&host=www.rt.com&uri=/news/british-debate-foreign-policy/&via=1.1 8.254.9.147:80 (Footprint 4.8/FPMCP)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
British lapdog gets ready to be set loose
Published: 23 April, 2010, 07:00
Edited: 24 April, 2010, 01:42
TAGS: Meeting, EU, UK, Gordon Brown, Politics
Britain is to choose its next Prime Minister on the 6th of May, so candidates from the three main parties thrashed out foreign policy issues Thursday during a live TV debate to show off their willingness to change it.
America’s lapdog – that’s how many see the UK’s relationship with its transatlantic cousin. Forged under Bush and Blair, the “special relationship” does not appear to have changed much under their successors.
But now, the UK’s is in the market for a new Prime Minister. Each of the debate participants is vying for the job in a series of debates and this week covered foreign policy.
It’s an abstract concept to many people, but not for the British Legion, a social club for service people and their families.
People there believe that Great Britain is supposed to be its own democratic country, with its own government and parliament, not an underdog.
While debating on a TV show, Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have both alluded to Britain being stronger. And if that’s what the British public wants, it perhaps should not hold its breath.
It is by no means clear who will be the next resident of 10 Downing Street. But the result of Thursday’s debate will stick in people’s minds and those who resent the UK’s slavish relationship with the US will have looked for some pretty strong rhetoric, something they may not find with any of the three main parties.
However, according to Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council, recently there has been a major shift in relations between America and Britain.
“The big shift in this relationship has been the election of Obama, which has been basically a shift away from traditional alliances and towards reaching out to new relationships around the world,” he said.
“I think the British in particular, and the Europeans more generally, have discovered that the Americans’ eye is no longer exclusively on Europe and the Obama administration is very much looking towards a world at last free from the constraints of Cold War mentality, and they are looking at the Middle East and Asia and up-and-coming economic powers of India and China.”
There is also a great deal of discontent in the UK about its relationship to the EU. The Lisbon Treaty was particularly controversial, with many supporting a referendum on the law, which some criticize for weakening national electorates.Nigel Farage from UK’s Independent Party thinks that the “UK leaving the EU would benefit the UK.”
“I suspect that the break up of the EU would benefit all the other member states. I think that Europe as a continent would be much happier if the French were French, the Germans were Germans, and the British were British, they had their own democracies, they ran their own economies, they traded and co-operated together and tried to be good next door neighbours,” concluded Farage.
The British Independent Party is not one of the main parties, but the Demos think tank says the electorate does have a choice on Europe.
Demos’ researcher Max Wind-Cowie believes “The Liberal Democrats have a much more traditional comfort with the European Union, with greater integration, they still support joining the Euro despite what’s happened in the Eurozone over the last two years. Whereas the Conservatives come from a much more Euro-sceptic standpoint.”
“Labour having been in government has, on foreign policy issues at least, a very pragmatic and centrist viewpoint,” he noted.
For now, much of the British electorate sees its country as subservient to the US and in the grips of the EU. But whether they have a clear option to change that is another matter.
23.04.2010, 03:15
2 comments
Got a new cannon? Get rid of the old oneThe Estonian Ministry of Defense plans to give their colleagues from Latvia a 105-mm cannon – because they finally received a new, larger 122-mm tank from Finland, according to Delfi.lv. |
23.04.2010, 07:44
7 comments
Marking 25 years after ‘perestroika’ sparked the end of the USSRApril 23 marks 25 years since former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev first announced the series of political and economic reforms that profoundly changed the USSR – and the entire world. |
The West is the traditional rich world. Russia is a BRIC nation. In terms of present position, Russia is far behind the old west countries, but it is steadily improving whereas the old west is declining and stagnating. Probably, an essential factor in all of this is globalization. By its very nature globalization is an equalizing force (between stable nations at least), because production costs are inversely related to a countries wealth, and therefore countries that were far ahead to begin with are liable to get held and dragged back as globalization ensues. The UK divorcing itself from other old west powers will not change the fact that the UK's economy is one of those with the most lost from globalization, nor will it change the fact that the financial crisis was caused by a market tens of trillions of dollars in size being idiotically unregulated. Canada's, not Russia's, financial sector uniquely emerged from the financial crisis without direct losses because Canada properly regulated its banks. At any rate, if you want to make comparisons with Russia, the rational thing to do is compare it to Scandinavia and Canada because the same basic economic potentialities exist in all those locations: relatively small population compared to the quantity of land and resources. It is worth noting that owing to historically bad governance Russia is far poorer and more internally unequal than her western equivalents, who in turn remain the most prosperous countries in the world. On the other hand, Iceland is in quite a ditch, and it was never in the EU. Regarding whether or not this article is biased, well of course it is. Most articles are, but you just notice it here because the bias is novel rather than taken for granted. Both theirs, meaning Russia's, and our mainstream media is all largely self-serving. At a national level, theirs even more than ours in general because Russia is far more politically monolithic than we are.
Poor old English,the Ruling class sit in their exclusive clubs,drinking and talking of days gone by,when most countries were uneducated ,but now have surpassed the English,and tell them to get on their bikes ,they dont tolerate idiots,So we had to run ,to the Americans ,and talk of their special relationship,a load of bollocks of course.America pets their heads and says dont worry,We look after our pets.,here is a few doggie biscuits.
Why is it offensive? USA says jump, Britain says how high. That has been the policy of the British government for years.They want a harmless guy, looking for evidence of UFOs on pentagon computers.UK says sure you can have him.UK wants the pilots just to appear in an inquest on the senseless killing of British troops in Iraq with friendly fire.US says No, UK says OK. UK government trying to mute the inquiry into the torture of British nationals in guantanamo, after the request by the US government. Dragging the UK into war in Iraq illegally is just another example of the master/ lapdog relationship we have with the US. Try watching the Music Video "Shoot the dog" by George Michael. You will probably say its offensive.Just remember that its done by a Briton.