle as they seem to have adapted to the total isolation policy very well.
Bit of a lazy post because it's not really relevant to what I was saying.
Leon asserted that it isn't hard to envisage a world whether the "Anglosphere" makes their "union" more politically linked.
I said fine, but do they want that? What level of political integration is the limit? Do they want free movement of people, for example?
There's several giant leaps from "5 Eyes" to "deeper ties" to "political union".
I'm not opposed to further integration with the "Anglosphere" by the way.
Personally, I find the idea of giving up sovereignty to 'the Anglosphere' after we just took it back from the EU to be utterly ridiculous. Unless the idea is that we're the biggest boy in it and everybody else in it just gives sovereignty up to us, which is unlikely and not necessarily desirable.
Surely the first order of business is to renew the UK?
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
The "Anglosphere".
A racist retro fantasy.
But, weirdly, working
Sounds a bit Ian Fleming to me.
The chaps you can trust.
Whatever. Your tediously Woke view of the world is as boring as it is pointless
The Anglosphere is no fantasy. It clearly exists politically - Five Eyes, the Commonwealth. It clearly exists culturally - language, movies, literature, TV. It also exists demographically - more Brits live in Australia than live in the entire EU.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
That you auto emit the "woke" trope is a tell. But look, seriously, these 'anglo' links are real - of course they are - but they will not solidify into a coherent bloc in the 21st century to rival USA, China, Europe. It's just not going to happen. The opposite in fact. The echoes of Empire are fading and will continue to fade. To think otherwise is a retro fantasy. If Brexit has raised your hopes on this front, it is yet one more delusion being cruelly fed.
Sadly, for you, they’re not fading - I know you hate the British Empah and all that - but if there’s one thing that can unite old friends it is this: a common enemy. We now have one. Bigtime. China. It has simultaneously threatened or challenged all the major English-speaking nations in recent months. Whether this is deliberate or a diplomatic error, who knows. But the reaction is obvious. Human nature.
Old friends will gang up to face the foe. A story as old as time, or, indeed, China.
I'm really at a loss as to what he thinks he is posting about and to whom?
He has a blue tick yet gets likes in the tens. Apart from the tiny audience France 24 gets and FBPE Twitter, PB must be the rest of his Tweet visibility.
Bit of a lazy post because it's not really relevant to what I was saying.
Leon asserted that it isn't hard to envisage a world whether the "Anglosphere" makes their "union" more politically linked.
I said fine, but do they want that? What level of political integration is the limit? Do they want free movement of people, for example?
There's several giant leaps from "5 Eyes" to "deeper ties" to "political union".
I'm not opposed to further integration with the "Anglosphere" by the way.
Personally, I find the idea of giving up sovereignty to 'the Anglosphere' after we just took it back from the EU to be utterly ridiculous. Unless the idea is that we're the biggest boy in it and everybody else in it just gives sovereignty up to us, which is unlikely and not necessarily desirable.
Surely the first order of business is to renew the UK?
Yep agreed. Trade deals, lost of military and diplomatic initiatives and support, even free movement if desired. But certainly not any form of political integration. For a start which former colony is going to look favourably on that in any way at all? And that is exactly how it will be portrayed.
Bit of a lazy post because it's not really relevant to what I was saying.
Leon asserted that it isn't hard to envisage a world whether the "Anglosphere" makes their "union" more politically linked.
I said fine, but do they want that? What level of political integration is the limit? Do they want free movement of people, for example?
There's several giant leaps from "5 Eyes" to "deeper ties" to "political union".
I'm not opposed to further integration with the "Anglosphere" by the way.
Personally, I find the idea of giving up sovereignty to 'the Anglosphere' after we just took it back from the EU to be utterly ridiculous. Unless the idea is that we're the biggest boy in it and everybody else in it just gives sovereignty up to us, which is unlikely and not necessarily desirable.
Surely the first order of business is to renew the UK?
Yep agreed. Trade deals, lost of military and diplomatic initiatives and support, even free movement if desired. But certainly not any form of political integration. For a start which former colony is going to look favourably on that in any way at all? And that is exactly how it will be portrayed.
Surely "free movement" is in itself a level of political integration as it constraints certain elements of immigration and employment policy?
But surely the point is that he is just one MEP - however influential some might or might not claim him to be. What he is suggesting in his idiotic tweet is exactly what the EU President mooted and tried to enforce a couple of weeks ago and look where that got her.
If the President of the EU cannot bring in such a policy then I don't think we have to worry about one MEP, however influential he might want to think he is. It genuinely is like someone reading Farage or Starmer tweets as UK policy.
He was the EPP (the biggest party) Spitzenkandidat for UvdL's job - so not just "any MEP".
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In reference to your last paragraph, I'm not sure that's fair. I've been very open to the fact that I support membership of CPTPP and deeper ties with CANZUK in response to us leaving the EU. My concern and question, although not worded very thoroughly, was to the level of "deeper ties".
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
Free movement is unlikely but is endorsed by some in all the nations concerned. Notably of course CANZUK excludes the USA.
There's a difference though between viewing these as our closest allies and going as far as free movement.
So when we say "deeper ties with CANZUK" what we basically mean is "trade deals and foreign policy objectives".
That's fine but it's a long way from political integration on the level seen by the EU and it remains to be seen what the economic benefit of that will be.
What will be interesting is whether republicanism jumps once QEII passes away and the effect (if any) that will have on cultural ties and goodwill.
@HYUFD for example seems to treat rejection of the monarchy as a personal insult.
Well indeed. I don't think there's any desire to integrate in the way the EU is doing.
I strongly support the long-term Anglosphere alliance and seeking deeper trade and foreign policy objectives is a plus.
But there's no need or requirement to have a CANZUK Parliament or CANZUK lawmaking like Europe has. That's where Europe has gone wrong.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
A truly bizarre point of view.
An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
No it wouldn't, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand even combined are no match for China and even adding the USA at most comes to a score draw.
India, with the second largest military in the world and soon to be the 3rd largest economy would tip the balance in the West's favour and is pivotal for an alliance to contain China to have real effect
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
A truly bizarre point of view.
An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
No it wouldn't, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand even combined are no match for China and even adding the USA at most comes to a score draw.
India, with the second largest military in the world and soon to be the 3rd largest economy would tip the balance in the West's favour and is pivotal for an alliance to contain China to have real effect
You can have alliances without having any kind of political/cultural/musicological union. That’s what we’d have with India, to contain China.
It is in our mutual interest, and that is all that matters. FFS we successfully allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Stalin was waaaaaay more alien to us than India is now
This stuff is pretty basic. Geopolitics GCSE Year 1
Great header, Richard. If the debate in the comments is anything to go by, your follow up list of practical suggestions can probably wait a couple of years...
...Move on from the obsolete framing of ‘Remainers’ and ‘Leavers’...
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In reference to your last paragraph, I'm not sure that's fair. I've been very open to the fact that I support membership of CPTPP and deeper ties with CANZUK in response to us leaving the EU. My concern and question, although not worded very thoroughly, was to the level of "deeper ties".
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
Free movement is unlikely but is endorsed by some in all the nations concerned. Notably of course CANZUK excludes the USA.
There's a difference though between viewing these as our closest allies and going as far as free movement.
So when we say "deeper ties with CANZUK" what we basically mean is "trade deals and foreign policy objectives".
That's fine but it's a long way from political integration on the level seen by the EU and it remains to be seen what the economic benefit of that will be.
What will be interesting is whether republicanism jumps once QEII passes away and the effect (if any) that will have on cultural ties and goodwill.
@HYUFD for example seems to treat rejection of the monarchy as a personal insult.
Unlikely in Canada, both the Liberal PM Trudeau and the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, Erin O'Toole, are monarchists.
Unlikely too in Australia for the foreseeable future as the PM Scott Morrison is also a monarchist, though another referendum on the monarchy may be likely if Labor get back in, the last endorsing the monarchy in 1999.
New Zealand probably the likeliest given Jacinda Ardern is a republican but she has not made it a priority either. A recent poll also had only 20% of New Zealanders backing a republic, 44% opposed and 36% neutral
EU risked disintegrating in face of coronavirus threat, says Ursula von der Leyen
The EU would have collapsed amid infighting between its member countries if it hadn’t bought coronavirus vaccines as a bloc, the president of the European Commission said on Wednesday
It's only February, and to have such a strong contender in the annual 'Biggest Wanker on Twitter' category is really something special. The competition could still catch up, but it'll have to be a come-from-behind victory at this point.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
A truly bizarre point of view.
An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
No it wouldn't, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand even combined are no match for China and even adding the USA at most comes to a score draw.
India, with the second largest military in the world and soon to be the 3rd largest economy would tip the balance in the West's favour and is pivotal for an alliance to contain China to have real effect
You can have alliances without having any kind of political/cultural/musicological union. That’s what we’d have with India, to contain China.
It is in our mutual interest, and that is all that matters. FFS we successfully allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Stalin was waaaaaay more alien to us than India is now
This stuff is pretty basic. Geopolitics GCSE Year 1
Yes but that is the point, we needed the support of the USSR to actually defeat Nazi Germany as we would also need the support of India to ensure China's government can always be successfully contained.
As you say India is also a free market democracy like us which the USSR was not
I am quite excited about the UK joining the new thing (can we call it something simpler as shorthand, I will never remember the right amount of T's and P's?). I am even more excited if the US joins under the present terms, as it means we get a trade deal 'lite' with them without the scary bits, gutting the NHS etc.), and we don't even have to negotiate personally with them, which to be honest, isn't a fun prospect.
BUT.
If they come to the table and expect to put all their provisions which everyone hated before right back on the table, it is time to say NO. I completely appreciate that it's a bit impudent to try and block someone else from joining before we've even been given membership, but this would be an important chance to stand together with other friendly nations and say 'We want you with us, but you can forget plundering everyone's economy - that ship has sailed.'
But surely the point is that he is just one MEP - however influential some might or might not claim him to be. What he is suggesting in his idiotic tweet is exactly what the EU President mooted and tried to enforce a couple of weeks ago and look where that got her.
If the President of the EU cannot bring in such a policy then I don't think we have to worry about one MEP, however influential he might want to think he is. It genuinely is like someone reading Farage or Starmer tweets as UK policy.
He was the EPP (the biggest party) Spitzenkandidat for UvdL's job - so not just "any MEP".
He is still not more powerful than the EU Commission President who already tried going down that route and got destroyed for it.
He should understand that what (vaccine) channel we choose to use is our business. He might claim he "has the (EU) law of contract on his side, but we have the knob on our side".
EU risked disintegrating in face of coronavirus threat, says Ursula von der Leyen
The EU would have collapsed amid infighting between its member countries if it hadn’t bought coronavirus vaccines as a bloc, the president of the European Commission said on Wednesday
UNITY...UNITY...UNITY....MUST HAVE UNITY.....
The answer probably is "more Europe" - they should have acted like the USA did on vaccines, a similar sized economy - Mike Pence Trump's warpspeed initiative was a good one.
Bit of a lazy post because it's not really relevant to what I was saying.
Leon asserted that it isn't hard to envisage a world whether the "Anglosphere" makes their "union" more politically linked.
I said fine, but do they want that? What level of political integration is the limit? Do they want free movement of people, for example?
There's several giant leaps from "5 Eyes" to "deeper ties" to "political union".
I'm not opposed to further integration with the "Anglosphere" by the way.
Personally, I find the idea of giving up sovereignty to 'the Anglosphere' after we just took it back from the EU to be utterly ridiculous. Unless the idea is that we're the biggest boy in it and everybody else in it just gives sovereignty up to us, which is unlikely and not necessarily desirable.
Surely the first order of business is to renew the UK?
Yep agreed. Trade deals, lost of military and diplomatic initiatives and support, even free movement if desired. But certainly not any form of political integration. For a start which former colony is going to look favourably on that in any way at all? And that is exactly how it will be portrayed.
I believe I started this debate so I’ll just point out that I said “slightly more formal” integration. SLIGHTLY
Of course the UK is not about to join some new English speaking EU. But will there be closer ties, trade, free movement, foreign policy co-ordination? - yes, that’s possible, some of it is already happening. That is all.
A concrete example: the UK in the EU was often obliged to present the EU’s opinion in the UNSC. That no longer applies. I expect the UK to present the united opinion of CANZUK in the future, when that is feasible. A subtle shift, but not entirely trivial. See already the response to Hong Kong
Decades in the future a more definitive political union may evolve, if we’re not all dead from Covid, or completely fatigued by Tantric wanking by Taiwanese sex-bots
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 311,654 2,173 313,827 East Of England 36,520 435 36,955 London 31,181 239 31,420 Midlands 59,035 149 59,184 North East And Yorkshire 47,465 546 48,011 North West 38,323 224 38,547 South East 55,072 460 55,532 South West 42,400 113 42,513
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
No.
They will work against China when it suits their interests but that is entirely a matter of self interest.
They aren't closer or more vital on other issues than that. They aren't a part of Five Eyes and for very good reason.
No.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
A truly bizarre point of view.
An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
No it wouldn't, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand even combined are no match for China and even adding the USA at most comes to a score draw.
India, with the second largest military in the world and soon to be the 3rd largest economy would tip the balance in the West's favour and is pivotal for an alliance to contain China to have real effect
You're mad.
No, that is the reality of the 21st century
No it is not.
India may be allies against China but they won't be integral Anglosphere nations.
Again Five Eyes isn't new it dates back in one form or another to the second world war. In that time we should make the distinction between NATO against the Soviet Union and Five Eyes. Turkey, Greece and West Germany etc were valuable NATO allies but they were not a part of the Anglosphere, they were not in Five Eyes.
India may be in a NATO style alliance against China, but they're not going to be (nor do they desire to be) a part of Five Eyes.
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date Total 311,654 2,173 313,827 East Of England 36,520 435 36,955 London 31,181 239 31,420 Midlands 59,035 149 59,184 North East And Yorkshire 47,465 546 48,011 North West 38,323 224 38,547 South East 55,072 460 55,532 South West 42,400 113 42,513
Will probably end up being a shade under the required rate, but good enough for a Wednesday.
Boris Johnson will lead a Downing Street press conference on coronavirus on Wednesday afternoon.
FFS what for? what's the point?
He probably wants to announce something. Why else would he do it?
all the important stuff is announced.
No summer holiday of any kind this year.
Sentences for fibbing about where you were on holiday more harsh than carrying a loaded gun and sexual assault.
Schools not going back on March 08. Children left to rot for longer.
What else is there?
Well at the moment someone fibbing about where they went on holiday is just as (or perhaps more so) dangerous and harmful as sexual assault or carrying a loaded gun, so it seems appropriate.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
But Philip doesn't want India in the "Anglosphere".
I never said that.
I said that India don't want to be in the Anglosphere. There's a difference.
India will work with us when it's in their interests. Their interests are aligned when it comes to China but not as much on other issues.
That's why they're not a part of Five Eyes today - what I want is neither here nor there.
Well I've just had a quick chat with India and they say if there is to be an Anglosphere - which they are skeptical of tbf - they do at least want to be asked if they'd like to be in it.
It’s not hard to envisage a world, dividing into blocs, when the Anglosphere decides to make its cousinage slightly more formal and political.
You're missing one critical thing here. Does anyone in the "Anglosphere" other than Britain want that level of formality and political integration?
Because if not this entire discussion is academic.
It does seem like there is appetite for it. Look at how quickly the UK has been asked to join the CP-TPP by Canada and Australia in particular and I expect once we're in the US won't be far behind.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In reference to your last paragraph, I'm not sure that's fair. I've been very open to the fact that I support membership of CPTPP and deeper ties with CANZUK in response to us leaving the EU. My concern and question, although not worded very thoroughly, was to the level of "deeper ties".
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
Free movement is unlikely but is endorsed by some in all the nations concerned. Notably of course CANZUK excludes the USA.
There's a difference though between viewing these as our closest allies and going as far as free movement.
So when we say "deeper ties with CANZUK" what we basically mean is "trade deals and foreign policy objectives".
That's fine but it's a long way from political integration on the level seen by the EU and it remains to be seen what the economic benefit of that will be.
What will be interesting is whether republicanism jumps once QEII passes away and the effect (if any) that will have on cultural ties and goodwill.
@HYUFD for example seems to treat rejection of the monarchy as a personal insult.
Unlikely in Canada, both the Liberal PM Trudeau and the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, Erin O'Toole, are monarchists.
Unlikely too in Australia for the foreseeable future as the PM Scott Morrison is also a monarchist, though another referendum on the monarchy may be likely if Labor get back in, the last endorsing the monarchy in 1999.
New Zealand probably the likeliest given Jacinda Ardern is a republican but she has not made it a priority either. A recent poll also had only 20% of New Zealanders backing a republic, 44% opposed and 36% neutral
EU risked disintegrating in face of coronavirus threat, says Ursula von der Leyen
The EU would have collapsed amid infighting between its member countries if it hadn’t bought coronavirus vaccines as a bloc, the president of the European Commission said on Wednesday
UNITY...UNITY...UNITY....MUST HAVE UNITY.....
It’s true though isn’t it? It wasn’t a commission dictate, all the leaders of countries realised the danger of this and choose that route. Maybe not realising how crap the commission would be at leading on their behalf. Lol
If they had been aggressively fighting each other for vaccine, they would have been aggressively competing with us too? Is our position down entirely to how absolutely brilliantly we were, or in all honesty at least in part how the EU nations took themselves out the game?
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
But Philip doesn't want India in the "Anglosphere".
Yes, we're establishing a secret society in a treehouse we built, and we're having a "No Indias" policy.
That's the vibe I'm getting. The Famous Five (eyes) and nobody else.
... Intriguingly, the ultra europhile FT is coming round to this position. The western world is splitting between the EU - more friendly to Russia and China - and the Anglosphere - more wary of both
‘the idea of an Anglosphere is taking on an unexpected contemporary relevance. The trigger is the increasingly assertive behaviour of China, which is bringing together a group of English-speaking countries, all of whom have adopted more confrontational policies towards Beijing’
I'm not sure about that. It's true that the Anglosphere has been quicker to start becoming much more wary of China in particular than the EU has, but I think that's probably a temporary phenomenon. After all it's not very long since the Anglosphere was as keen as anyone to cuddle up to China, and the same factors which are driving us to reconsider that will increasingly gain weight in the EU. Give it a couple of years.
Russia's a bit different. It's largely irrelevant to much of the Anglosphere, at least in trade terms. For the EU, it's a close neighbour and happens to supply a large chunk of its energy.
No. Germany’s successful export-driven economy is hugely dependent on China.
“The People's Republic of China is again Germany's main trading partner
According to final results, goods worth 206.0 billion euros were traded between Germany and the People's Republic of China in 2019 (exports and imports).”
Germany leads the EU (even more so, now that the UK has quit). There will be anti-Chinese EU murmurs, but no more than that.
Oh certainly. But that's even more true of Australia, and the US is also economically very bound up with China, albeit more as a supplier and sub-contractor for US firms than as an export market.
And yet Oz seems much more willing to square up to Beijing than Berlin
I do believe this will become a geopolitical feature in the future. Anglosphere <> EU <> Russia <> China
India will also be part of the Anglosphere, Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also connected to it
No they won't.
India will forge their own path as will those East and Southeast Asian nations.
They'll work with the Anglosphere when it suits their interests, but work with other blocs when it suits theirs. That's the original meaning of the term third world.
No.
India has already had many near confrontations with China, as I said they will be part of the Anglosphere in order to contain China and it is vital they are if the Anglosphere is to have any relevance in Asia
But Philip doesn't want India in the "Anglosphere".
I never said that.
I said that India don't want to be in the Anglosphere. There's a difference.
India will work with us when it's in their interests. Their interests are aligned when it comes to China but not as much on other issues.
That's why they're not a part of Five Eyes today - what I want is neither here nor there.
Well I've just had a quick chat with India and they say if there is to be an Anglosphere - which they are skeptical of tbf - they do at least want to be asked if they'd like to be in it.
You're skeptical?
There already is one and it dates back to World War Two. Which part of the past 80 years are you skeptical of?
The logarithmic scale on the chart is an "interesting" approach. You really don't need a log scale when scores are between 0 and 100. Unless of course you want to hide the vast differences between countries...
So how many questions on summer holidays will we get from the journos this evening?
At least the government is giving a clearer steer now. Don’t currently book any holiday in or out the country for this year, Shapps clearly said? Correct me where I am wrong.
Comments
Apparently.
Even the Five Eyes intelligence network has clearly begun coordinating some foreign policy wrt China.
The UK leaving the EU is much bigger in global context than people realised. Losing the UK from the EU has meant the EU has pursued a hugely different policy towards China and Russia it would not have been able to do with the UK in it. That makes the EU a much less important ally to the US and makes the special relationship and reliable allies such as Canada and Australia much more important to our goals and to the goals of the US.
It's not about political integration, it's about shared foreign policy aims wrt China (and Russia). No one wants to become the 51st state or have a joint political decision making process with any other nation, but we all recognise that the English speaking countries have a fairly similar world outlook and we can ultimately all rely on each other. When the UK needed trade negotiators we asked New Zealand and Canada to help train ours having been out of the game for decades. When we needed international coordination over HK we went to the US, Canada, NZ and Oz as our first phonecall. When the US wanted coordination over keeping Chinese state owned technology out of western supply chains, they came to the UK, Canada and Australia.
You might not like it but our aims out of the EU are no longer aligned with the EU. We will need to treat the relationship as a transactional one, not as one between allies. We can see that they already see it as transactional, I think there is a realisation in Westminster that we need to do the same and rely on our old friends in the world to support each others policy aims.
In a bloc that hasn’t placed much focus on increasing the political representation of minorities, the U.K. stands out. Its history of conversations about race relations is wholly different from most of Europe. It’s home to some of the most extensive anti-discrimination legislation and scholarly discussions around race. And it tracks and actively promotes minority leadership in politics and businesses through government-funded programs.
Activists and some politicians in Brussels have called for U.K.-esque policies to be implemented in the EU for years — but Brexit makes that far less likely.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-diversity-exits-the-eu-brussels/
I said that India don't want to be in the Anglosphere. There's a difference.
India will work with us when it's in their interests. Their interests are aligned when it comes to China but not as much on other issues.
That's why they're not a part of Five Eyes today - what I want is neither here nor there.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1238504143104421888?s=20
Jonathan Van Tam would be my early favourite.
India are by far the most important part of any Anglosphere arrangement or indeed any Asia Nato style arrangement to contain the Communist government of China.
Without it it would be largely toothless militarily and economically. Australia and New Zealand are tiny economically and militarily by comparison without the ability to contain China.
Otherwise forget the Anglosphere and just leave the US to deal with maintaining security in Asia as usual with other nations involved as and when needed
Boris is the face of Brexit. He is the one who has been elected Prime Minister to Get Brexit Done and he is the one who has for nearly two years now been negotiating with them.
Farage is a pub bore. He's not been speaking to them at all.
The government would be as well to get in front of it now, and publish. Every paper in Britain will have the story by the weekend.
If the President of the EU cannot bring in such a policy then I don't think we have to worry about one MEP, however influential he might want to think he is. It genuinely is like someone reading Farage or Starmer tweets as UK policy.
Trade is one thing, and I know that Brits on the whole would love having more "free movement" style arrangements with CANZUK for example, but I doubt there's the same clamour over there. Especially when our population is pushing more than the rest combined.
I wonder how many more times they can say "no" to each other in succession?
Am I ruining the experiment by observing?
https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1359494074848448512?s=21
tanksvaccines in Baghdad.....An Anglosphere United on Foreign Policy would easily match up to China.
China’s immediate realm is the Pacific. On the other side of the Pacific, it would face Canada and the USA to the east, Australia and NZ in the South. Basically, two entire continents. It would be checked.
India would be our ally here, but also nations like Vietnam, Korea, which are historically wary of, or absolutely hostile to, China.
China’s imperial ambitions are now clear, as is its autocratic ugliness under Xi Jinping. Containing it, and maintaining a balance of power, and therefore peace, along with western freedoms, is a central task for the 21st century
The English speaking nations standing together will be a vital part of this.
We're definitely going to be in it sooner rather than later, after that it's about convincing Biden that the trade offs for agriculture (none of the countries will want to deal with them if they stick chlorinated chicken into it) are worth it for reasserting US presence in APAC and having a three quarter trade deal with the UK.
If it does work out that way I expect the UK will further dilute the existing UK-EU deal in 5 years to something a lot more barebones on just trade.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CANZUK_endorsements
There's a difference though between viewing these as our closest allies and going as far as free movement.
Are they going to be able to get jabs in arms quickly enough?
Apologies, I confused you with @Malmesbury.
India, with the second largest military in the world and soon to be the 3rd largest economy would tip the balance in the West's favour and is pivotal for an alliance to contain China to have real effect
That's fine but it's a long way from political integration on the level seen by the EU and it remains to be seen what the economic benefit of that will be.
What will be interesting is whether republicanism jumps once QEII passes away and the effect (if any) that will have on cultural ties and goodwill.
@HYUFD for example seems to treat rejection of the monarchy as a personal insult.
https://twitter.com/ManfredWeber/status/1359456999658950656?s=20
Surely the first order of business is to renew the UK?
Old friends will gang up to face the foe. A story as old as time, or, indeed, China.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1359494078069678083?s=20
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1359497575985008640?s=20
----
Somebody has got his (logarithmic) number..
https://twitter.com/JonnyJimmy/status/1359499534884290566?s=20
I strongly support the long-term Anglosphere alliance and seeking deeper trade and foreign policy objectives is a plus.
But there's no need or requirement to have a CANZUK Parliament or CANZUK lawmaking like Europe has. That's where Europe has gone wrong.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1359498802718253059?s=20
It is in our mutual interest, and that is all that matters. FFS we successfully allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Stalin was waaaaaay more alien to us than India is now
This stuff is pretty basic. Geopolitics GCSE Year 1
'Us' and "Them'*
*delete according to personal viewpoint
Unlikely too in Australia for the foreseeable future as the PM Scott Morrison is also a monarchist, though another referendum on the monarchy may be likely if Labor get back in, the last endorsing the monarchy in 1999.
New Zealand probably the likeliest given Jacinda Ardern is a republican but she has not made it a priority either. A recent poll also had only 20% of New Zealanders backing a republic, 44% opposed and 36% neutral
https://researchnz.com/assets/resources/NationalIdentity.pdf
The EU would have collapsed amid infighting between its member countries if it hadn’t bought coronavirus vaccines as a bloc, the president of the European Commission said on Wednesday
UNITY...UNITY...UNITY....MUST HAVE UNITY.....
As you say India is also a free market democracy like us which the USSR was not
BUT.
If they come to the table and expect to put all their provisions which everyone hated before right back on the table, it is time to say NO. I completely appreciate that it's a bit impudent to try and block someone else from joining before we've even been given membership, but this would be an important chance to stand together with other friendly nations and say 'We want you with us, but you can forget plundering everyone's economy - that ship has sailed.'
Mike PenceTrump's warpspeed initiative was a good one.About 10K up on last week.
Of course the UK is not about to join some new English speaking EU. But will there be closer ties, trade, free movement, foreign policy co-ordination? - yes, that’s possible, some of it is already happening. That is all.
A concrete example: the UK in the EU was often obliged to present the EU’s opinion in the UNSC. That no longer applies. I expect the UK to present the united opinion of CANZUK in the future, when that is feasible. A subtle shift, but not entirely trivial. See already the response to Hong Kong
Decades in the future a more definitive political union may evolve, if we’re not all dead from Covid, or completely fatigued by Tantric wanking by Taiwanese sex-bots
No summer holiday of any kind this year.
Sentences for fibbing about where you were on holiday more harsh than carrying a loaded gun and sexual assault.
Schools not going back on March 08. Children left to rot for longer.
What else is there?
Region of Residence 1st dose 2nd dose Cumulative Total Doses to Date
Total 311,654 2,173 313,827
East Of England 36,520 435 36,955
London 31,181 239 31,420
Midlands 59,035 149 59,184
North East And Yorkshire 47,465 546 48,011
North West 38,323 224 38,547
South East 55,072 460 55,532
South West 42,400 113 42,513
India may be allies against China but they won't be integral Anglosphere nations.
Again Five Eyes isn't new it dates back in one form or another to the second world war. In that time we should make the distinction between NATO against the Soviet Union and Five Eyes. Turkey, Greece and West Germany etc were valuable NATO allies but they were not a part of the Anglosphere, they were not in Five Eyes.
India may be in a NATO style alliance against China, but they're not going to be (nor do they desire to be) a part of Five Eyes.
These cultural/emotional ties are surprisingly resilient and tenacious
If they had been aggressively fighting each other for vaccine, they would have been aggressively competing with us too? Is our position down entirely to how absolutely brilliantly we were, or in all honesty at least in part how the EU nations took themselves out the game?
The chaps you can trust.
Who has said no summer holidays? JVT was asked about foreign holidays, if that's what you mean? (And even then he didn't rule them out)
You are undermining your own arguments with hyperbole again.
There already is one and it dates back to World War Two. Which part of the past 80 years are you skeptical of?
That's a superb figure from Scotland, may well might push the UK past the RR when the NI numbers come in.