Posted on 04/12/2015 7:10:05 AM PDT by Whenifhow
Washington believes that the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the US is over, according to a secret briefing document seen by The Mail on Sunday.
The memo for members of Congress states damningly that ‘the UK may not be viewed as centrally relevant to the United States in all of the issues and relations considered a priority on the US agenda’.
Dated April 2015 and drawn up to brief the Senate and House of Representatives on the impact of Britain’s General Election, the memo also warns that the UK faces turmoil if there is a hung parliament.
The document – prepared by the Congressional Research Service, an in-house intelligence body that gives confidential analysis to legislators – states that while Britain and the US are likely to ‘remain key economic partners’, a ‘reassessment of the special relationship may be in order… because its geopolitical setting has been changing’.
The memo, edited by Derek E Mix, the CRS’s chief European affairs analyst, says that the development of organisations such as the G20 group of major economies has led to a decline in the ‘influence and centrality of the relationship’.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Awe Gee.
Does this mean there won’t been anymore NyLon-clad L.I.B.O.R./A.C.O.R.N. farmers fleecing Wall Street?
‘England isn’t an enemy, but they aren’t a friend. I cannot think of a time they have put our interests ahead of their own, , ever. We on the other hand, have for them.’
You mean like Suez?. America puts its own interests first, just like everyone else. Try to suggest otherwise is bunkum.
Kissinger famously said ‘America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests....’
And we were the first at your shoulder after 9-11, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks for the gratitude (sarc).
At the moment relatively small percentage but immigration and birth rates are not favorable. A very small percentage of Americans are homosexual, but look at how much influence they have on politics and the culture.
This “secret” memo I’ve read ALL about sounds more like the Labour and/or Tory Party’s working to make sure that the UKIP does not win the upcoming election in a landslide. Trying to scare people.
I mean exactly like Suez. It was not a vital American interest to help the UK reestablish its prewar possessions and empire.
The main UK contribution post 9/11 was not normally seen in the heavy fighting. Its a token force designed mostly to give them a seat at the table.
It is a fact that the USA in the 1920s regarded the Royal Navy as a potential adversary in the Naval weapons treaty. It is a fact that the Brits declared a blockade on Germany and threatened to sink any neutral American vessel that was headed to a German port. It is a fact that the UK tried to break up the USA during the civil war by supporting the south.
Then get to how many financial attacks London bankers have launched against us. Beginning with the huge oil futures fiasco in 2007/8 that paved the way for the collapse and the Obama effort. And thanks also for WWI when the Brits planned to simply plow American Doughboys into the British Army for more cannon fodder.
For it to be a friendship, it needs to have respect. The UK too often acts like we are a strong resource of the UK, and that is what the friendship is designed for. To give them access to American power, for their own unique ends.
No, there is no special relationship. And there should not be, with anyone. This essentially give foreigners like you, a vote over American policy. Obama want it to end because he wants to empower our enemies. I don’t think it should be there so that we are independent of what used to be known as “entangling alliances”.
In every case, the foreigner benefits at our expense. We never benefit from the arrangement.
Note that from 1789 until the Second World War, excepting only our relationship with Panama, the United States refused to enter into treaties of alliance with anyone.
Which time was better for America? When was America more respected around the world?
Where mutual interests exists, no treaty is needed. Where not, no treaty will force it.
“The monarchy is stronger than it has been in years”
Another reason. Monarchy is something no American should want to be involved with. And the Uk is essentially EU. The EU is certainly no friend of the USA.
President George Washington final address points.
1.Be vigilant, people will seek to use the government for selfish ends.
2.Avoid overgrown military establishments; they are hostile to liberty.
3.Prevent all obstructions to the execution of the laws.
4.Control bureaucracies; make sure they all work together.
5.Avoid political parties; they will cause divisive factions and unscrupulous men will use them to undermine the government.
6.Give allegiance to the Constitution; improve it as necessary.
7.Do not alter the Constitution lightly, or based on hypothesis; apply the experience applied when it was created.
8.Be suspicious of administrators; they may serve themselves rather than the people.
9.Watch for consolidation of power in any department of government.
10.Preserve existing checks and balances and add more where power needs to be checked.
11.Religion and morality are essential to create the virtue necessary to preserve the union.
12.Promote widespread education; democracy requires literate citizens that understand the system of governance and take responsibility for themselves.
13.Avoid debt; and immediately discharge any debt created by war.
14.Taxes are unpleasant; government spending should be candidly conducted.
15.Cultivate peace and justice toward all nations.
16.Avoid alliances and maintain neutrality among nations.
17.Avoid dependency; a weak state that allies with a stronger state will become its servant.
18.Real patriots will resist intrigues, while dupes will surrender to interests.
19.In trade, give no nation a favored nation status.
20.Be guided by principles, not interests.
I’ve looked at this before in the UK census data from 1961 through 2011 and from very meager beginnings in 1961 the Muslim representation has doubled (or more) every 10 years, and that rise will likely be more exponential in future years rather than a X*slope if it isn’t stopped. Same in this country, too. So while it is technically true that there still is that very large majority of non Muslims, trends don’t support long term sustainment of that.
While currently at 2.7M (4.8% of the population) and the majority in London (1M+),
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years]
even Scotland has seen some shifts in demographics (77,000) that are disturbing. An example is between the years of 2001 and 2011, those identifying in the census as “Christian” decreased by over 11%. [Source: Statistical Bulletin, 26 September 2013, Coverage: Scotland, National Records of Scotland].
I have no misconceptions about that the UK was (I lived there in 1975) I do have different reservations about what it is now, however. I see my country falling down the same potential malestrom. If one were to explore some on the web about the implications on western society by infusions of Muslims, the conclusions are largely not good. Estimations about the tipping points in terms of percentage of population range anywhere from a 1%-is-a-problem to 2% or maybe 3, even 4% if you’re optimistic.
I agree that the rate is worrying, but what I try to combat is the US hysteria that the Muslims now or will run the UK and will even be some majority population.
If there is a silver cloud, its the recent stuff I have been reading that states that the Muslim birth rate has started to slowly drop and will by 2020-30 DROP to roughly the same level as native rates (2.4 for natives, 2.8 for Muslims) and will level by 2050. Which conflicts with the hysteria that the UK will be some majority Muslim nation by 2050 (which is complete tosh anyway). Also UK immigration will HAVE to continue getting smaller and that can only help bringing less Muslims in.
1—I am no monarchist, I was simply responding to the assertion its weak. Far from it.
2—A majority of UK people want out of the EU, and will hopefully have an in/out referendum in 2017.
See my answer to gaffer.
CRS = Can’t Remember Sh!t
‘The main UK contribution post 9/11 was not normally seen in the heavy fighting. Its a token force designed mostly to give them a seat at the table.’
Complete crap, your ignorance is embarrassing. Clearly you haven’t followed what we contributed from 2001 to 2014. Not seen in heavy fighting?. Token force?. Complete and utter crap. You go tell the squaddies they didn’t do heavy fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.
‘It is a fact that the USA in the 1920s regarded the Royal Navy as a potential adversary in the Naval weapons treaty. It is a fact that the Brits declared a blockade on Germany and threatened to sink any neutral American vessel that was headed to a German port. It is a fact that the UK tried to break up the USA during the civil war by supporting the south.’
In practice, but the UK would not have sunk any US ship, we were working with American banks and the govt pre-1917. And we technically would have threatened to sink any neutral ship. But the Swedes and Dutch don’t seem to have a chip about it 100 yrs later.
As to 1861-65, your history is selective. SOME British supported the south, SOME supported the North.
Britain issued a proclamation of neutrality at the beginning of the Civil War on 13 May 1861. Palmerston decided to recognise the Confederacy as a belligerent and to receive their unofficial representatives but thought it was premature to recognise the South as a sovereign state. Britain depended more on American corn than Confederate cotton, and a war with the U.S. would not be in Britain’s economic interest. Palmerston ordered reinforcements sent to the Province of Canada because he was convinced the North would make peace with the South and then invade Canada. He was very pleased with the Confederate victory at Bull Run in July 1861, but 15 months later he wrote that “the American [Civil] War... has manifestly ceased to have any attainable object as far as the Northerns are concerned, except to get rid of some more thousand troublesome Irish and Germans. It must be owned, however, that the Anglo-Saxon race on both sides have shown courage and endurance highly honourable to their stock”.
Lets not forget the Trent Affair in November 1861 which produced public outrage in Britain and a diplomatic crisis.
Palmerston REJECTED all further efforts of the Confederacy to gain British recognition because he thought the military situation did not warrant it. Also he ordered the CSS Alabama but it had already put to sea before the order reached Birkenhead. In her subsequent cruise, Alabama captured or destroyed many Union merchant ships, as did other raiders fitted out in Britain. The U.S. accused Britain of complicity in the construction of the raiders. This was the basis of the postwar Alabama claims for damages against Britain, which Palmerston refused to pay. After Palmerston’s death, Gladstone acknowledged the U.S. claim and agreed to arbitration, paying out $15,500,000 in damages
‘Then get to how many financial attacks London bankers have launched against us. Beginning with the huge oil futures fiasco in 2007/8 that paved the way for the collapse and the Obama effort.’
Oh dear, paranoid nonsense, more suited to Lyndon La Rouche.
‘And thanks also for WWI when the Brits planned to simply plow American Doughboys into the British Army for more cannon fodder.’
No, the British and French intended to use US units to fill up gaps. The British and French troops still would have, as they did, made up the majority of any attack or defence.
And contrary to US myth, the US armies initially suffered defeats and appalling casualties, because of Pershing’s arrogance that the US troops were battle ready, which they clearly were not.
It was the British and Aussie and Canadian troops, as well as Indians, had to take the brunt of the ‘Kaiserschlact’ in easter 1918, and it was the British and Commonwealth troops that also took the huge brunt of the ‘100 Day Offensive’ to drive back the Germans to the border.
There were more Canadians in 1918 than Americans. The Aussies in 1918 did more fighting than the US. Oh, and the US didnt undertake a solo major assault until the battle of St Mihiel in SEPTEMBER 1918, just two months from victory.
You DO know that the US army in WW1 had no tanks, planes and heavy artillery of its own, and had to use British and French equipment?. A fact even superpatriot historian Stephen Ambrose had to admit in his last book. You DO know that the Royal Navy had to carry HALF of all US troops from America to Britain in 1917, and ALL American troops from England to France?.
Also US troops had to be trained in trench warfare and other ‘new’ warfare (ie tanks) by British and French officers at combat schools behind the lines in France.
‘Then get to how many financial attacks London bankers have launched against us. Beginning with the huge oil futures fiasco in 2007/8 that paved the way for the collapse and the Obama effort.’’
And your banks and financial sector, with its prime mortgages etc, had nothing to with the global collapse?. Twas all the Limeys and their anti-American banks.........
Uh huh. OK.
I understand. But one cannot help but to worry when he/she sees stories like soldiers being hacked to death by Muslims in the street or wide scale abuse of English girls by same or a lot of examples of Britain-exported Muslim Jihadis to Syria et al.
There is some very powerful bad juju going on and it isn’t prudent to explain that away with current statistics.
I am trying to help keep my country from getting to that tipping point I mentioned.
Thanks,
I don't pretend to any demographic expertise, but I'm told by those who have that this is the usual pattern when a large new immigrant group arrives in a society with different cultural and economic norms. The birth rate of the immigrant group normalises with that of the host society in a remarkably short time, a couple of generations or so. The explanation accepted by most demographers is that the most powerful factors affecting birth rate are economic: and however much an immigrant group may seek to isolate itself culturally, it cannot escape the economic context in which it finds itself. We may now be seeing this with British Muslims.
Next all the high schools named in honor of Winston Churchill will be renamed to Fidel Castro High School.
Historical documented immigration patterns notwithstanding, I think the influence we see from Muslim migration into Western countries isn’t in the norm for what has happened before.
The difference between the earlier documented immigration such as into the US in its heyday with Ellis Island, etc. and now is open immigration has been largely qualified (lottery, quotas, refugee, etc.). If you add political motives for our dear liberals here in the US and wild stretches of the definitions of refugees, etc. then it seems skewed to me. Couple that with virtual insistence by many of these Muslims to not assimilate, to bring their religion and separate laws with them and I don’t see a trend to some natural entropy in distribution. I see infestation unchecked.
All country's are mostly for their own interests - of course they are. There's nothing wrong with that. Friendly countries are ones whose interests tend to coincide. Britain and the US are examples of countries who are moving apart because their emphases are beginning to diverge, however they still help each other out more than is usual.
I can think of times when the UK has put itself out. The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for example. There wasnt much in that for them and a lot of risk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.