Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Britain's strategic buffer. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I have seen a couple threads about Britain creating a Commonwealth trade zone or Anglo Union. I would like to put forward my own views on what the UK policy should be once we leave the EU and why a Commonwealth trade zone or Anglo Union isn't possible.

    Both the Commonwealth trade and Anglo Union would need to protect their trade. All the Anglo countries Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland and New Zealand are already part of the US dominated Bretten-Woods system, with the full support of the US armed forces to protect their trade. Canada is also part of NAFT. Any attempt by Britain to leave the Bretten-Woods system and create its own would cause a reaction by the US.

    The Commonwealth trade zone seems more possible as a way to increase British geopolitical power. However it would require a navy capable of protecting trade. A navy which would threaten US interests. Also many members of the Commonwealth are protectionist such as Pakistan and South Africa. They wouldn't want a free trade zone where they lose total control over their country and businesses have more freedom to move to other countries.

    What Britain needs to do after leaving the EU is settle down for a 10-15 year geopolitical conflict with the EU. We have very little power compared to the EU, however we are most powerful in the English Channel, Irish sea, North Sea and Norwegian sea. We must try and create a North Sea free trade zone with Norway, Faroe Islands and Iceland. We must then use this influence to support Ireland and Denmark in doing so increasing Britain's influence in these two strategically vital countries. What I am trying to do is create a 3 sided strategic buffer around Britain which we can use to protect ourselves from Germany, France, Russia and limit US control without being a threat to US control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I have seen a couple threads about Britain creating a Commonwealth trade zone or Anglo Union. I would like to put forward my own views on what the UK policy should be once we leave the EU and why a Commonwealth trade zone or Anglo Union isn't possible.

    Both the Commonwealth trade and Anglo Union would need to protect their trade. All the Anglo countries Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland and New Zealand are already part of the US dominated Bretten-Woods system, with the full support of the US armed forces to protect their trade. Canada is also part of NAFT. Any attempt by Britain to leave the Bretten-Woods system and create its own would cause a reaction by the US.
    Bretten-Woods was terminated in 1971 when the US unlinked Gold and the USD. There has yet to be a replacement. Even if Bretten-Woods did still exists, it governs more the exchange rate of currency and its stability, not trade with the USA. Britain wouldn't have to leave the system.

    The Commonwealth trade zone seems more possible as a way to increase British geopolitical power. However it would require a navy capable of protecting trade. A navy which would threaten US interests. Also many members of the Commonwealth are protectionist such as Pakistan and South Africa. They wouldn't want a free trade zone where they lose total control over their country and businesses have more freedom to move to other countries.
    The Anglo-sphere is one step down from the EU and one step up from close ties. Fore example, extending the relationship Australia and NZ share to include Canada and the UK wouldn't bring about a need for a huge navy. Yes a navy would be needed to secure the increased trade that would be seen but it wouldn't be a threat to the USA. Mainly because the Anglo-sphere isn't centred around the aim of being a United States of Something to challenge a 'super' power.

    What Britain needs to do after leaving the EU is settle down for a 10-15 year geopolitical conflict with the EU. We have very little power compared to the EU, however we are most powerful in the English Channel, Irish sea, North Sea and Norwegian sea. We must try and create a North Sea free trade zone with Norway, Faroe Islands and Iceland. We must then use this influence to support Ireland and Denmark in doing so increasing Britain's influence in these two strategically vital countries. What I am trying to do is create a 3 sided strategic buffer around Britain which we can use to protect ourselves from Germany, France, Russia and limit US control without being a threat to US control.
    I agree with the relations you describe but also call for an Anglo-sphere. The world's mindset isn't "Oh no they threaten my power lets go to war." It's calmer and new trading blocks forming wouldn't threaten the USA (which is declining anyway). On top of the Anglo-sphere and what you described, work to break up the EU and form a new trading bloc including France, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The EU is a disaster as it's gone beyond trade.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Bretten-Woods was terminated in 1971 when the US unlinked Gold and the USD. There has yet to be a replacement. Even if Bretten-Woods did still exists, it governs more the exchange rate of currency and its stability, not trade with the USA. Britain wouldn't have to leave the system.

    The Anglo-sphere is one step down from the EU and one step up from close ties. Fore example, extending the relationship Australia and NZ share to include Canada and the UK wouldn't bring about a need for a huge navy. Yes a navy would be needed to secure the increased trade that would be seen but it wouldn't be a threat to the USA. Mainly because the Anglo-sphere isn't centred around the aim of being a United States of Something to challenge a 'super' power.


    I agree with the relations you describe but also call for an Anglo-sphere. The world's mindset isn't "Oh no they threaten my power lets go to war." It's calmer and new trading blocks forming wouldn't threaten the USA (which is declining anyway). On top of the Anglo-sphere and what you described, work to break up the EU and form a new trading bloc including France, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The EU is a disaster as it's gone beyond trade.
    No the Gold standard exchange rate was terminated by Nixon in 1971, after negotiations with other countries. The US dollar was then put in as the exchange currency and is still the worlds reserve currency. It controls trade as you need dollars to backup the trade. No Britain wouldn't have to leave the system, however an Anglo Union of the British pound, Canadian and Australian dollar would be a threat to the US dollar. As those three currencies are in the top 6 most used in the world. Of course the dollar is far ahead, but it could be challenged by 3 out of the top 6 coming together.

    The EU is simple all the countries are next to each other. Canada is 7,000 miles from Australia. So it just isn't possible for Australia to have relationship with Canada like the one it has with New Zealand without a greater military relationship to protect trade between each other. The Only country out of the 4 with the military industry to support a military relationship is Britain. So like it did when it had an Empire Britain would have to pick the military bill to protect the Anglo-sphere's trade. That would mean something like 170-200 escorts, capital ships and submarines. Currently in the UK has 46, Canada 31, Australia 26 and New Zealand 4, so that is 107. So if the UK built say another 63-93 combat ships and the Anglo-Sphere started common procurement, it would be a direct threat to the US, even if it wasn't meant to be. The US didn't want to be the or plan to be the Superpower, neither did Britain or Spain it just turned out like that. So it doesn't matter what the Anglo-Sphere plans, it matter what the US feels, rational or not.

    No the US mindset is they are trying to form an alliance would could threaten me, lets stop the alliance from being formed. It doesn't mean war, it means the US using its power to manipulate the Australians not to join. Listen the EU isn't a threat to the US because it can be contained and member states can be manipulated, it also acts as a block to Russia and Turkey major regional threats to US domination. The US isn't in decline far from it, just other nations are rising, not to challenge the US, rather other smaller powers which could effect the power balance and alliance system the US has created. So we leave French and German control by leaving the EU and you want to go into a smaller Union with less countries giving France and Germany more control than they have currently?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No the US mindset is they are trying to form an alliance would could threaten me, lets stop the alliance from being formed. It doesn't mean war, it means the US using its power to manipulate the Australians not to join. Listen the EU isn't a threat to the US because it can be contained and member states can be manipulated, it also acts as a block to Russia and Turkey major regional threats to US domination. The US isn't in decline far from it, just other nations are rising, not to challenge the US, rather other smaller powers which could effect the power balance and alliance system the US has created. So we leave French and German control by leaving the EU and you want to go into a smaller Union with less countries giving France and Germany more control than they have currently?
    Using your logic then Britain is still a superpower. Britain's influence hasn't declined, other country's influence has just increase? :confused:

    The US attitude will be one grace and I predict the will welcome a strengthened Anglo-sphere. It will help with 5 eyes and just so happens the Anglo-sphere will be made up of their most trusted military partners. There is potential from the USA to benefit from it. The Anglo-sphere will have strong Asia-Pacific links. The USA doesn't. There's another opportunity for the USA to benefit form its formation.

    No, leave but re-enter of a trade basis. None of the political unions crap or common currency with Parliaments etc... just an extended trade agreement with close cooperation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Using your logic then Britain is still a superpower. Britain's influence hasn't declined, other country's influence has just increase? :confused:

    The US attitude will be one grace and I predict the will welcome a strengthened Anglo-sphere. It will help with 5 eyes and just so happens the Anglo-sphere will be made up of their most trusted military partners. There is potential from the USA to benefit from it. The Anglo-sphere will have strong Asia-Pacific links. The USA doesn't. There's another opportunity for the USA to benefit form its formation.

    No, leave but re-enter of a trade basis. None of the political unions crap or common currency with Parliaments etc... just an extended trade agreement with close cooperation.
    My logical in that case was just about the US. Not about the UK or a general point about former superpowers. Britain, Spain and Italy have declined. The US is where Britain was in the great game with Russia.

    No the US will see an alliance dominted by the UK in everyway that matters and think this is a threat to us we must stop it. They are the 3 best economies apart our own, they have huge natural resources, massive possible population expansion, they are closer to the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Arabia, Mediterranean and South China sea than we are, they would dominate the Antarctic. This would be a real threat to the US, and would lead to a British power challenger to the US. It doesn't matter if Britain doesn't intend it or not, it would chanllenge US power. True the Anglo-Sphere would be closer to Asia than America is, however the Pacific the US is part of it, more so then Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

    If you are talking about free trade and tariffs then why can't we do that with each country at a time. If you are talking about regulations and free movement of people you need a political agreement, so some kind of political union.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd be inclined to support a similar agreement with the US as well in terms of free trade and preferential labour.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'd be inclined to support a similar agreement with the US as well in terms of free trade and preferential labour.
    Why? It would be dominated by the US, that kind of agreement wouldn't be in the UK geopolitical interests.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why not include Finland? That way we could surround Sweden if it were used by the EU in order to antagonise the interests of the Anglo-Nordic union. I think conflict is unlikely though.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Why? It would be dominated by the US, that kind of agreement wouldn't be in the UK geopolitical interests.
    I care only for the economy and power. Since our power is tied with western/US hegemony and such agreements would benefit the economy, I don't think it would be the worst idea. It also negates your threat notion even if I do disagree.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I care only for the economy and power. Since our power is tied with western/US hegemony and such agreements would benefit the economy, I don't think it would be the worst idea. It also negates your threat notion even if I do disagree.
    So you want to join NAFT? That makes more sense, I don't really have an issue with it. However it doesn't increase Britain's independent geopolitical power. It does go along with the policy we have had for atleast 30 years of hoping on the US bandwagon. However I must ask, do you think this policy has worked well for Britain or not? Also without the EU the US will dominate us totally economically, militarily, culturally and politically, we will no longer be able to holdup the facade that Britain is in any way an independent country. Oh and with that Canada goes the same way aswell.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    So you want to join NAFT? That makes more sense, I don't really have an issue with it. However it doesn't increase Britain's independent geopolitical power. It does go along with the policy we have had for atleast 30 years of hoping on the US bandwagon. However I must ask, do you think this policy has worked well for Britain or not? Also without the EU the US will dominate us totally economically, militarily, culturally and politically, we will no longer be able to holdup the facade that Britain is in any way an independent country. Oh and with that Canada goes the same way aswell.
    I want a general union of the Anglosphere but free trade and preferential labour is a start.

    Yes, our alliance has served us well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I have seen a couple threads about Britain creating a Commonwealth trade zone or Anglo Union. I would like to put forward my own views on what the UK policy should be once we leave the EU and why a Commonwealth trade zone or Anglo Union isn't possible.

    Both the Commonwealth trade and Anglo Union would need to protect their trade. All the Anglo countries Australia, Canada, Britain, Ireland and New Zealand are already part of the US dominated Bretten-Woods system
    Errr, hold it right there.

    Bretton Woods was ended in 1971 when the United States terminated convertibility of the dollar for gold.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No the Gold standard exchange rate was terminated by Nixon in 1971, after negotiations with other countries. The US dollar was then put in as the exchange currency and is still the worlds reserve currency.
    What do you mean "put in as the exchange currency"? Put in by who?

    As you've already been informed by another poster and me, Bretton Woods was ended in 1971. Since that occurred there has been no centralised system per se, outside the World Bank, IMF and BIS, but they are not the same (and they operated in parrallel to the Bretton Woods system, and administered aspects of it).

    To be frank, I'm not entirely sure that you have a good grasp on international economics.

    The most important development since the end of Bretton Woods was the advent of the petrodollar. The United States convinced primarily Saudi Arabia, and through them OPEC, to make their oil saleable only in exchange for US dollars, and no other currency. In exchange the United States would protect the Saudis and sell them weapons.

    The petrodollar had two consequences. First, it made it cheaper for Americans to buy oil as they didn't pay arbitrage costs of converting into another currency. Second, it put upward pressure on the value of the dollar because everyone would need to buy US dollars in order to pay for oil.

    To obtain US dollars, they would have to sell goods to the United States and the arbitrage value resulted in the United States getting goods very cheaply from around the world, and being able to buy cheap oil. This was a massive boost to the US economy (though ultimately it was quite damaging to its manufacturing and industrial base)

    So... do you have anything to say about the petrodollar? If you're going to be talking about global currency systems and trading blocs, you can't really miss it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I want a general union of the Anglosphere but free trade and preferential labour is a start.

    Yes, our alliance has served us well.
    I still don't think that would be good for an independent UK geopolitical power, joining a free trade and perferential labour deal which dominated by the US. It makes less sense than being in the EU which is dominated by Germany and France.

    In what way has our post Cold war policy towards the US served us well?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    What do you mean "put in as the exchange currency"? Put in by who?

    As you've already been informed by another poster and me, Bretton Woods was ended in 1971. Since that occurred there has been no centralised system per se, outside the World Bank, IMF and BIS, but they are not the same (and they operated in parrallel to the Bretton Woods system, and administered aspects of it).

    To be frank, I'm not entirely sure that you have a good grasp on international economics.

    The most important development since the end of Bretton Woods was the advent of the petrodollar. The United States convinced primarily Saudi Arabia, and through them OPEC, to make their oil saleable only in exchange for US dollars, and no other currency. In exchange the United States would protect the Saudis and sell them weapons.

    The petrodollar had two consequences. First, it made it cheaper for Americans to buy oil as they didn't pay arbitrage costs of converting into another currency. Second, it put upward pressure on the value of the dollar because everyone would need to buy US dollars in order to pay for oil.

    To obtain US dollars, they would have to sell goods to the United States and the arbitrage value resulted in the United States getting goods very cheaply from around the world, and being able to buy cheap oil. This was a massive boost to the US economy (though ultimately it was quite damaging to its manufacturing and industrial base)

    So... do you have anything to say about the petrodollar? If you're going to be talking about global currency systems and trading blocs, you can't really miss it
    The US government with the support of other industrialised countries Britain included.

    I know it isn't writen on paper, but it is just a geopolitical fact.

    True I don't have a grasp of international economics because it doesn't exist, things are done on a nation to nation basis or alliance to alliance basis.

    The Petodollar's importance is overrated. It was a geopolitical move by the US to weaken the oil exports of the USSR, hurting their economy and playing a part in the fall of the USSR.

    No not buy US dollars, but take on US debt. Which played a part in the credit bubbles in the US. However it was only a part of the issue for the US economy. It didn't really matter after the USSR fell the US was the so called Pax power or Hyper Power, as Britain and Spain were before it.

    Still you brought up an interesting point about how economic power can be used geopolitically.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I still don't think that would be good for an independent UK geopolitical power, joining a free trade and perferential labour deal which dominated by the US. It makes less sense than being in the EU which is dominated by Germany and France.

    In what way has our post Cold war policy towards the US served us well?
    Free trade and preferential labour would be positive provided we got the net flow of immigrants. Admittedly the US has a lot of leverage but one must remember that even in relative decline it should still be a top 4 economy in 2100 (probably top 3) and that China will lose its edge by 2050 as its population starts to collapse.

    We have to pick our allies, while we can exercise more power we don't have the financial and military edge of 1500-1900.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Free trade and preferential labour would be positive provided we got the net flow of immigrants. Admittedly the US has a lot of leverage but one must remember that even in relative decline it should still be a top 4 economy in 2100 (probably top 3) and that China will lose its edge by 2050 as its population starts to collapse.

    We have to pick our allies, while we can exercise more power we don't have the financial and military edge of 1500-1900.

    Why are immigrants good or thing?

    The US isn't in decline it will continue to be the worlds largest economy for decades to come. China isn't very good and neither is Inida. Most likely Argentina and Mexico will challenge US power.

    You can't pick and choose allies, they come of need. We have a massive finanical edge and military edge over everybody but the US.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Why are immigrants good or thing?

    The US isn't in decline it will continue to be the worlds largest economy for decades to come. China isn't very good and neither is Inida. Most likely Argentina and Mexico will challenge US power.

    You can't pick and choose allies, they come of need. We have a massive finanical edge and military edge over everybody but the US.
    In simple economic terms the larger your labour force, the higher your potential output. In political terms per capita wealth is not important (China is evidence) with regards to international power so going for potential output (which should not reduce per capita wealth anyway) requires a significant increase in the birth rate and/or immigration.

    Argentina has no chance and Mexico stands more chance of joining the US than it does challenging its hegemony. That being said I do believe Mexico is well managed and will outperform other economies like Brazil or Russia which are of comparable or larger labour size.

    Sure but in both those areas our alliance with the USA is a strength anyway though we need to increase the size of our military.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Most likely Argentina and Mexico will challenge US power.
    Argentina?! The country that's among the most likely in the world to go bankrupt any second?

    They're barely a viable country, let alone in a position to challenge the US.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In simple economic terms the larger your labour force, the higher your potential output. In political terms per capita wealth is not important (China is evidence) with regards to international power so going for potential output (which should not reduce per capita wealth anyway) requires a significant increase in the birth rate and/or immigration.

    Argentina has no chance and Mexico stands more chance of joining the US than it does challenging its hegemony. That being said I do believe Mexico is well managed and will outperform other economies like Brazil or Russia which are of comparable or larger labour size.

    Sure but in both those areas our alliance with the USA is a strength anyway though we need to increase the size of our military.
    Not really you can have a smaller population and better technology which doesn't require large amounts of government spending in cities and on infrastructure projects to link them. Low per capita GDP is terrible if you want a stable economy it means all you can do is export and have no market of your own to pay for other goods with, so the government ends up having to do it. China just proves my point. They are really trying to increase their power but are unable to do so, outside of buying things in other countries because they know their growth is slowing. It has gotten China just so for, they can't keep up with the facade any longer with government bailouts of their housing and business sector to increase their profit margin.

    In the late 1800's Argentina was the 4th biggest economy in the world. So if the government stops screwing everything up then Argentina has every change of becoming the major South Atlantic and South American power. It is a huge crop exporter, has loads fresh water, 3 good ports in different regions, a strong diverse culture based around Catholic Christanity and Spanish Language, law based on the Napoleonic code is its main issue. This is where its governmental and socialist problems come from.

    Mexico is demographically taking over southern US states and a growing population. It has access to both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, plus the Caribbean sea. With NAFT business are moving to Mexico from China to have easier access to the US market and cheaper labour. It also have billions in drug money keeping its banks going. Mexico is the major threat to the US. Second it is hard to say could be a Germany, Russia, Japan alliance like in WW2.

    On Brazil it has benefitted from China's need to important strategically to try and increase its power. Brazil huge cities which are poor and build infrastructure their is very hard to like its cities. So exporting is very costly, unlike in Argentina or Mexico. In the case of Brazil its best years are behind it. Russia looks strong but is very weak and threatened on all sides. Russia will fall away soon enough. Until then it will be rather agressive and people just need to call their bluff.

    I don't want an alliance with the US, I want a more level partnership. Which Britain has independent interests and capabilities, however we must understand the US is vital to Britain. I don't think size is important, training the forces we have now to operate as one force is important. If you can get 20 ships at sea and used them effectively and the enemy which a larger fleet on paper can only use 14 ships effectively you in. So training is the most important thing.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.