Britain is the only country that can challenge US domination.

I know many people think Britain is resigned to ever decline into irrelevance in the world and Europe.

 

Britain might be able to do that alone, but they could do that quite easily by actually properly joining the EU and working closely with other countries. Their involvement has been limited at best thus far.
Britain only needs to use the Euro, to knock off the US Dollar as the most traded currency and move the economic center of the world from New York to London, and agree to a united EU-army.
That would be pretty much it.

 

why would britain do it?.. the U.S. is on the way of destroying itself very soon...in twenty to twenty five years...

 

Commonwealth unite!

 

After ...

China,
Russia,
India,
Brazil ...

 

Actually it would be impossible if Britain doesn't leave the EU. Super states are slow and big so they can't put their resources where they need to be. The British Empire proved this, the bigger it got the longer it took to do anything. So no a planned super structure like the EU, USSR or British Empire doesn't work. The reason why the US works is just luck of geography with more inland waterways than the rest of the world combined, mean it is connected and its state based federal republic government system means it isn't top heavy like the EU, USSR or British Empire was in the end.

Why would Britain give up the 4 most traded currency in the world? Just get use the second most and have less say in the interest rate and the printing of money? Why does London need the Euro to become the economic trade centre of the world? It is already second and was first until the banking crash in 2008. What language will this EU army speak?

 

No the US is just coming to the end of its current economic period since the end of the Cold war, it will make changes to move on to the next period. It will not be easy through and the US will be open to manipulation their the change period.

 

I wouldn't want much of the Commonwealth, it would be drain on resources such as India and much of the African and Asian territory in the Commonwealth. However the following countries would be a good union for Britain. The UK, Ireland, Malta, Oman, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Belize and Guyana. As well as the current overseas territory Britain has. However the US would move to block such a Union because it would threaten its domination. So it isn't possible, sorry to say.

 

I agree with most what you said. You're question was, can Britain challenge US domination, and I just gave a simple two step solution to get to that.

To your questions:
- Why would Britain give up their currency? They certainly don't need to, but you could do that in order to boost your own position in the world.
- Why does London need the Euro to become the economic trade centre of the world? Again, doesn't need to, but with one relatively easy step they'd overtake New York quite easily as they would be center of trade for the most traded currency in the world.
- What language will this EU army speak? I don't think that the language is that important really, and I can't imagine it being such a problem that they couldn't handle it. The important thing is to have a combined military so you can challenge any country's military effort. The US army is ahead so much that they pretty much do what they want - with or without the European countries support. A combined EU-military effort would improve our position in the world.

 

India why, Brazil why, Russia why, China why? What do these countries have, nothing compared to what Britain has. They have load of poor people, few natural ports, poor river networks making trade costly and capital growth hard. Russia, China, Brazil and India don't even have the rule of law in many cases. Britain also doesn't currently in some case, however they are exceptions. So no I don't see China, Russia, India or Brazil as future or current trans-continental or world wide geo-political powers. I do see other countries though Britain, Turkey, Japan, Kenya, Argentina and the US.

 

Britain needs to worry about keeping it's own little island held together, rather than worrying about what the big boys are doing.

 

US, Turkey and Japan without doubt. I allow myself to have some doubts about Argentina [btw, they are going to move the capital, at least this is the last proposal by Argentinian President].

What probably you don't grasp is that today UK is a regional power [like France, just to say], but with really irrelevant possibilities to go back to the status of global power.

China and India are, on the other hand, on the right path to reach that status.

Just a point: India has sent a probe to Mars, China too. What about UK? Beagle 2 disappeared [and it was embedded in an European context].
An other point: UK has taken part to EU Euro fighter program [while France has run alone the Rafale program].
Furthermore: F35 program is American ... not British [China is developing its own stealth fighter, India is doing this with Russia ...].

Honestly I don't see a "Great" Britain ...

 

The reason why Britain is doomed to continue to slide into "decline" status is that you don't have a people willing to make the sacrifices needed to regain great power status. Great Britian has all of the natural advantages that allowed it to become the dominating power a century ago, but you no longer have a people willing to support the type of vigorous trade and military policy to do that.

That's not a criticism, just an observation. Great powers decline, and generally don't revive. The US is in the same boat, just a couple of decades behind.

 

I agree the people are willing to do what would be needed. However people never were willing to do it. They were forced to do so and had no power to stop it from happening. WW1 and the lose of 850,000 men out of a population of just 22 million men is a terrible shock and it meant people lose all faith in the establishment. The British basically started the decline after that from 1922 onwards. With short moments of conviction like WW2 1940-1944, Kenya rebellion, Falklands conflict and that's about it. After WW2 in which people said the government won the war, so the government should run the economy the whole thing was nationalised going against 250 years of British economic policy. This ruined any hope that Britain could be revived in the short or even medium term. I could take a shock like a large scale war or the US removing its ships from protecting other peoples trade to force Britain to take the much needed actions.

It is a fair and correct observation. Great power can be revived but they never reach the same level as before. The US will be fine once you get rid of Obama. He was your whoop's moment. You still have everything going for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't one multi-task?

 

I understand your serious doubt about Argentina. Their political class is a disgrace and has wrecked the country. More importantly they keep voting them back in. I will say Argentina is huge and a small population, it has some of the best farmland in the world which is connected by rivers to make trade cheaper, it has 3 very good natural ports with good populations supporting them, it has water and other resources to the west of the country and energy resources to the east and south. Also given Argentina's location it can protect power around South American much easier than Brazil.

 

This is true, that's a country with great potentiality.
There is actually a long term plan in the mind of some politicians in Argentine [Lady President herself, just to mention].

To move the capital would be a step to leave the colonial center [they say so] of Buenos Aires [which has become proverbial as misty and slow center of power] to create a more central pivotal knot in the inland bringing there that economical, administrative and financial activity which is necessary to start the exploitation of the resources of the territory [Russia is doing this in Eastern Siberia, with a wide contribution of its historical partner, China].

If they can do that in Argentina, they could attract some new waves of "rich migration", I mean European migrations [Argentina is still a land to go for retired Italians, for example], seeing an increasing population and an increasing economy [finally disengaged from US economy!].

But, the way to go is long and difficult.

 

I do grasp that the UK is a regional European power, which is trying to maintain its global capabilities because of the technology transfer it gets from the US because of those specialised capabilities. We neglect our surrounding waters and countries because of it. Countries like Ireland, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The UK once dominated these countries and it must do so again if it ever wants to increase its power. This is what I call the three sided strategic buffer to the west, north and east of Britain to protect against and block Germany, Russia and France. From this more secure position the UK can once again think about independently projecting power into the Mediterranean, Caribbean, North Atlantic, South Atlantic and Southern Ocean.

France I will say is a European power currently, more powerful than Britain. However France is surrounded by other powers Germany, Italy, Spain and Britain. So even though France seems better placed currently, it is in fact constrained in way's the UK isn't. Making France weaker and less able to secure itself to project power. I will say that France is the best country in Europe geo-politically. If France can have an alliance with Britain and Italy, if it can gain overall manipulation over the Low Countries and support Poland or Sweden to limit German expansion France will be secure and the Atlantic European super power. With the German economy losing its dynamism and its population falling, Italy the same, Poland rising France is in a good position. However it hasn't gained manipulation over the Low Countries and more importantly Britain isn't constrained in an alliance with France. Britain is the issue for France as it always has been.

So India just wasted hundreds of millions if not billions of its currency on sending a probe to Mars, sounds good for everybody but India. Rather than investing the money in infrastructure of all kinds, law enforcement or defence. Mars from a geo-political point of view is a waste of time. Britain on the other hand is investing in space tourism using technology transfer from the US and private investment. Which is much more geo-politically meaningful, doesn't get the headlines like a probe to Mars which is pointless.

I don't mean to patronise you here, as I know that you already know that the stealth air frame isn't important. What is important is the technology which is put inside that air frame, sure Britain is building the F-35 with the Americans, but what isn't mentioned is the technology transfer from the US to Britain, which is more than worth Britain's investment in the programme. China isn't getting that same technology improvement and India could get it from the Russians, but it is unlikely given Russian and Indian budget problems. So in reality Britain is on a better and more realistic path than India or China because of its alliance with the US.

 

That increases the EU's power over Britain. It doesn't increase Britain's power. It would be even easier for Britain t increase its power by join the US. However Britain would be controlled by the US.

 

A Northern League ...

Well, when I was in Norway [a country which hasn't adopted Euro], a part noting their curious coins with a hole in the middle [the Norwegian Crown is pierced], I was thinking to the wide natural richness of that country [in relation with a quite limited population]. I have noted similar contexts also in Ireland and Scotland [even if the economy of Scotland doesn't find a way to run decently]. In that area [we could make reference to the North Sea] the only potential economical locomotive is England.

So it's clear that the UK is in a position to become a leading country in that area.

And that's the only path to follow if London wants to be again a dominating power, not only a regional power.

The best context possible, for London, would be to aggregate into a "Northern League" [or may be North Sea Union, I would avoid the definition North Sea Alliance, you know NSA ...] all the countries on the North Sea and connected seas [with the obvious exclusion of Germany]. This would mean to involve in the project also the Baltic Republic and overall Netherlands and Belgium [the Benelux would be a kind of financial and commercial hub towards EU for the Northern League].

In good substance, I'm suggesting to UK to become the center of a new and wider Hansa [Hanseatic League].

 

I don't really like treaty alliances or trade Unions, they create constrains on Britain's ability to operate. We didn't need an alliance or trade union with Denmark to stop the Prussians invading Denmark in the Danish-Prussian war. Britain basically told the Prussians that if they invaded the British would block German trade, so the Germans defeated the Danish army in Germany instead. If we were in an alliance with any of these countries we could be forced into an action we weren't ready or planning for. Like WW1 and WW2, even the Falklands. So no alliances thank you very much. An economic free trade area would be good, however it would mean joint regulations which basically destroys competition between countries, which isn't something I want.

So basically I want Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Faroe Islands and Greenland to be de facto under British economic, cultural and political manipulation, and British military protection. However that doesn't mean I want those countries to diminish their independent policies to suit Britain. However they must take into account what Britain wants and more importantly what Britain doesn't want in dealings with countries up to the level of the US. I want these countries to like and respect Britain, to see Britain as a safe option for a geo-political partnership with give and take on both sides.

Britain will have to change its military strategy and have the capabilities to defeat the Russian navy and air force in the Norwegian sea independence of any other nation, or with the support of Denmark and Norway. It will also have to have the ability to curtail German and French economic and political options with regards to Denmark and Holland, as it did the Danish-Prussian war. It must improve economic and political relations with Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. My view is using trade deals with these smaller countries like it does with China and India. This will politically make these countries and their politicians feel more incentivised in favour of Britain. With Ireland the UK just needs to keep doing what it is doing, once it leaves the EU and NATO Ireland will be under real economic and political pressure to weaken its stance on a number of outstanding issues it has with the UK. Britain shouldn't force the issue though as it would turn public opinion in Ireland against Britain. On the cultural side Britain needs to use its Protestant Church and Monarchy to cultural and political effect in Norway and Denmark, who have similar governmental systems to Britain.

To sum up Britain needs to use different tools with each country, but it does have the tools needed to gain manipulation over the countries in question and dominate them. Creating a three sided strategic buffer from which it will be more secure to project power from.

 

The people who're most qualified will run the EU because it will become one country with one government. It's pretty clear that this is the longterm goal.

I imagine if you're worried about other people from the EU ruling Britain, then you don't have too much faith in UK's representatives being able to compete. But then the question arises: If Britain's representatives can't compete with other representatives within the EU, who also want to work with the UK, why would the UK be able to compete by themselves against the countries like the US and potentially then also against the EU?

 

This would be more difficult to achieve.

You are substantially talking about a British Renaissance in 21st century. Without enlarging the economical base of the Kingdom [UK is still among the greatest economies of the planet, but it's quite far from US, Japan, China ... not far from Russia - 2.5 VS 2.0 as for GDP -, but Russia has got a totally different social / economical structure] London should start deep reforms to create the context for this Renaissance.

UK should evolve towards an American model [pre Obama, to be clear] to find the resources to sustain the military effort.

In fact, to grant security to the partners, UK should do what US do: to build bases abroad and to keep at least some Navy Battle Groups in the ports of these countries [in Italy, just to say, there are several important US bases, periodically hosting also nuclear weaponry, and an entire American fleet has got its base in the port of Naples].

Today the RAF has got something in Belgium, but it's really too few to present the UK as an alternative to US.

 

You are talking about Britain compared to the world. I am talking about Britain within a European context. Sure Japan and China will have larger economies. However they don't have anything to do with Britain. Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Mexico, South Africa and Nigeria could. However the main issues will be France, Germany and Russia. Britain has done and is currently outdoing them economically because it has an independent currency, less regulation, fiscal cutting and greater access to capital markets. The EU really hurt its capital markets when it stole money from Cyprus bank accounts all the money left and people now think twice before they put large capital amounts in a Eurozone country. This is part of the reason why the EU is finding it hard to find capital to grow. Russia has always had a poor economy, and it is hardly growing. The Russians in my view should think about giving up their territory east of the Urals, it is killing their capital generation having to build infrastructure over that large a space and defend it.

If Britain can gain manipulation over Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Norway, Ireland it has all the resources it needs. Plus the South Atlantic territories.

Well I don't want to be that overt about it. Mainly because that would bring the UK to the attention of the US in a way I don't want. Sure Britain can do joint operations and training with Norway and Denmark, it could maybe support a radar station in Iceland or the Faroe Islands but that is about it. What the UK could do is reopen Scapa Flow and squadron bases on the North sea coast of England and Scotland. It could reopen RAF bases in Scotland and move more assets north. Plus have increased active ship movements in the area. Even after the military improvements the Royal Navy wouldn't need to be larger than 160-170 ships. I don't want anyone to see Britain as an aggressive threat, just as a more active part of their military operations in the area. Whereas the US sending battle groups to Italy doesn't make them many friends.

We have troops in Germany and joint training bases in Norway, but that is about it.

 

I have no faith in my politicians or those in the EU. I want to remove them from my life and the stupid laws they create to manipulate me. So I don' think my politicians can compete and I don't want them to.

 

I see.

What I can underline is that when I was in Norway I noted that they are still quite near to the German sphere of influence [for example in the region of the Vikings, in the area of Drammen, I found it more easy to talk in German than in English, my German roots and my linguistic studies helped me in that occasion ...].

While as export partner UK is first [25% with Germany at 12%], as import partner, UK is well down in the chart [6% with Germany again at 12%, second place after Sweden]. This indicates that the economical connection with Germany is deeper and balanced.

I guess there are more possibility with Denmark, Iceland and in perspective Ireland [I repeat that I wouldn't exclude Netherlands].

Back to Norway, UK should offer a lot to take that country off of the German sphere [even if in Norway they are skeptic about EU currency and financial system, the connection seemed to me visible when I was there].