Turn on thread page Beta

Would you rather the UK be a small nation or a major global player? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Would you rather the UK be a small nation or a major global player?

    I.e keep it small, niche and moderately well off. Or grow it into some what of a global player i.e higher population, more diversified economy, more influential cities.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    We ARE a small nation that IS a major global player.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    small in terms of size of our country
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spv)
    We ARE a small nation that IS a major global player.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    small in terms of size of our country
    In terms of global GDP we account for very little like 2.3%
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    We should be a small nation. Trying to pretend we're the global power we once were is ridiculous. Britain should forget about trying to butt into other countries' affairs and accept its decline.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justag)
    We should be a small nation. Trying to pretend we're the global power we once were is ridiculous. Britain should forget about trying to butt into other countries' affairs and accept its decline.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Personally i support this view especially if Brits want to sustain their current living standards. We're merely just opening ourselves to more costs and clearly not making any friends.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Personally i support this view especially if Brits want to sustain their current living standards. We're merely just opening ourselves to more costs and clearly not making any friends.
    Plus more of a terrorist target

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Personally i support this view especially if Brits want to sustain their current living standards. We're merely just opening ourselves to more costs and clearly not making any friends.
    I think we should accept that the Empire has been gone for some time. Small and prosperous is a little bit better than large and miserable.

    Besides, we clearly don't have the money to spend on an enormous military like America - although I do think we should stick to the 2 percent of GDP target set by NATO.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I think we should accept that the Empire has been gone for some time. Small and prosperous is a little bit better than large and miserable.

    Besides, we clearly don't have the money to spend on an enormous military like America - although I do think we should stick to the 2 percent of GDP target set by NATO.
    I agree. I think the UK would have to become a lot more diverse for starters and considerable change will be required. I think other NATO members should do more. I'd rather it be spent on the NHS we're pretty safe as an island nation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This is actually a tricky question.

    Because I seriously doubt that the world would be a better place if a country like Britain took a back seat.

    Thus to want us to do so would be very selfish.


    Personally however I woulnt mind if we were to leave the EU and become a less powerful nation as a result.

    Anything to shut up all these whining people who don't like immigrants.


    Anyway it's looking increasingly likely that we will in fact vote to leave the EU and I'm guessing Scotland will more likely than not eventually go its own way .

    So its becoming a moot question Id say.


    And all under the Tories watch,ha
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    I agree. I think the UK would have to become a lot more diverse for starters and considerable change will be required. I think other NATO members should do more. I'd rather it be spent on the NHS we're pretty safe as an island nation.
    Diverse in what sense? Also, disagree with with the NHS bit. The spending target is in terms of percentage of GDP so a smaller economy is already spending less on their military in absolute terms than a larger one. I just don't think we should be trying to ape America by pretending that we're actually their military equals. The whole point of NATO is that we shouldn't need to rely entirely on ourselves if we're attacked which, as you point out, is somewhat unlikely because we're an island nation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Would you rather the UK be a small nation or a major global player?

    I.e keep it small, niche and moderately well off. Or grow it into some what of a global player i.e higher population, more diversified economy, more influential cities.
    It would be nice to think that Britain could become a global power again one day, but in reality its never going to happen. Its better we stay out of international affairs and focus on our own domestic problems, afterall, the USA, which is one of our closest allies is a major global player and we should just let them be the interventionist nation that succeeds us, even if they are doing a terrible job at it atm . All of our former colonies are still extremely loyal to us however, such as Australia and Canada, and would support us no doubt if we ever arose into any international conflict.

    So to answer your question. its best that we maintain being a smaller nation for the moment by focussing on domestic policies first, before international intervention. Who knows, maybe this will help us one day rise up again as a global power in the future.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by moggis)
    Anyway it's looking increasingly likely that we will in fact vote to leave the EU and I'm guessing Scotland will more likely than not eventually go it's own way .

    So its becoming a moot question Id say.


    And all under the Tories watch,ha
    I'm not so sure about the EU thing. I'm definitely voting to leave but I have a feeling that UKIP's involvement in the campaign is fundamentally going to turn off the undecideds who don't really want to associate with UKIP. It's a flaw in the thinking of people that if they don't agree with a one view held by a party or person, they tend to think that they must disagree with every view they hold.

    It's what gets me about people who say that UKIP has benefited from Nigel Farage's leadership because he got 13 percent of the country to vote for them. What they don't understand is that he's turned UKIP, and by extension Euroscepticism, into a marmite issue. So he's got 13 percent of people to like him only at the expense of the other 87 percent hating his guts and UKIP's metaphorical guts too, for that matter.

    As for Scotland, well, they're going to leave at some point anyway. This current relationship we have with them where they threaten to call a second referendum every time they want another concession from Westminster has to end sometime.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'm not so sure about the EU thing. I'm definitely voting to leave but I have a feeling that UKIP's involvement in the campaign is fundamentally going to turn off the undecideds who don't really want to associate with UKIP. It's a flaw in the thinking of people that if they don't agree with a one view held by a party or person, they tend to think that they must disagree with every view they hold.

    It's what gets me about people who say that UKIP has benefited from Nigel Farage's leadership because he got 13 percent of the country to vote for them. What they don't understand is that he's turned UKIP, and by extension Euroscepticism, into a marmite issue. So he's got 13 percent of people to like him only at the expense of the other 87 percent hating his guts and UKIP's metaphorical guts too, for that matter.

    As for Scotland, well, they're going to leave at some point anyway. This current relationship we have with them where they threaten to call a second referendum every time they want another concession from Westminster has to end sometime.

    I was fascinated in your assessment of Farage.


    I have to own up to being one of those people who doesn't/ didn't understand that he has made UKIP a marmite party.

    I thought it was the quality of its members that was doing that.


    I don't think you need worry about UKIPS affect on the EU vote.

    Angela Merkel has done more to affect the outcome in the last 10 days than a whole battalion of UKIP members could in 10 years.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by moggis)
    I was fascinated in your assessment of Farage.


    I have to own up to being one of those people who doesn't/ didn't understand that he has made UKIP a marmite party.

    I thought it was the quality of its members that was doing that.


    I don't think you need worry about UKIPS affect on the EU vote.

    Angela Merkel has done more to affect the outcome in the last 10 days than a whole battalion of UKIP members could in 10 years.
    It's the quality of the members as well as the leader and the policies. UKIP has some very popular policies, no doubt. But they are seen as an anti-immigration party and the almost weekly scandals they suffer because of homophobic, racist or sexist comments made by their elected officials (who should know better than to mouth off to the press, even if they hold repugnant views). A lot of people I knew at school would never consider voting for them purely on the basis of these scandals and are often surprised that UKIP has any good policies at all.

    The general feeling I get from people is that they buy into these non-arguments of 'Britain will become irrelevant', 'Britain will become isolated' and so on. But I just don't know. I was dead wrong about the Scottish referendum because I'd always thought it was such a stupid proposition that there was no real chance of it receiving a majority of the votes. But then I was rudely surprised by the polls leading up to the referendum showing a 51/49 split that could go either way. So I think I'll wait until nearer the referendum to start placing my bets.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's the quality of the members as well as the leader and the policies. UKIP has some very popular policies, no doubt. But they are seen as an anti-immigration party and the almost weekly scandals they suffer because of homophobic, racist or sexist comments made by their elected officials (who should know better than to mouth off to the press, even if they hold repugnant views). A lot of people I knew at school would never consider voting for them purely on the basis of these scandals and are often surprised that UKIP has any good policies at all.

    The general feeling I get from people is that they buy into these non-arguments of 'Britain will become irrelevant', 'Britain will become isolated' and so on. But I just don't know. I was dead wrong about the Scottish referendum because I'd always thought it was such a stupid proposition that there was no real chance of it receiving a majority of the votes. But then I was then rudely surprised by the polls leading up to the election showing a 51/49 split that could go either way. So I think I'll wait until nearer the election to start placing my bets.

    Oh you are definitely right with regard to people's general beliefs on this.

    That's why you can still get 9/4 that we will leave ( last time I looked)

    But this refugee crisis and the way Merkel has handled it is a disaster for pro Europeans and Id be amazed if it's not much closer to being 50-50 in a year.

    Of course a great deal will depend on what deal they give Cameron.


    But one thing is certain. If we vote to stay in then there will be millions of deeply unhappy people in this country and who will many of them vote for in 2020?

    UKIP I would think.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by moggis)
    Oh you are definitely right with regard to people's general beliefs on this.

    That's why you can still get 9/4 that we will leave ( last time I looked)

    But this refugee crisis and the way Merkel has handled it is a disaster for pro Europeans and Id be amazed if it's not much closer to being 50-50 in a year.

    Of course a great deal will depend on what deal they give Cameron.


    But one thing is certain. If we vote to stay in then there will be millions of deeply unhappy people in this country and who will many of them vote for in 2020?

    UKIP I would think.
    I agree that UKIP will become a stronger force in 2020 provided they don't f*ck up near the election as they seem to do in most of their highly-anticipated election performances (just before the European elections, an Asian leader of their youth wing left in a storm, accusing them of deliberately attracting racist voters).

    In a way, a lot of the seats where they came second or third will be quite vulnerable if we stay in the EU. It's a very strange effect... Both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP saw huge increases in people signing up to become members after their respective losses at the election and referendum. We can only guess.

    And Cameron isn't going to get any substantive change. All he's going to get are some token promises that, in twenty years' time, Germany and France will maybe start to think about planning to think about planning to stop dithering and think about treaty change. Cameron has got himself into a right pickle with this EU reform thing. And all to stop UKIP from taking votes from him... And they still only got one seat. xD It's whether he's able to sell it to the public that will determine whether the Conservatives win another majority in 2020. Of course, it will also depend on who becomes the leader of the Labour Party tomorrow. If it isn't Corbyn, it might be more difficult.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    As big a power as possible.

    While I accept that the empire is gone and we can never be a first rate power (that is reserved for the US, China, India and a federal Eurozone should it ever form), I do not believe that we must cede our position to the likes of Brazil and Russia (and indeed we can over time catch Germany and Japan).

    We must increase the population and preferably fertility rate, we must address our current account and trade deficits and we must increase the military budget.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Global player
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I consider myself Euroskeptic to some degree, and the "global influence" argument should not be allowed to trump things like sovereignty, democratic deficit, corruption and mismanagement within the EU. The "influence" argument has also been used in favour of intervening in Syria by bombing Assad's forces, which would be a very stupid and dangerous thing to do. Having a stronger economy would give us more global influence, but when that sort of growth is achieved it tends to come at the expense of things like the environment, and that needs to change.

    I guess I'd quite like for us to be a global player with some influence, but not at the expense of other more important things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Global player.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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