... 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?
Am I ruining the experiment by observing?
Yes. They'll get self-conscious now. But that's kind of a result.
... 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.
The chaps you can trust.
It's how we've operated for the past eighty years, yes.
... 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
Do 'we' (you can take 'we' as whatever you want in this context) actually know what we want to happen with China. I know we're jolly cross with them, and I can see why, but how do 'we' actually see China being in the future? Democratic overthrow of the regime? Just stop stealing our stuff and keep a lid on some of the wilder human rights abuses? Broken up into little warring provinces so they can never again be a threat to anyone? Finish what we started in the 19th century and colonise the whole thing? Perhaps if we had a vision, it might be a bit easier to decide how we might get there.
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Oh and a correction - Brexiters absolutely did vote Leave in order to restrict the movement of musicians between the EU and the UK.
Yes, they did. I remember a poster on here having an absolute hissy fit when the manager of Ronnie Scott's pointed this out. Apparently it wasn't his place to trouble his customers with Brexit-related sob stories.
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.
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?
No, our positive is because we paid to get the vaccine manufacturing up and running domestically.
If they'd done the same they'd have paid more to get it manufactured in their own countries too and there'd now be more supply.
There is no competition. Only what gets manufactured. Manufacture more and problem solved.
I see the Lib Dems are applying their bar chart skills to maps now.
The scale is fine. It's consistent, and it does a reasonable job at distinguishing between countries doing "well", "not so well" and "badly". The relative sizes of the countries is an issue, but hardly their fault. Not everything has to be a simple linear scale.
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
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?
Surely that depends on which route they took: a bigger share of the pre-existing pie, or investing in capacity to increase the total amount of pie available to all.
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
You hope
Why would Charles III be better regarded than his mother?
... 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.
Racist?
Only if you are willing to call the European Union a racist retro fantasy.
You're delving further and further into hypocrisy every passing day.
Non-sequitur ad homini deflectibus is no match for the truth.
The truth is that the Anglosphere is real and has been for decades. It's not new or a fantasy.
Five Eyes, which is the Anglosphere nations, dates back to World War Two.
It's not just older than the European Union, it's not just older the Single Market, it's not just older than the European Economic Community . . . It is even older than the European Coal and Steel Community.
So yes your dismissing an eighty year old alliance as a racist fantasy is a total non sequitur and not the truth.
Yep. It's real. Very much so. Echoes of Empire live on and there is indeed Five Eyes. "The chaps you can trust." But to believe this will form the basis of a 21st century global power bloc to rival US, Europe, China - and to wish for this to happen - IS a retro fantasy. That's an unimprovable description. And, yes, such a fantasy IS tinged with racism for many of those who indulge in it. This is the plain & simple truth of the matter. There's no tetch or stretch.
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?
We have free movement with the RoI. I doubt they would claim that was political integration.
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
I see the Lib Dems are applying their bar chart skills to maps now.
The scale is fine. It's consistent, and it does a reasonable job at distinguishing between countries doing "well", "not so well" and "badly". The relative sizes of the countries is an issue, but hardly their fault. Not everything has to be a simple linear scale.
No it's not. Suggesting the difference between 10% and 30% is the same as the difference between 0.1% and 0.3% is absolutely ridiculous.
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?
We have free movement with the RoI. I doubt they would claim that was political integration.
And Australia has it with New Zealand without any political integration too.
Off topic - Vaccination anecdote time. Just been for my first jab/vaccination (delete to taste). I'm 48, but received because I teach pharmacy students and they are out in practice at the moment (they too are all being vaccinated). I received AZ. I spoke with the lady who checked my details - they are very quiet (this is Bath Racecourse). I am under the impression that they have run out of people in the 1-4 categories and are waiting to be green lit to go to the next slots. The Uni were offered slots yesterday and today on a turn up basis. A colleague said it was quiet yesterday. Today will be busier as we have potentially 300 hundred students to do. I am probably overthinking, but I think the slightly lower vaccination totals may not just be supply issues, but rather a running out of eligible patients problem. Are the government wary of moving to the under 70's before ALL have been offered the chance? At any ends, I feel happier now, and will be very happy in the 3 weeks time when I should be getting a bit more resistance to the bug/virus/lurgy (again delete to taste). Happy day.
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?
We have free movement with the RoI. I doubt they would claim that was political integration.
Well it doesn't matter what they "claim" It is objectively a level of political integration.
Like I said, it constraints elements of immigration and employment law policy, amongst other things. How is that not political integration?
I'm not saying whether it's desirable or undesirable.
... 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.
Racist?
Only if you are willing to call the European Union a racist retro fantasy.
You're delving further and further into hypocrisy every passing day.
Non-sequitur ad homini deflectibus is no match for the truth.
The truth is that the Anglosphere is real and has been for decades. It's not new or a fantasy.
Five Eyes, which is the Anglosphere nations, dates back to World War Two.
It's not just older than the European Union, it's not just older the Single Market, it's not just older than the European Economic Community . . . It is even older than the European Coal and Steel Community.
So yes your dismissing an eighty year old alliance as a racist fantasy is a total non sequitur and not the truth.
Yep. It's real. Very much so. Echoes of Empire live on and there is indeed Five Eyes. "The chaps you can trust." But to believe this will form the basis of a 21st century global power bloc to rival US, Europe, China - and to wish for this to happen - IS a retro fantasy. That's an unimprovable description. And, yes, such a fantasy IS tinged with racism for many of those who indulge in it. This is the plain & simple truth of the matter. There's no tetch or stretch.
... 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
Do 'we' (you can take 'we' as whatever you want in this context) actually know what we want to happen with China. I know we're jolly cross with them, and I can see why, but how do 'we' actually see China being in the future? Democratic overthrow of the regime? Just stop stealing our stuff and keep a lid on some of the wilder human rights abuses? Broken up into little warring provinces so they can never again be a threat to anyone? Finish what we started in the 19th century and colonise the whole thing? Perhaps if we had a vision, it might be a bit easier to decide how we might get there.
Peaceful containment of China’s imperial ambitions. We cannot hope to prevent their internal horrors. Sadly. They are too powerful. But if the West - especially the ANGLOSPHERE - presents a united front we can prevent them picking us off, one by one, with a trade deal here, some cyberwar there, a massive embassy in the other place.
China is becoming so aggressive and hegemonic it will soon be necessary, rather than desirable
Once contained, we then just wait for China to naturally decline again, as it ages. Peace and trade maintained throughout. Sorted.
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
The Unionist side may end up kicking itself for missing its last best hope, of rushing through and scraping a win in an explicitly once in a generation referendum under her current majesty.
... 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.
Yes it is.
An Anglosphere without India and the USA is meaningless politically, militarily and economically in terms of global power.
You may as well just have a merely ceremonial union of the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada only united under the Crown as our shared Head of State
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
... 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.
Yes it is.
An Anglosphere without India and the USA is meaningless politically, militarily and economically in terms of global power.
You may as well just have a merely ceremonial union of Australia, New Zealand and Canada only united under the Crown as our shared Head of State
I would agree that you need either India or the US and preferably both. Having neither leaves you well short of the necessary muscle to face up to China.
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
The Unionist side may end up kicking itself for missing its last best hope, of rushing through and scraping a win in an explicitly once in a generation referendum under her current majesty.
We already did that in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
Anecdota about the vaccine program: I walked to the pharmacy where I had an appointment at 12:15, getting there 20 minutes early as I was unsure where it is and had allowed time to get lost. As soon as I got there they checked my name, DoB and I was ushered into the consulting room (one of two in use) to have the jab there and then. Time taken: under ten minutes. The printed list they signed me off on looked fairly full with few gaps.
I was very impressed with the level of organisation to be honest.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy tinged with racist undertones. That one.
Again there's nothing racist and it's already a global power player which incorporates the USA it doesn't rival it.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere it's not it's own rival. Hence the special relationship etc. 🙄
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
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?
What side of bed did you get out of this morning?
Perhaps you might have a look at the comments today on Conservative Home. It doesn't make any difference which side of the bed you get out of. Hancock has got power gone to his head. Nothing else matters.
Boris Johnson will lead a Downing Street press conference on coronavirus on Wednesday afternoon.
FFS what for? what's the point?
He can wibble on about holibobs.
That seems to be today's media fixation.
If you were in the hospitality industry, in any capacity and at any level, and you listened to Grant Schapps incredible and nonsensical statement, you would absolutely despair.
Seriously what is the point in running a business in hospitality, or travel, 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.
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?
We have free movement with the RoI. I doubt they would claim that was political integration.
Well it doesn't matter what they "claim" It is objectively a level of political integration.
Like I said, it constraints elements of immigration and employment law policy, amongst other things. How is that not political integration?
I'm not saying whether it's desirable or undesirable.
You could say the same about any trade deal. But it is a million miles from the sort of political integration we suffered from as EU members. There is no integration of political institutions and no compulsion to follow new laws of which we disapprove. Trying to claim that it is in anyway comparable or even on the same axis as EU membership and therefore Brexiteers must oppose it is utterly daft.
Anecdota about the vaccine program: I walked to the pharmacy where I had an appointment at 12:15, getting there 20 minutes early as I was unsure where it is and had allowed time to get lost. As soon as I got there they checked my name, DoB and I was ushered into the consulting room (one of two in use) to have the jab there and then. Time taken: under ten minutes. The printed list they signed me off on looked fairly full with few gaps.
I was very impressed with the level of organisation to be honest.
Congratulations on having the vaccine! I hope you have no side effects.
I see the Lib Dems are applying their bar chart skills to maps now.
The scale is fine. It's consistent, and it does a reasonable job at distinguishing between countries doing "well", "not so well" and "badly". The relative sizes of the countries is an issue, but hardly their fault. Not everything has to be a simple linear scale.
No it's not. Suggesting the difference between 10% and 30% is the same as the difference between 0.1% and 0.3% is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd ditch the first two gradations (ie less than 1%, which are ridiculous), and I'd probably switch from base 3 to base 5 or 10, but that's about it.
I think you're assuming it should show that the UK is miles ahead of the EU, which is as biased as wanting it to show the opposite. The truth is that we're comfortably ahead, but there are plenty of other countries which are much further behind still. Which is exactly what the graphic shows.
... 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.
Yes it is.
An Anglosphere without India and the USA is meaningless politically, militarily and economically in terms of global power.
You may as well just have a merely ceremonial union of Australia, New Zealand and Canada only united under the Crown as our shared Head of State
I would agree that you need either India or the US and preferably both. Having neither leaves you well short of the necessary muscle to face up to China.
Considering we were talking about Five Eyes, officially known as UKUSA, I'm curious why we would need to add the USA to that alliance?
They're rather critical permanent and founding members of the alliance. Clue is in the official name.
Anecdota about the vaccine program: I walked to the pharmacy where I had an appointment at 12:15, getting there 20 minutes early as I was unsure where it is and had allowed time to get lost. As soon as I got there they checked my name, DoB and I was ushered into the consulting room (one of two in use) to have the jab there and then. Time taken: under ten minutes. The printed list they signed me off on looked fairly full with few gaps.
I was very impressed with the level of organisation to be honest.
Congratulations on having the vaccine! I hope you have no side effects.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere you screaming dumb f*ck. How can it not be? Otherwise, you aced that comment
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere you screaming dumb f*ck. How can it not be? Otherwise, you aced that comment
It's like suggesting Root should have rivalled Anderson during the last Test.
Case in point: shellfish harvesters. It looks like the UK government could have negotiated access, but would have to commit to EU rules, something the UK government was not prepared to do.
But they won't go to shellfish harvesters and say, "on principle we will not be ruletaker from the EU, even though we don't care what the rules are and the EU rules are just as good as any we might come up with. So that means you lose your livelihoods. Sorry, but the principle is more important." Instead they get very aggressive towards the EU and blame them.
The dishonesty makes me mad. This is not a principle I subscribe to, but that's fine. People have different values. But what's the point of a principle you are not prepared to defend, or even admit to the consequences of ?
I would need to understand more about this issue before venturing an opinion here. Of course we have to conform to EU standards for the importation of anything (including shellfish) to the EU. Given that shellfish before met the standard, and UK law in this area has not changed (AFAIK), why have they suddenly stopped meeting it now? Granted we now need to *show* that they meet it - and that might cause more frustrating checks and paperwork initially, but we can work on that.
It seems, at least from the anguished cries emanating from the sector, that such checks make the export of shellfish essentially impossible due to the inevitable delays they cause.
I’m guessing that the EU offered some kind of 'we can offer equivalency, so long as any disagreements fall under EU courts' and this was the UK government’s red line. In essence, they had decided that even when the offer of carving out individual sectors was made, they’d rather a piece of the UK economy be forced out of business than any part of it be subject to EU courts.
Those sectors, even the ones that majority voted for Brexit, might have appreciated being asked whether they genuinely cared about these things, but apparently that wasn’t an option: gung ho totality Brexit was the only Brexit we were getting as far as the Johnson government was concerned.
And I'm guessing that the EU are deliberately being troublesome arsoholes... and making polutical issues out of it. Seems plausible dunnit?
Boris Johnson will lead a Downing Street press conference on coronavirus on Wednesday afternoon.
FFS what for? what's the point?
He can wibble on about holibobs.
That seems to be today's media fixation.
If you were in the hospitality industry, in any capacity and at any level, and you listened to Grant Schapps incredible and nonsensical statement, you would absolutely despair.
Seriously what is the point in running a business in hospitality, or travel, at all?
you may as well absolutely give up.
Exactly right. The questions are perfectly valid. Why do @SandyRentool and @FrancisUrquhart believe them to be invalid?
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?
Citation required.
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.
Read Grant Shapps's extraordinary comments. Do not book a holiday anywhere at the moment. Abroad. At home. Anywhere. Why? because we don;t know where we will be, virus wise. So do nothing.
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...
The EU could have made this point.
Instead it decided to get wound up by Britain's success. That is more telling, surely, than a simple failure.
... 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.
You are setting great store by this Five Eyes. Is it forever fixed at that? What about some ocular expansion to widen the field of vision? There must surely be some strong candidates.
I see the Lib Dems are applying their bar chart skills to maps now.
The scale is fine. It's consistent, and it does a reasonable job at distinguishing between countries doing "well", "not so well" and "badly". The relative sizes of the countries is an issue, but hardly their fault. Not everything has to be a simple linear scale.
No it's not. Suggesting the difference between 10% and 30% is the same as the difference between 0.1% and 0.3% is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd ditch the first two gradations (ie less than 1%, which are ridiculous), and I'd probably switch from base 3 to base 5 or 10, but that's about it.
I think you're assuming it should show that the UK is miles ahead of the EU, which is as biased as wanting it to show the opposite. The truth is that we're comfortably ahead, but there are plenty of other countries which are much further behind still. Which is exactly what the graphic shows.
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?
We have free movement with the RoI. I doubt they would claim that was political integration.
Well it doesn't matter what they "claim" It is objectively a level of political integration.
Like I said, it constraints elements of immigration and employment law policy, amongst other things. How is that not political integration?
I'm not saying whether it's desirable or undesirable.
You could say the same about any trade deal. But it is a million miles from the sort of political integration we suffered from as EU members. There is no integration of political institutions and no compulsion to follow new laws of which we disapprove. Trying to claim that it is in anyway comparable or even on the same axis as EU membership and therefore Brexiteers must oppose it is utterly daft.
But I didn't compare it to EU membership.
However @Leon said, and I quote, "[b]ut certainly not any form of political integration" (my emphasis) immediately after saying he was happy with free movement.
I simply highlighted that free movement is, at least in my view, some form of political integration, although obviously not on the same level as the political integration required as part of the 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.
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
You really do slip into a very strange fantasy world sometimes.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy tinged with racist undertones. That one.
Again there's nothing racist and it's already a global power player which incorporates the USA it doesn't rival it.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere it's not it's own rival. Hence the special relationship etc. 🙄
I can never understand this thing some have with the 'Anglosphere'. Why seek political integration over the arbitrary notion of language? The Germans probably speak better English than us, so perhaps we should put out the feelers.
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...
... 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.
You are setting great store by this Five Eyes. Is it forever fixed at that? What about some ocular expansion to widen the field of vision? There must surely be some strong candidates.
What about India?
If the interests of the nation's line up then yes.
They don't though. India don't view the world the same, they're interested in being their own power in their own right. We're not.
The whole point of the Anglosphere is we've moved on from the UK being a power in its own right to being team players with others.
India is a solo player not a team player. They want to be their own captain. We don't.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
So including Don't Knows, a majority do not have a positive view of Charles.
Prince Charles: 47% positive 23% negative 28% neutral Keir Starmer (most popular Labour politician): 32% positive 30% negative 22% neutral Rishi Sunak (most popular Conservative politician: 44% positive 25% negative 23% neutral Nicola Sturgeon (most popular other politician): 36% positive 37% negative 23% neutral
Doesn't live up to Obama (neither does the queen, apparently). However, still better than Merkel, the 2nd most popular foreign politician - 39% positive, 23% negative, 26% neutral.
... 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.
You are setting great store by this Five Eyes. Is it forever fixed at that? What about some ocular expansion to widen the field of vision? There must surely be some strong candidates.
What about India?
A brilliant idea and one that will become all the more necessary as the world changes. You see, you are back from fantasy land again and all the better for 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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
Don't you mean that barely a third of Scots think he'd make a good king while almost a third think not and a third couldn't give a fcuk?
It’s the third that don’t give a toss that count, tho. He will be tolerated or liked by two thirds of Scots. That’s enough.
The monarchy will endure, precisely for this reason. People generally either like it, or tolerate it. You need a superb alternative to get people exercised enough to abolish it. There isn’t one.
A Scottish republic under President Peter Murrell (SNP)? Good luck with that
I see despite the recent assertions of a few folk on here, that Brexit isn't over.
It's done but its our new reality why would it be over?
Being done usually means something's over, unless you mean the UK will be in an eternal act of egress, angrily looking back and shouting at that which it has left.
Anecdota about the vaccine program: I walked to the pharmacy where I had an appointment at 12:15, getting there 20 minutes early as I was unsure where it is and had allowed time to get lost. As soon as I got there they checked my name, DoB and I was ushered into the consulting room (one of two in use) to have the jab there and then. Time taken: under ten minutes. The printed list they signed me off on looked fairly full with few gaps.
I was very impressed with the level of organisation to be honest.
That seems to be the massively overwhelming experience, just how efficient and organized the whole process is. I have to say, I was fully expecting plenty of stories of people who booked turning up and finding they weren't on the list, or somebody messed something up and people ended up waiting 2hrs, etc, because going from nothing to doing 10m people in a couple of months is just a huge task.
I see the Lib Dems are applying their bar chart skills to maps now.
The scale is fine. It's consistent, and it does a reasonable job at distinguishing between countries doing "well", "not so well" and "badly". The relative sizes of the countries is an issue, but hardly their fault. Not everything has to be a simple linear scale.
No it's not. Suggesting the difference between 10% and 30% is the same as the difference between 0.1% and 0.3% is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd ditch the first two gradations (ie less than 1%, which are ridiculous), and I'd probably switch from base 3 to base 5 or 10, but that's about it.
I think you're assuming it should show that the UK is miles ahead of the EU, which is as biased as wanting it to show the opposite. The truth is that we're comfortably ahead, but there are plenty of other countries which are much further behind still. Which is exactly what the graphic shows.
A linear gradation would show that just fine.
If it was 0-10% and 10-20%, we'd be one bucket up from most of the EU, exactly as we are now.
Edit: possibly we have just crept over into the third bucket, but it still wouldn't provide a useful way of distinguishing between those who have barely started (~1%), and those off to an excellent start (~5-9%).
... 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.
Yes it is.
An Anglosphere without India and the USA is meaningless politically, militarily and economically in terms of global power.
You may as well just have a merely ceremonial union of Australia, New Zealand and Canada only united under the Crown as our shared Head of State
I would agree that you need either India or the US and preferably both. Having neither leaves you well short of the necessary muscle to face up to China.
Considering we were talking about Five Eyes, officially known as UKUSA, I'm curious why we would need to add the USA to that alliance?
They're rather critical permanent and founding members of the alliance. Clue is in the official name.
Because we were talking about closer Anglosphere ties not just Five Eyes. India is an emerging superpower which shares a common threat with us and which has historical and cultural links. I can see no earthly reason why we should not include them in any putative plans for future cooperation.
Actually that is not true. Without wishing to drift off subject I can see one reason which would need to be overcome and that is their mutual antipathy, verging sometimes on open conflict, with Pakistan. We would have to deal with any potential destabilisation closer ties might cause. But I don't see that as insurmountable at all.
I see the Lib Dems are applying their bar chart skills to maps now.
The scale is fine. It's consistent, and it does a reasonable job at distinguishing between countries doing "well", "not so well" and "badly". The relative sizes of the countries is an issue, but hardly their fault. Not everything has to be a simple linear scale.
No it's not. Suggesting the difference between 10% and 30% is the same as the difference between 0.1% and 0.3% is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd ditch the first two gradations (ie less than 1%, which are ridiculous), and I'd probably switch from base 3 to base 5 or 10, but that's about it.
I think you're assuming it should show that the UK is miles ahead of the EU, which is as biased as wanting it to show the opposite. The truth is that we're comfortably ahead, but there are plenty of other countries which are much further behind still. Which is exactly what the graphic shows.
A linear gradation would show that just fine.
If it was 0-10% and 10-20%, we'd be one bucket up from most of the EU, exactly as we are now.
Edit: possibly we have just crept over into the third bucket, but it still wouldn't provide a useful way of distinguishing between those who have barely started (~1%), and those off to an excellent start (~5-9%).
You'd change the minimum/maximum, or have a continuous colour scale rather than bins. Having a discrete colour scheme should be used for discrete datasets only.
I see the Lib Dems are applying their bar chart skills to maps now.
The scale is fine. It's consistent, and it does a reasonable job at distinguishing between countries doing "well", "not so well" and "badly". The relative sizes of the countries is an issue, but hardly their fault. Not everything has to be a simple linear scale.
No it's not. Suggesting the difference between 10% and 30% is the same as the difference between 0.1% and 0.3% is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd ditch the first two gradations (ie less than 1%, which are ridiculous), and I'd probably switch from base 3 to base 5 or 10, but that's about it.
I think you're assuming it should show that the UK is miles ahead of the EU, which is as biased as wanting it to show the opposite. The truth is that we're comfortably ahead, but there are plenty of other countries which are much further behind still. Which is exactly what the graphic shows.
A linear gradation would show that just fine.
If it was 0-10% and 10-20%, we'd be one bucket up from most of the EU, exactly as we are now.
There's no need to have block colours, you can do just fine with linear gradations phasing through. So 0 would be a different colour to 9 and 9.9 is closer to 10.1 than it is to 0.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere you screaming dumb f*ck. How can it not be? Otherwise, you aced that comment
How long will that last though? The US will soon be joining the Hispanosphere. Then what?
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
Don't you mean that barely a third of Scots think he'd make a good king while almost a third think not and a third couldn't give a fcuk?
It’s the third that don’t give a toss that count, tho. He will be tolerated or liked by two thirds of Scots. That’s enough.
The monarchy will endure, precisely for this reason. People generally either like it, or tolerate it. You need a superb alternative to get people exercised enough to abolish it. There isn’t one.
A Scottish republic under President Peter Murrell (SNP)? Good luck with that
BJ and his mates don't seem have quite got in the way of working out the mindsets of the don't give a tossers in this area or any other. Pretty sure sending Edward Long*anks to live in Edinburgh would concentrate the minds of the dks sharpish.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere you screaming dumb f*ck. How can it not be? Otherwise, you aced that comment
How long will that last though? The US will soon be joining the Hispanosphere. Then what?
Boris Johnson will lead a Downing Street press conference on coronavirus on Wednesday afternoon.
FFS what for? what's the point?
He can wibble on about holibobs.
That seems to be today's media fixation.
If you were in the hospitality industry, in any capacity and at any level, and you listened to Grant Schapps incredible and nonsensical statement, you would absolutely despair.
Seriously what is the point in running a business in hospitality, or travel, at all?
you may as well absolutely give up.
Exactly right. The questions are perfectly valid. Why do @SandyRentool and @FrancisUrquhart believe them to be invalid?
My issue is they ask it every time and the answer is we just don't know. Nothing will have changed radically from last week. We need to see the effects of the vaccination programme and even then, given the variants there needs to be more information.
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?
Citation required.
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.
Read Grant Shapps's extraordinary comments. Do not book a holiday anywhere at the moment. Abroad. At home. Anywhere. Why? because we don;t know where we will be, virus wise. So do nothing.
I agree that his comments are the height of idiocy and are absurd (especially since Matt Hancock has already booked a holiday in Cornwall!).
But, he didn't say no holidays of any kind as you stated in your OP – that was a misrepresentation.
I have said before, and will say again, you make many good points but all too often undermine them with hyperbole: this just means everyone is prone to disregard everything else you say, even when you have a 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'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.
Yes it is.
An Anglosphere without India and the USA is meaningless politically, militarily and economically in terms of global power.
You may as well just have a merely ceremonial union of Australia, New Zealand and Canada only united under the Crown as our shared Head of State
I would agree that you need either India or the US and preferably both. Having neither leaves you well short of the necessary muscle to face up to China.
Considering we were talking about Five Eyes, officially known as UKUSA, I'm curious why we would need to add the USA to that alliance?
They're rather critical permanent and founding members of the alliance. Clue is in the official name.
Because we were talking about closer Anglosphere ties not just Five Eyes. India is an emerging superpower which shares a common threat with us and which has historical and cultural links. I can see no earthly reason why we should not include them in any putative plans for future cooperation.
Actually that is not true. Without wishing to drift off subject I can see one reason which would need to be overcome and that is their mutual antipathy, verging sometimes on open conflict, with Pakistan. We would have to deal with any potential destabilisation closer ties might cause. But I don't see that as insurmountable at all.
You've hit the nail on the head as to why they don't want to be part of that core alliance and have made no effort to be so.
Of course we should be friendly and close with India, like in the Cold War we were with NATO allies.
But even in the Cold War we were closer with the USA via Five Eyes than we were with Turkey or West Germany via NATO.
India want to be a world power in their own right not a part of the Anglosphere team of nations. I respect their decision. If that changes I'd respect that too but it's not going to any time soon.
Boris Johnson will lead a Downing Street press conference on coronavirus on Wednesday afternoon.
FFS what for? what's the point?
He can wibble on about holibobs.
That seems to be today's media fixation.
If you were in the hospitality industry, in any capacity and at any level, and you listened to Grant Schapps incredible and nonsensical statement, you would absolutely despair.
Seriously what is the point in running a business in hospitality, or travel, at all?
you may as well absolutely give up.
Exactly right. The questions are perfectly valid. Why do @SandyRentool and @FrancisUrquhart believe them to be invalid?
My issue is they ask it every time and the answer is we just don't know. Nothing will have changed radically from last week. We need to see the effects of the vaccination programme and even then, given the variants there needs to be more information.
SKS knows. He's foreseen using mystical socialist powers. He'll tell us next week what we should be doing today. Patience.
... 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.
The chaps you can trust.
It's how we've operated for the past eighty years, yes.
What of it? That's the point of alliances.
Why be anchored to the past? And why be so insular and timid as to work with only 4 other eyes. It's a great big modern 21st century world out there. This perception was supposedly the reason to leave the EU. Yet as soon as we escape you want us to limit our horizons to a retro fantasy about the "Anglosphere". It makes no sense except on one level - a level which tolerates no scrutiny without those being scrutinized getting all snowflakey and slamming down the "are you accusing me of being a racist?" card.
... 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.
You are setting great store by this Five Eyes. Is it forever fixed at that? What about some ocular expansion to widen the field of vision? There must surely be some strong candidates.
What about India?
If the interests of the nation's line up then yes.
They don't though. India don't view the world the same, they're interested in being their own power in their own right. We're not.
The whole point of the Anglosphere is we've moved on from the UK being a power in its own right to being team players with others.
India is a solo player not a team player. They want to be their own captain. We don't.
And yet as you keep telling us the USA are part of Five Eyes and most certainly are interested in maintaining their position as a power in their own right. I don't see why India should be excluded on this basis. To be fairly blunt about it they also fill a large Geographic hole in any mutual intelligence cooperation system given that of the other members two are basically North America, two are at the bottom end of the Pacific and one is in Europe. India could be a great asset to the system.
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?
Citation required.
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.
Read Grant Shapps's extraordinary comments. Do not book a holiday anywhere at the moment. Abroad. At home. Anywhere. Why? because we don;t know where we will be, virus wise. So do nothing.
I agree that his comments are the height of idiocy and are absurd (especially since Matt Hancock has already booked a holiday in Cornwall!).
But, he didn't say no holidays of any kind as you stated in your OP – that was a misrepresentation.
I have said before, and will say again, you make many good points but all too often undermine them with hyperbole: this just means everyone is prone to disregard everything else you say, even when you have a 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
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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere you screaming dumb f*ck. How can it not be? Otherwise, you aced that comment
How long will that last though? The US will soon be joining the Hispanosphere. Then what?
The US will still have an interest in containing China though
Anecdota about the vaccine program: I walked to the pharmacy where I had an appointment at 12:15, getting there 20 minutes early as I was unsure where it is and had allowed time to get lost. As soon as I got there they checked my name, DoB and I was ushered into the consulting room (one of two in use) to have the jab there and then. Time taken: under ten minutes. The printed list they signed me off on looked fairly full with few gaps.
I was very impressed with the level of organisation to be honest.
That seems to be the massively overwhelming experience, just how efficient and organized the whole process is. I have to say, I was fully expecting plenty of stories of people who booked turning up and finding they weren't on the list, or somebody messed something up and people ended up waiting 2hrs, etc, because going from nothing to doing 10m people in a couple of months is just a huge task.
Or worse, throwing gallons of vaccine because wrong syringes, a la Spain and Japan.
... 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.
You are setting great store by this Five Eyes. Is it forever fixed at that? What about some ocular expansion to widen the field of vision? There must surely be some strong candidates.
What about India?
If the interests of the nation's line up then yes.
They don't though. India don't view the world the same, they're interested in being their own power in their own right. We're not.
The whole point of the Anglosphere is we've moved on from the UK being a power in its own right to being team players with others.
India is a solo player not a team player. They want to be their own captain. We don't.
And yet as you keep telling us the USA are part of Five Eyes and most certainly are interested in maintaining their position as a power in their own right. I don't see why India should be excluded on this basis. To be fairly blunt about it they also fill a large Geographic hole in any mutual intelligence cooperation system given that of the other members two are basically North America, two are at the bottom end of the Pacific and one is in Europe. India could be a great asset to the system.
India sided with the Soviets during the Cold War. Why should we trust them?
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
Don't you mean that barely a third of Scots think he'd make a good king while almost a third think not and a third couldn't give a fcuk?
It’s the third that don’t give a toss that count, tho. He will be tolerated or liked by two thirds of Scots. That’s enough.
The monarchy will endure, precisely for this reason. People generally either like it, or tolerate it. You need a superb alternative to get people exercised enough to abolish it. There isn’t one.
A Scottish republic under President Peter Murrell (SNP)? Good luck with that
BJ and his mates don't seem have quite got in the way of working out the mindsets of the don't give a tossers in this area or any other. Pretty sure sending Edward Long*anks to live in Edinburgh would concentrate the minds of the dks sharpish.
I cannot disagree with this. Hopefully bojo and co will sharpen up, on this point. I imagine they are somewhat distracted by the global plague, TBF
Meanwhile, back to Salmond, Cherry, and the slo-mo explosion of the SNP
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.
Of course he does. The English State as based on the Henrician settlement and Charles I's view of Divine Right (which the Scots rejected).
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
Not at all, Prince Charles now has a very comfortable 47% positive rating and only 23% negative rating.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
I find Dr Van Tam's recent comment that the South African variant is not expected to become the dominant form of the virus in the UK in the next few months to be very interesting. We know that the South African variant has a relative advantage over the UK variants in escaping immunity from vaccination and probably recent infection, so why would it not keep growing given that a specific vaccine against it is not currently available and will not be available until the autumn?
Could it be that the plan is essentially to maintain the lockdown in a form similar to now until the new vaccines are rolled out in the autumn, and deployed to most of the population? And even then will the lockdown be lifted, and what if by then there is a further new variant?
Does anybody know what the cost of travel insurance is looking like in a Covid world? And would they fail to pay out if you broke any travel laws in the countries travelled to/from?
I'm thinking unless you are utterly wreckless and prepared to risk having to sell up everything you own to pay foreign hospital bills, foreign travel is not on the cards until insurance gets happy with a post-Covid world. Or is insurance there - just horribly expensive?
I recently had a renewal quote for an annual policy, which was about the same as last year. It would have covered medical bills for Covid-related illness abroad, and also cancellation if you had to self-isolate or got infected here before the trip. I don't think they'd pay if you were breaking the law or ignoring official Foreign Office guidance, though.
I didn't renew. Given that no-one has been travelling much for a year, and that's not going to change for some months, I was rather expecting a huge reduction in the annual premium.
It's bonkers isn't it. Had a renewal quote from Churchill for my car. The first 10 quotes on Moneysupermarket were £200 cheaper.
Isn't that kind of thing typical every single year?
It is but you would have thought it would be worth the incumbent's while to match or get close to other quotes.
I suppose this shows that, like utility firms, a lot depends on the disinclination of people to save themselves money. It drives eg. Paul Lewis on R4 (that is, btw, a radio station run by the BBC) absolutely mad that people don't switch utility deals at the end of their term.
More than offered me £500 to renew my home insurance — or £300 if I went via compare the market...
I asked them to match the cost... they said they couldn’t do recommended I cancel the existing policy and take out a new one with CTM... I guess commission is paid by a different department...
Boris Johnson will lead a Downing Street press conference on coronavirus on Wednesday afternoon.
FFS what for? what's the point?
He can wibble on about holibobs.
That seems to be today's media fixation.
If you were in the hospitality industry, in any capacity and at any level, and you listened to Grant Schapps incredible and nonsensical statement, you would absolutely despair.
Seriously what is the point in running a business in hospitality, or travel, at all?
you may as well absolutely give up.
Exactly right. The questions are perfectly valid. Why do @SandyRentool and @FrancisUrquhart believe them to be invalid?
My issue is they ask it every time and the answer is we just don't know. Nothing will have changed radically from last week. We need to see the effects of the vaccination programme and even then, given the variants there needs to be more information.
Nope. It's absolutely right that they keep the pressure on the government. Every hour, every day. There needs to be a roadmap out: yes that has been pledged for 22 February but a bit of daily pressure won't hurt.
... 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.
You are setting great store by this Five Eyes. Is it forever fixed at that? What about some ocular expansion to widen the field of vision? There must surely be some strong candidates.
What about India?
If the interests of the nation's line up then yes.
They don't though. India don't view the world the same, they're interested in being their own power in their own right. We're not.
The whole point of the Anglosphere is we've moved on from the UK being a power in its own right to being team players with others.
India is a solo player not a team player. They want to be their own captain. We don't.
And yet as you keep telling us the USA are part of Five Eyes and most certainly are interested in maintaining their position as a power in their own right. I don't see why India should be excluded on this basis. To be fairly blunt about it they also fill a large Geographic hole in any mutual intelligence cooperation system given that of the other members two are basically North America, two are at the bottom end of the Pacific and one is in Europe. India could be a great asset to the system.
To be blunt if Five Eyes are a team then the USA are Team Captain. The UK has a special relationship but we accept we are First Mate not Captain of the alliance.
India want to play by their own rules. Fair play to them.
The only reason that Five Eyes has worked so well is because the UK accepted post WWII that we were no longer the Team Captain of our Empire like we were before and accepted our new role in the world.
... 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.
You are setting great store by this Five Eyes. Is it forever fixed at that? What about some ocular expansion to widen the field of vision? There must surely be some strong candidates.
What about India?
If the interests of the nation's line up then yes.
They don't though. India don't view the world the same, they're interested in being their own power in their own right. We're not.
The whole point of the Anglosphere is we've moved on from the UK being a power in its own right to being team players with others.
India is a solo player not a team player. They want to be their own captain. We don't.
And yet as you keep telling us the USA are part of Five Eyes and most certainly are interested in maintaining their position as a power in their own right. I don't see why India should be excluded on this basis. To be fairly blunt about it they also fill a large Geographic hole in any mutual intelligence cooperation system given that of the other members two are basically North America, two are at the bottom end of the Pacific and one is in Europe. India could be a great asset to the system.
India sided with the Soviets during the Cold War. Why should we trust them?
I can’t remember if you are one of those once-perceptive old commenters, who has sadly been driven into madness by Brexit, or whether you have always been pointless and/or unfunny. Could you remind me?
Boris Johnson will lead a Downing Street press conference on coronavirus on Wednesday afternoon.
FFS what for? what's the point?
He can wibble on about holibobs.
That seems to be today's media fixation.
It is perfectly valid to ask about holidays at home and abroad.
Most people are not like the PB Home Bodies and have families who are desperate to get away, whether that be within the UK or abroad.
Nor do I accept the idea that the government is unable to model the situation in July – they will be doing exactly that.
So the press will ask questions. As they should.
PB older, (white?), male, well-off, large house-living, big garden or grounds-owning, non-tower block-living, best vintage of Ch. l'Evangile-discussing contributors say:
Why does everyone keep banging on about holidays? Being at home is perfectly agreeable.
... 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?
I'm talking about the new and improved version you Brexit nostalgics are dreaming of which is soon to become a global power player to rival US, Europe & China. The retro fantasy with a white supremacy vibe. That one.
You really do slip into a very strange fantasy world sometimes.
The fantasy here is the 'Anglosphere to rival US, China, Europe' one. I see you have not succumbed to it despite being an ardent Leaver. So hats off for that.
Comments
What of it? That's the point of alliances.
Seriously, though, the ascension of Charles III to the throne will see a rise in republicanism and not just on the other wide of the world - not his fault so much as who he is not. And more generally it will have a very unsettling effect on the 'British' political Weltanschauung as old institutions seem less fixed after all.
If they'd done the same they'd have paid more to get it manufactured in their own countries too and there'd now be more supply.
There is no competition. Only what gets manufactured. Manufacture more and problem solved.
One look at the propaganda photograph tells me to ignore his comments.
That seems to be today's media fixation.
That may now be as high as the 73% positive rating, 11% negative rating for the Queen or the 75% positive and 10% negative rating for Prince William but it is fine.
Even in Scotland more think he will make a good King than a bad King.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Prince_Charles
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/will-prince-charles-make-a-good-king?crossBreak=scotland
I spoke with the lady who checked my details - they are very quiet (this is Bath Racecourse). I am under the impression that they have run out of people in the 1-4 categories and are waiting to be green lit to go to the next slots. The Uni were offered slots yesterday and today on a turn up basis. A colleague said it was quiet yesterday. Today will be busier as we have potentially 300 hundred students to do.
I am probably overthinking, but I think the slightly lower vaccination totals may not just be supply issues, but rather a running out of eligible patients problem. Are the government wary of moving to the under 70's before ALL have been offered the chance?
At any ends, I feel happier now, and will be very happy in the 3 weeks time when I should be getting a bit more resistance to the bug/virus/lurgy (again delete to taste).
Happy day.
And those are perfectly valid questions to ask – I hope they do ask them.
Like I said, it constraints elements of immigration and employment law policy, amongst other things. How is that not political integration?
I'm not saying whether it's desirable or undesirable.
The US is a part of Five Eyes not it's rival.
The rest of your rant is hypocritical gibberish.
China is becoming so aggressive and hegemonic it will soon be necessary, rather than desirable
Once contained, we then just wait for China to naturally decline again, as it ages. Peace and trade maintained throughout. Sorted.
An Anglosphere without India and the USA is meaningless politically, militarily and economically in terms of global power.
You may as well just have a merely ceremonial union of the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada only united under the Crown as our shared Head of State
I was very impressed with the level of organisation to be honest.
The USA is part of the Anglosphere it's not it's own rival. Hence the special relationship etc. 🙄
Most people are not like the PB Home Bodies and have families who are desperate to get away, whether that be within the UK or abroad.
Nor do I accept the idea that the government is unable to model the situation in July – they will be doing exactly that.
So the press will ask questions. As they should.
Seriously what is the point in running a business in hospitality, or travel, at all?
you may as well absolutely give up.
I think you're assuming it should show that the UK is miles ahead of the EU, which is as biased as wanting it to show the opposite. The truth is that we're comfortably ahead, but there are plenty of other countries which are much further behind still. Which is exactly what the graphic shows.
They're rather critical permanent and founding members of the alliance. Clue is in the official name.
We are on the same team!
Seems plausible dunnit?
Instead it decided to get wound up by Britain's success. That is more telling, surely, than a simple failure.
What about India?
However @Leon said, and I quote, "[b]ut certainly not any form of political integration" (my emphasis) immediately after saying he was happy with free movement.
I simply highlighted that free movement is, at least in my view, some form of political integration, although obviously not on the same level as the political integration required as part of the EU.
Mind, you are relying on subsamples ...
They don't though. India don't view the world the same, they're interested in being their own power in their own right. We're not.
The whole point of the Anglosphere is we've moved on from the UK being a power in its own right to being team players with others.
India is a solo player not a team player. They want to be their own captain. We don't.
Keir Starmer (most popular Labour politician): 32% positive 30% negative 22% neutral
Rishi Sunak (most popular Conservative politician: 44% positive 25% negative 23% neutral
Nicola Sturgeon (most popular other politician): 36% positive 37% negative 23% neutral
Doesn't live up to Obama (neither does the queen, apparently). However, still better than Merkel, the 2nd most popular foreign politician - 39% positive, 23% negative, 26% neutral.
The monarchy will endure, precisely for this reason. People generally either like it, or tolerate it. You need a superb alternative to get people exercised enough to abolish it. There isn’t one.
A Scottish republic under President Peter Murrell (SNP)? Good luck with that
Ah ok, fair enough.
Edit: possibly we have just crept over into the third bucket, but it still wouldn't provide a useful way of distinguishing between those who have barely started (~1%), and those off to an excellent start (~5-9%).
Oh dear....
Actually that is not true. Without wishing to drift off subject I can see one reason which would need to be overcome and that is their mutual antipathy, verging sometimes on open conflict, with Pakistan. We would have to deal with any potential destabilisation closer ties might cause. But I don't see that as insurmountable at all.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus226077437/Corona-Impfstoff-AstraZeneca-hat-sich-wirklich-schaendlich-verhalten.html
It's easily done.
But, he didn't say no holidays of any kind as you stated in your OP – that was a misrepresentation.
I have said before, and will say again, you make many good points but all too often undermine them with hyperbole: this just means everyone is prone to disregard everything else you say, even when you have a point!
Of course we should be friendly and close with India, like in the Cold War we were with NATO allies.
But even in the Cold War we were closer with the USA via Five Eyes than we were with Turkey or West Germany via NATO.
India want to be a world power in their own right not a part of the Anglosphere team of nations. I respect their decision. If that changes I'd respect that too but it's not going to any time soon.
It’s paywalled. Frustrating
Meanwhile, back to Salmond, Cherry, and the slo-mo explosion of the SNP
Could it be that the plan is essentially to maintain the lockdown in a form similar to now until the new vaccines are rolled out in the autumn, and deployed to most of the population? And even then will the lockdown be lifted, and what if by then there is a further new variant?
I asked them to match the cost... they said they couldn’t do recommended I cancel the existing policy and take out a new one with CTM... I guess commission is paid by a different department...
India want to play by their own rules. Fair play to them.
The only reason that Five Eyes has worked so well is because the UK accepted post WWII that we were no longer the Team Captain of our Empire like we were before and accepted our new role in the world.
Why does everyone keep banging on about holidays? Being at home is perfectly agreeable.