Can Britain ever become a superpower again?

I hope not, I have no wish of being ' civilized '.

You usage of the term "Great Britain" which is simply a territory, an island and not a political state exemplifies the main reason why Britain (Britain and not "Great Britain" refers to the UK) would not be able to become a superpower: a serious lack of identity.
When half of the population are more interested at looking at drawing lines in the sand between their regions, you simply can't have much power on the international scene.
If the UK doesn't sort out its identity problem, it won't even be a medium-sized power.
What you will notice in superpowers is a strong identity with a population that is first proud of belonging to that country (i.e. in our case that would be the UK and not the constituent countries/regions) and that can project that strong image to the world.
There are a number of countries who are quite eager to have alliances with the UK but the UK deals with too many internal issues to take advantage of them. This is best illustrated in the case of the European Union where many countries are pro-UK yet the UK is quite timid to project itself.

In all honesty, I really see the EU being the next World Super Power in the next 70 years. I mean we are getting closer and closer to becoming a single 'state'. I mean most of Europe has the same currency, laws and you don't need a visa to travel between each country.

Not if the next likely government gets its way.

No need to be pedantic over terminology. The terms are acceptable to use interchangeably in general conversation.

Also i don't think we have an identity crisis, I just think that British people are generally laid back in their political convictions, and so it seems like we have no identity. Yet this is the stereotype of the British which has existed for decades (centuries?)

What do you mean?

There is nothing Britain can currently realistically do to stop Europe (even if it does exclude the UK) from becoming more centralised if it so wishes.

Britain had managed to keep Scottish, Welsh and Irish regional identities in check with a strong centralised government but with no effort to create a single identity (and that was not necessary the fault of the Scots or the Welsh but a lack of desire of the English as well) With our efforts turned towards overseas territories, we worried less about identity issues at home. The Empire has almost defined Britain since the UK exists. Without it, the UK has become more introspective and inward-looking become more interested at looking at issues within the UK.

I assure you that it is by definition simply the island. "Britain" is a vague term that can indeed refer to the island but it is used as a political term as well. Great Britain is not a current political term. The only time it was a political term was in 1603 when James VI of Scotland became king of England and united the two crowns as "Great Britain". On a different note, James I wanted to unite the two parliaments and in effect create a single country with little distinction but received heavy opposition from the English parliament. So we can blame the English in part for not having a proper unified culture.
From the Guardian website. http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184840,00.html

Well if it does exclude the UK then it is not relevant to our case anymore. As it stands the politicians believe that the EU is uncapable of functioning without the Lisbon Treaty - something which the past months have shown that it clearly is not (and the 16 years prior to that). The UK could still very much throw a spanner into that framework since the (maybe) incoming Tory government has pledged to hold a referendum on the treaty has it not been ratified by all 27 member states yet. Further securing opt-outs for a country is unfair and will invariably spread to other nations who also want opt-outs which is why, as long as opt-outs are granted, the EU will never become a completely centralized project.

Also, I really do see the EU being as good as a single state in the next century (or very close) There may be a few exceptions such as Ireland, Switzerland and Norway, UK.

The British Empire was probably the greatest the world has ever known. It was also one of the most brutal and morally abhorrent.

If it does become a superpower it is not by popular consent. It is already cracking at the seams because the EU is so removed from reality.

/sigh. As I said, we know you are right. You were however being pedantic, people were well aware of what he was talking about, and the terms whilst not interchangeable in a legal document of anything official are perfectly acceptable in general conversation. .

No. I very much doubt it. Beating the jingo drums is not something anyone would do. The Empire was a horrid mistake, and we're now paying for it by cowering under political correctness, almost obliged to be nice to anyone with a remotely different colour to white, often at the expense of families in Britain who have been here since the year dot.
Moreover, when one looks at cities like Bristol and Bath, it is frankly miserable to think that the nice architecture there was only possible because of trading slaves.
Thus, trying to become a world power again simply would not be possible, largely because it would not be desirable. What Britain must do, however, is re-assert a nationalism which is innate, but which doesn't cower to political correctness.

It is frankly pathetic that Britain's show at the closing ceremony of the Olympics is going to be David Beckham kicking a football on top of a route master bus. Is that really all Britain has to offer in terms of national identity?

You were, you pointed out a terminological technicality that really did not change the meaning of what he was saying (we all knew what he was talking about.



I'm sorry but they are interchangeable in general conversation. As long as the meaning is understood.

As I was writing a post in another topic earlier about Russia and their right to be a superpower, my mind rambled a bit and I started to wonder if Great Britain can ever become a political superpower on the international stage again.

90 years ago, the British Empire was accountable for approximately 25% of the entire worlds population, and Britain had control of 25% of the worlds landmass, therefore being able to completely dictate trade routes and international relations. A lot has changed in 90 years, clearly.

In 2008, Great Britian controls very little in the way of overseas territories, and have a population of only 58,000,000 residents, many having moved into the UK from other countries. We also seem to be losing the ability to defend ourselves politically, being subservient to the United States in their quest to capture resources, and being a part of the European Union, often have to accept group decisions that the country does not agree with or benefit from in any way.

So, with all this in mind, can Britain ever become a superpower again if desired? I know that we clearly will never compete with China in terms of population, but is there any way to maximise the economic power of the nation in order to compete in terms of financial position and ability to develop and expand faster and more sustainably than other nations?

Also, what would be the positives and negatives for the general population if it ever were to happen?

fundamentaly, the answer seems to be most probably not. Britain owed a lot of it's superiority to the North Sea Oil reserves that did much to boost it's economy, ever since the reserves were depleted, the UK's GDP has fallen (2007-$ 2,124bn) compared to the USA's $11,712bn and Japan's $4,622.8bn moreover, according to the Economist's "pocket world in figures 2007" the UK is ranked only at 22nd in the number of armed forces, the USA is estimated to have over 23 times the UK's military capacity.

I agree with SamThean here. The terminology is too loose - even try to avoid using the term Britain if i can. However, using Great Britain to mean the UK is terrible. It is so innacurate. Noone I know would use GB to mean the UK.