Your Country
How do you view Europe's declining relevance in the world?
Positively, Europeans seem to assume they are at the centre of the world and pursue retarded foreign policy not based on practical and strategic goals. They've replaced nationalism that every other country practices with the moronic idea that every ought to be SJW liberal democrats and we can't let this infection spread to the anglosphere.
Other urls found in this thread:
Good. Once Europe becomes an impoverished shitholes (the parts that aren't one already I mean) all the immigrants will move on to another place.
They won't accept them Hans. No asian country has retarded ideas of the everyday european.
If you ever had a large population of muslims in any asian country riot and start committing terror attacks, most will get deported or even genocided.
More people = more money. I don't want Europe to be any more populated, so I'm fine with it.
Also EU is still the biggest economy in the world as I understand it.
Euro Area doesn't include the UK
The UK's relevance is increasing relative to the rest of the West and has pretty much stopped its decline relative to the rest of the world
God save the Queen
No its not. The US is already bigger than the EU economy by 1.5 trillion, including Britain and other non-eurozones.
With that said, finland is use to comfiness but your ability to negotiate and influence the wider world is non-existent. This will have a harder impact on the historically great nations of europe who will not see their golden age again.
Yeah Britain might be useful as America's Japan in Europe.
I can see America holding together an alliance in asia to check china and in europe to check russia, might be useful.
>America's Japan in Europe.
Eh, Japan is a regional player when it comes to military matters, whereas Britain is a global player. We're opening new Royal Navy bases East of Suez and boosting presence in the Far East, and Central America
>the historically great nations of europe who will not see their golden age again
A selective reading of European history, because Britain doesn't fit your narrative of rise then decline forever.
When England lost its French holdings, contemporaries thought it would decline to irrelevance. Instead it rose to become a world power as the United Kingdom.
When Britain lost its first Empire, the 13 Colonies in America, they all said (including Brits) that Britain was now in decline. It's inevitable they said. Britain can't prosper without the North America colonies they said.
But what actually happened? Britain built up its economy again, won some wars and established the largest empire in world history. That empire was eventually lost after Britain exhausted itself winning wars again and again, and now people like you are peddling the same story that we're doomed to decline
Again you're being proved wrong. Economy is on the rise, the country is becoming a hub for new tech development, the UK will once again be the largest European economy and its moving up the world league tables in GDP and military presence
>Global Player
Japan is a good regional power and has huge clout in East Asia, a lot more economic and diplomatic influence. They are trusted by a lot of countries simply for giving millions in disaster/development/etc over many years.
Britain doesn't have the ability to influence anyone outside of Europe and the mid-east, and anglophones like Australia and Canada make decisions around America.
I have a hard time seeing Britain be treated the same way they were treated 50 years ago t b h.
Your post is bullshit and I'll demonstrate that by picking you up on this point.
>They are trusted by a lot of countries simply for giving millions in disaster/development/etc over many years.
Firstly,
Britain gives - literally - BILLIONS more than Japan in development aid. Despite Japan having a larger population and economy. See table.
Secondly, disaster support.
That typhoon which hit the Philippines was right next door to Japan. The British military contribution to disaster relief was almost as large as the Japanese one. The Royal Navy was able to send an aircraft carrier and destroyer straight away, because the Royal Navy has a presence all over the world
Is your population rising or at least drawing in skilled immigrants? The UK doesn't really match the manpower of a lot of bigger, stronger nations t b h.
The secret to America really is that its an open society that has no fixed identity. Everyone who is an immigrant usually becomes full patriotic Americans due to how massively strong american cultural influence is.
They are able to take in basically all of our top scientists for example and put them in better american institutions, and do the same thing with every other country and their kids will grow up to identify as an american. A fair portion of Silicon Valley for example was due to skilled labor provided by immigrants from Eastern Europe and Asia.
America's population will hit 400 million without creating a burdening population, and will give them sufficient manpower to maintain a really massively strong everything.
>Britain doesn't have the ability to influence anyone outside of Europe and the mid-east
Of course. The most powerful woman in the USA certainly doesn't care what's happening in Britain. Right..
Yeah but these are food and water and so-on aid that goes to third-worlds so they don't starve, ie the biggest recipients was pakistan, ethiopia and nigeria.
Japan doesn't fund humanitarian things so much as giving money for infrastructure and economic development, which carries a lot more weight in itself than relief aid.
diplomatically and politically though.
america can forge an alliance with basically anyone, britain cannot.
>literally projecting
>Is your population rising or at least drawing in skilled immigrants?
Yes and yes.
>The secret to America really is that its an open society that has no fixed identity.
Nope, the secret to US power is a huge population, huge amount of resources/land and bordered by two large oceans + some irrelevant countries.
>Yeah but these are food and water and so-on aid that goes to third-worlds so they don't starve
Incorrect, much of it is infrastructure and service development. Please stop lying or being this ignorant. Educate yourself:
well, since they're the only superpower today, not suprising
That depends which index you go by. The world bank rates EU at the top, and that of course does not include all of Europe, only the nations in the union.
>america can forge an alliance with basically anyone, britain cannot.
Sorry, I don't understand this. Have you not read any British history at all? Forming alliances is pretty much the foundation of British power since the War of the Spanish Succession hundreds of years ago.
It's how a small island can be so successful.
Forming alliances or getting previously hostile countries onside is literally our thing.
It's sensitive to currency fluctuations because in reality the EU and USA are a similar size in GDP terms.
If you see the pound and euro gain against the dollar, EU GDP will be in front. Vice versa.
The USA will pull ahead unless the Eurozone starts growing faster though. In Europe, the UK is the only major country which is matching US growth rates
Honestly I've never met an American who grew up in America and has a relatively good life not be full patriotic americans. Honestly it seems most people try their hardest at being "American" in America despite race or nationality.
I'm not sure if its the same deal with immigrants to the UK and certainly doesn't look to be the case anywhere else in Europe.
not today though. they have to join with america to establish treaty zones for example.
I'm willing to bet they are going to set up an asian equivalent of NATO sometime in the future IMO, and already have one with the Americas.
>British government makes a minor investment in the yuan three years ago
>British posters today on Sup Forums recycle this at every opportunity in order to prove to themselves that they are independent from US interests and planning some sort of master scheme nobody is aware of
Losing the Empire really hurt you guys
Binland
Don't care since we've never been relevant or great
you think chinks care abotu the uk? theyre litreally still butthurt about the opium wars, it says so in many books about political chink theory. their country is basically a long term revenge on that "great shame", youre gonna get bitten in the ass real hard
> this ameristupid logic
anyone can notice youre a fatyfuk from a mile away, you got btfo all over this thread just let it go
>The most powerful woman in the USA
Oprah..?
>Honestly I've never met an American who grew up in America and has a relatively good life not be full patriotic americans.
This sentence doesn't make sense. I note that your reply has nothing to do with my post, which proved your bullshit wrong.
>they have to join with america to establish treaty zones for example.
The US isn't the only country that can create treaties with other countries. Obvious example: the European Union.
1. If it was "minor", the US wouldn't have got publicly "angry" about it.
2. I used that example because China is an unlikely country for Britain to get closer to. There are various important developments over the past few years that prove the independence of the UK, such as refusing to join the US on attacking Assad and holding a referendum on EU membership.
>you think chinks care abotu the uk?
I think the Chinese government cares about China, and I think the British government cares about Britain, so they will co-operate to further their national interests. China wins by boosting the status of its currency and weakening the US containment + isolation of China (with the TPP etc), the UK wins by improving London's position as a financial centre and securing foreign investment into Britain.
>their country is basically a long term revenge on that "great shame", youre gonna get bitten in the ass real hard
I'm not the slightest bit scared of that. So many countries have historical beef with the UK. If/when they try and be aggressive towards us, they will fail.
argentina > uk
>If/when they try and be aggressive towards us, they will fail.
dont think so mate, maybe you could say that of a weakened argentina with no political leverage and a shitty military to stand by its words but not chinks
> Britain was not exactly willing to return Hong Kong. London did, however, understand the changed realities on the ground. The British Empire had faded into history, the Royal Navy no longer mistress of the seas. Nor was Communist China still the crumbling sick man of Asia under Manchurian rule or Maoist mismanagement. If push came to shove, Britain could not hope to defend Hong Kong any better than the Portuguese at Goa.
> Thus, Britain had no realistic choice but to agree to return Hong Kong in 1984 after two years of negotiations. Rather than face the humiliation of a forcible Chinese takeover, it negotiated a relatively face-saving graceful exit that attempts to safeguard some rights for Hong Kong residents.
The Contract on Hong Kong ran out, you're right they could have just taken it by force if they really wanted but we just made them wait for the contract to run out to save face.
You're using a very poor example to prove your point. A large part of Hong Kong, the "New Territories" was British under lease for 99 years, not perpetual ownership like Gibraltar or the Falklands. By the 1980s it was not feasible to hand back half of Hong Kong and not the other half because they were completely integrated.
So when the 99 years ran out, in 1997, Hong Kong was handed back. It's never nice to lose territory but it's also not nice to break agreements, because Britain has a good reputation for honouring most of its international treaties and agreements.
However, what many people miss is that by conducting the handover in this way, the UK retained vital links with China and the Far East. Most importantly in the finance industry, with the likes of HSBC and Standard Chartered. There are plenty of business and cultural links with Hong Kong, Singapore and the like. These links are helping Britain forge ties with China, which could have been much more difficult. The Chinese have been asking the British government for help on managing their economy and reforms, for example.
I stand by what I said in my previous post. The Chinese aren't capable of seriously harming the UK. The only country that could in theory (barring nuclear war) is the USA, and they could never do it in practice because the political will isn't there.
Then it would be you or your kids who will be forced to leave the country.
I just don't understand why are you always pissed off at globalisation, how it hurt you, but you want to suffer only out of spite.
Opinions like yours would be much more common in my country though.
Also the Argies have a shitty military today but in the 80's it was decent, they had the latest French missiles, French fighters, British destroyers, an aircraft carrier, etc etc. Only their land army was shit back then because it was conscripts.
They take the benefits of globalisation for granted. For sure, lots of immigration has negative effects, but people like that are so used to the positives that they're discounted or ignored
>we can't let this infection spread to the anglosphere.
the infection came FROM the anglosphere, you cuck.