[Chillaxer]

You must have thought it too. Look at Spain, but more likely Portugal. European countries that are economically somewhat inferior to us, historically our best allies in Europe, and partners in trade etc. If Portugal, for example, became a basket case like Greece, what's to stop us wading in if they exit the Euro?
Helping them out, but then could be something that leads to mutual sovereignity. It's a dream. We've got the pedigree, the instincts for it, but this time it can be benevolent, moreso, it can solve the missing parts of the puzzle in Europe. A two or even three tier Europe could be conducive to a few small countries beind ruled from London.

What do you say peeps, let's get the old spirit back?

[DaveSmith99]

Nope.

[gladders]

No. The Empire was a drain on the UK.

[Genocidal]

(Original post by gladders)
No. The Empire was a drain on the UK.

Owning 25% of the world with all its resources and trading posts was a drain?

[Mysteries]

Yeah... No.

I don't know if you've noticed but we can barely afford to look after our own people let alone the Greeks or the Portugese. We are no longer the economic and military powerhouse that we once were. Those days are over and frankly it's for the best. Imperialism is very taxing not to mention highly immoral.

[Steevee]

Europe isn't where we should be looking.

There are quite a few African countries that could benefit from British rule, or at least intervention. We would help them move out fo perpetual cycles of civil war and poverty, put them on the road to being a functioning country, and for that we gain access to some of their natural resources and an obliging future partner on the world stage. Every one is a winner.

[Captainmal]

(Original post by Genocidal)
Owning 25% of the world with all its resources and trading posts was a drain?

Tehnically yeah, by the early 20th century Britain was operating an enormous trade deficit with nearly every colony. Only success was India which then operated a huge surplus with all those countries and Britain reaped some of the rewards of that but even then, factoring in the costs of security and administration it was not hat you'd call a benefit. The markets in the colonies were never develloped enough to become a market for British goods and so became net exporters which damaged Britain's (and every other imperial power's) industry in the long run.

[gladders]

(Original post by Genocidal)
Owning 25% of the world with all its resources and trading posts was a drain?

Yes, as we didn't develop them. The money accrued went into private pockets and was only lightly taxed, and precious little infrastructure was developed beyond the minimum needed to make businesses profitable. Compare America before independence (lightly populated and agrarian) to America a generation later (increasingly heavily populated and slowly industrialising), or India before 1947 and now.

Once India was made independent, the rest of the Empire lost purpose - it was occupied specifically as territory denial to other countries, and to guard India.

[Mysteries]

(Original post by Steevee)
Europe isn't where we should be looking.

There are quite a few African countries that could benefit from British rule, or at least intervention. We would help them move out fo perpetual cycles of civil war and poverty, put them on the road to being a functioning country, and for that we gain access to some of their natural resources and an obliging future partner on the world stage. Every one is a winner.

You make it sound so nice

In reality what happens is that we end civil wars by supporting a dictator and supplying his army of thugs with tanks and guns. Then we bribe him with millions of pounds (of taxpayers' money of course) to give us access to his country's natural resources.

The end result is that the people of the country end up hating us and we can't seem to understand why. Finally when the people rise up and topple said dictator we quickly switch sides and congratulate them on achieving democracy etc...

[gladders]

(Original post by Steevee)
Europe isn't where we should be looking.

There are quite a few African countries that could benefit from British rule, or at least intervention. We would help them move out fo perpetual cycles of civil war and poverty, put them on the road to being a functioning country, and for that we gain access to some of their natural resources and an obliging future partner on the world stage. Every one is a winner.

But why would they want to agree to this? Could you see yourself agreeing to a proposal to have the UK subordinate to a foreign empire, that could dictate its policies? Of course not.

The only way I could find this acceptable is if both the UK and these countries voted in favour of it and that they essentially became a single country - not an empire - so that these people would have MPs in our Parliament. I don't see that happening.

[chefdave]

Absolutely, the world is desperate for the advancement of British Values to help solve a lot of social issues and put an end to factional infighting. Lets face it, most of the third world -if they had the chance- would be over here like shot if they could, why not do the decent humane thing and export our way of life to them? It's an excellent compromise.

Edit: I see there's a lot of truth haters out there

[Steevee]

(Original post by Mysteries)
You make it sound so nice

In reality what happens is that we end civil wars by supporting a dictator and supplying his army of thugs with tanks and guns. Then we bribe him with millions of pounds (of taxpayers' money of course) to give us access to his country's natural resources.

The end result is that the people of the country end up hating us and we can't seem to understand why. Finally when the people rise up and topple said dictator we quickly switch sides and congratulate them on achieving democracy etc...

I said it's what we should do, not what we do.

ANd way to oversimplify it to make us sound like terrible people

(Original post by gladders)
But why would they want to agree to this? Could you see yourself agreeing to a proposal to have the UK subordinate to a foreign empire, that could dictate its policies? Of course not.

The only way I could find this acceptable is if both the UK and these countries voted in favour of it and that they essentially became a single country - not an empire - so that these people would have MPs in our Parliament. I don't see that happening.

I agree, classic Imperialism isn't the way to go. More along the lines of a Protectorate, in a modern sense. Though why on earth should they have anyone sitting in Westminster?

[Bill_Gates]

I think China and the US should be thinking about this. UK's hardly got its own gaff in order.

[gladders]

(Original post by Steevee)
I agree, classic Imperialism isn't the way to go. More along the lines of a Protectorate, in a modern sense. Though why on earth should they have anyone sitting in Westminster?

If they're going to be governed from Westminster, shouldn't they have representation there?

If your proposal is to have a local administration that we back up, aren't we just sticking our oar in where it isn't needed? Where's the accountability? What if it's the British that actually cause the harm?

[DynamicSyngery]

'Shared sovereignty' is hardly imperialism. They will get a Secretary of State for Portugal if they are lucky.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Bill_Gates)
I think China and the US should be thinking about this. UK's hardly got its own gaff in order.

You've got to think about the colonees too, IIRC Hong Kong weren't exactly looking forward to the prospect of Chinese rule after British colonialism. A Chinese empire what be an unmitigated human rights catastrophe.

[Jimbo1234]

Well we could, but seeing that the UK is so broke, I think we should fix ourselves before we try to help others.

(Original post by gladders)
No. The Empire was a drain on the UK.

Ha, worst comment I have seen in a long time on TSR

[Bill_Gates]

(Original post by chefdave)
You've got to think about the colonees too, IIRC Hong Kong weren't exactly looking forward to the prospect of Chinese rule after British colonialism. A Chinese empire what be an unmitigated human rights catastrophe.

"thinking about" China has already increased its overseas operations.

[Mysteries]

(Original post by Steevee)
I said it's what we should do, not what we do.

ANd way to oversimplify it to make us sound like terrible people

Well that's just how it tends to pan out. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

I never said that "we" are terrible people. Most of the public is blissfully ignorant reading about where Katie Price had lunch and watching Kim Kardashian's new reality TV show. This is the policy of our government who are protecting corporate interests.

David Cameron has FINALLY come out and admitted that Britain was wrong to support so many dictatorships.

Imperialism is a sure fire way to get us hated all around the world. Just look at America on 9/11. "Why are they attacking us? We're the GOOD guys!"

[Steevee]

(Original post by gladders)
If they're going to be governed from Westminster, shouldn't they have representation there?

If your proposal is to have a local administration that we back up, aren't we just sticking our oar in where it isn't needed? Where's the accountability? What if it's the British that actually cause the harm?

They would have abassadors, and certainly some say on what goes on in their country, but they have no place in Westminster, that is for British issues, not theirs.