Well, it had to happen eventually, even if only the once.
He may be the European Commission's point man in Britain, so that he has privatised more of the British economy than any other Minister ever, and so that no one except Brown has become Prime Minister in the last 20 years without his endorsement, a fact not unconnected to the torrent of abuse against Brown.
But at least he had the sense to tell last night's Question Time audience that no one in America had any concept of a special relationship with Britain. That the whole thing was "a naïve delusion" on the part of people over here. And that America's only special relationship, if any, was with Israel. If any, indeed...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Britain has no special relationship with USA.
ReplyDeleteAnd Britain has no "special relationship" with Canada, Australia or the "Commonwealth".
In September 1939, Australia, Canada, New Zealand answered the call. They would not do it in 2009.
Oh, but they would.
ReplyDeleteOh I disagree, Kevin Rudd is no Bob Menzies. In fact Menzies enthusiastic backing of Britain in 1939 caused the election of Curtin.
ReplyDeleteNo .....reason Gallipoli. (Just like Norn Iron unionists couldnt serve as the Somme was too vivid......so they spent the war fire watching).
And likewise with the memory of their cannon fodder role at Gallipoli and their sell out in Singapore, its highly unlikely that new modern, grown up, Australia would rush to the defence of the "Mother Country".
Likewise Steve Harper is no MacKenzie King. And certainly no Diefenbacher (sp).
Alas he Sun has set.
threatening to invade Britain who wasn't also threatening to invade the other three. In fact, if there really is a threat from North Korea, in particular, then it is rather more of a threat to all of them than it is to us.
ReplyDeleteAustralia voted by ten clear points not to abolish the monarchy, the question has never even drummed enough support to be put in Canada or Australia, and almost no one suggests changing the Australian or New Zealand flag even if the monarchy were abolished (Australian anti-monarchist sites go out of their way to make this point). So the ties still bind, all right.
Acquiring an affection for them is part of becoming Australian, Canadian or whatever the adjective is for New Zealand (funnily enough, I don't know), as surely as it is and has been, very successfully, of becoming British.
Well the days when Britain fought to the last man (Australian, New Zealander or Canadian) seem long gone.
ReplyDeleteAlthough as I see from afghanistan they seem determined to fight to the last Welshman or Scotsman.
Well, we're not fighting for anything worth fighting for in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteMuch as neither Scotland nor Canada would ever give up the monarchy while the other one still had it, so I can't help suspecting that neither Britain nor Canada can quite bring herself to withdraw from Afghanistan if it meant leaving the other one still there. Complicated things, families.
yes indeed complicated.
ReplyDeleteWhich is probably why when Britain went to war in the Southern Hemisphere in 1981, Canada, New Zealand and Canada did not send any troops.
But of course that war was won so lets assume they were not actually needed.
But didnt Australia and New Zealand lose 600 troops in Vietnam. Did Britain rush to the aid of Her majestys troops. Nope.
Commonwealth ties mean nothing.
Vietnam was neither an invasion of nor a threat to any of the countries in question, it was just a foreign policy mistake on the part of certain governments.
ReplyDeleteThere was no need of any other involvement in the Falklands.
And sixty per cent of Australians - plus, so far as one can tell, pretty much all Canadians and New Zealanders - certainly don't seem to think that these ties mean nothing.
The Commonwealth is getting larger. Somewhere like Mozambique, which was never in or allied to the British Empire, is now in it.
You really think that there are no republicans in Canada or New Zealand?
ReplyDeleteProportionately no more than here, or else where is the referendum?
ReplyDeleteJohn might also consider how Irish are parts of Canada, New Zealand, and indeed Australia.
But then, Ireland is still keeping her side of the Union bargain, providing troops for Britain. She never stopped doing so, and those and other British troops now parade in full dress uniform in the Republic.
The Queen will be there soon enough, and what an ideal opportunity that would be to announce Commonwealth accession, not that many people would even notice. Certainly not by the obvious date. Easter 2016.
And of course several more soldiers from Norn Iron serving in the Irish Army. And I now happily can add my wifes nephew (Belfast) who recently was accepted as an officer cadet to my daughter-in-laws brother (Co Armagh)who is a seargent. And of course the daughter of one of our neighbours (Co armagh) is serving in the Irish Navy.
ReplyDeleteThe Commander in Chief of the Irish Defence Forces is from Belfast and her aide-de-camp is from Co Down.
As any fan of Star Trek knows Ireland became united in 2024.
And as I have said before the Irish Prsident visits the North every three months.
Her weekend retreat is in Rostrevor, County Down.
The local Catholic Church has a chair with the Presidential seal. And of course there is a similar chair in Armagh Cathedral.
The numbers of those from Northern Ireland serving in the Irish Army are nowhere near comparable to the numbers of those from the Republic serving in the British Army. For most of the history in question, I expect, the latter were more numerous than the entire Irish Army. They might even still be.
ReplyDeleteA United Ireland would never be acceptable to the Republic, and that is just that. It isn't in the client relationship with America that West Germany was, so it could just say no. And it would. For the same reason that the West Germans really wanted to: the much higher taxes to pay for the much more generous welfare provision to which the other bit is accustomed.
No one who values Catholic Ireland would any longer want incorporation into the Republic, anyway. But partition does still keep abortion off the island of Ireland. As long as it doesn't happen in either part, then it will never happen in the other, no matter how much the Dublin and London great and good may want it to.
I suspect that as a practising Irish catholic I value Catholic Ireland more than you do. after all you have not been a catholic very long. and never been Irish at all.
ReplyDeleteAs the Irish army...actually we call them the Defence Forces numbers less than 10,000, numbers are of course small. But any proportionate comparison there are more northerners in the Irish Defence Forces than there are southerners in the British Forces.
You do of course realise that there has only been an Irish "Army" since 1922 and of course you are right in historical terms....to mention for example the Dublin Fusiliers, Connaught (sic) Rangers etc.
But at no time did these regiments or any modern equivelant ..Irish Guards, Royal Irish Rifles represent the ethos of the Irish nation, to which I give my fealty
If you value Catholic Ireland, then why would you want anything to do with the country that the Republic has become, never mind will become over the next ten years or so? Only partition has prevented the legalisation of abortion there. And everything else is either already lost or might as well be.
ReplyDeleteFor most of time since 1922, I strongly suspect that there have been more people from the 26 Counties in the British Army than in the Irish Army, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were still the case. How is that not the ethos of the Irish nation? Nothing could be more so than soldiering for Britain. It is absolutely integral. And unlike most things of which that could be said, it shows no sign of going away in today's Republic.
You of course do not have any figures to quote and in the absence of any you "strongly suspecting is a rather weak argument. In fact its not an argument you would accept as a tutor.
ReplyDeleteYour antagonism towards the "modern" Republic of Ireland (indeed you are no more at ease with any vintage Republic) is totally irrelevant. Its a concept to which Irishmen/women (catholic and otherwise) give our allegiance.
While I dont question the right of any Irishman to seek employment in Britains armed forces.......and naturally you do not question the right of young man and women from Norn Iron to serve in the Irish Defence Forces..................I would contend that I soldiering for Britain is the very opposite of what Ireland stands for. I must emphasise that its a personal opinion. Its just something I could not personally countenance in ANY circumstances.
Well, unless you can produce any figures to the contrary, I stand by what I'd say was a more than sensible assumption. The Irish Army has always been tiny, whereas the Irish Regiments in the British Army are still substantial, and used to be enormous.
ReplyDeletePeople who, perhaps for family reasons, identify particularly strongly with Ireland's very pronounced soldiering tradition have never had much reason to join the Irish Army, which does almost no soldiering. So they haven't. They've joined the British Army instead.
The Republic used to be a bit silly in that "comely maidens dancing at the crossroads" way, and there was a nasty side (although it cannot have been anywhere near as large as people now choose to pretend), but it was certainly not the stridently anti-Catholic place that it is now, where anything up to a third of the electorate would never vote for anyone except the most anticlerical candidate on the ballot paper. Why would you want anything to do with that?
Plus, of course, that they don't want anything to do with Northern Ireland, anyway.