On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:44:49 AM UTC-4, Johanne Strause wrote:
> It's irrelevant to the context of this discussion. Oh dear, tiger mom is
> just a typical one with her intent to make her story that she wrote worthy
> of her sales. There is nothing to glue when a empire is reduced and
> diminishing in their own quiet ways.
>
> I believe Britain don’t have this magic glue to keep the empire wealthy and
> powerful is a myth and imagination. Their dependent of resources from those
> ex-colonies and their stealing of their coffers from them over their years
> made them rich, bullying and powerful pulling further ahead from them.
>
> But ever since their pullouts of their former colonial countries, they
> dwindled from their own fault caused by their own welfare system that
> drained them of their wealth. When they have no more wealth, unless they are
> sent home, their problem will begin to fester in their own country, and this
> can cause collapses.
>
Brexit and the election of Donald Trump without doubt had forced the Brits to think
deeply concerning the future of the kingdom. Leaving the EU means the UK will be
more independent economically speaking. The election of Donald Trump also afforded
the UK an opportunity through influencing Trump, as suggested by Nigel Kim Darroch's
(UK's ambassador to the USA) leaked memo .

Since then, the UK appears to pursuit an empire of the mind.

>
> wrote in message
> news:989bf88e-9bd4-4f80...@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 6:40:43 AM UTC-4, Johanne Strause wrote:
> > Britain is bankrupt. Their bankrupt problem lies with them. Their cash
> > flows
> > of meeting these expenses are dependent on raising their internal taxes
> > like
> > value added tax and other taxes.
> >
> > It is their free medical costs and free social costs for their dependent
> > people and their dished out of free money even for their looking of jobs
> > by
> > their lazy people showed that country is no a verge of bankruptcy soon or
> > later.
> >
> > Their high consumption costs of maintaining their non-revenue generating
> > army, non-recovery costs of their increasing numbers of old people in
> > their
> > nursing homes, and the non-refundable of their high amount of public
> > funding
> > of monthly incentive pay for their young people in their ever
> > non-finding-of-job-syndrome are significant contributions to their strains
> > in their budge consumptions.
>
>
> Actually, tiger mom Amy Chua has noted in her book "Day Of Empire" that a
> country could indeed become wealthy by using its army. For example, Japan
> got a sum from China equaled to 3 years of government income after the 1895
> war.
> But it then needs something else to glue the empire and its people together
> in order to keep the empire wealthy and powerful.
>
> Am I right to conclude that you don't believe the Britain has this magic
> glue and it was wealthy in the past because of the its army directly or
> indirectly. But at present it cannot profitably use its army. Hence it has
> to reduce its size.
>
>
>
> >
> > "Georgina" wrote in message news:mjpc22$bu6$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > Even Singapore would have a big level of troops than them.
> >
> > With 50, 000 left in their armed forces, they are worst than ever. With
> > such
> > a small manpower force, Britain is not able to provide and defend
> > themselves.
> >
> > How can they even protect their country from attacks with such a small
> > number of non-renewable manpower of men whose their replacements can only
> > occur when only they retired from their retirement of age and only when
> > they
> > exited their armed forces, can be replacements and recruited.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote in message
> > news:60a6a9b8-5089-45f3...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Britain is the incredibly shrinking empire. Once the "sun never set"
> > empire
> > and now resigns as a world power. "Over the next few years, Britain's army
> > will shrink to about 80,000. A report from the Royal United Services
> > Institute predicts that the number could get as low as 50,000, which, the
> > Daily Telegraph points out, would be smaller than at any point since the
> > 1770s".
> >
> > What can we learn from it? Writers in the West who sing the praise often
> > invoke western nations "inclusive institutions" (Why Nations Fail: The
> > Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty) and their "strategic tolerance"
> > (Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They
> > Fall)
> > for western success. What will they say now? Has Britain lose its
> > "inclusive
> > institutions" and/or its strategic tolerance? If so, when?
> >
> > ---------------------
> > Britain resigns as a world power
> > Fareed Zakaria
> >
> > Thursday, May 21, 2015
> >
> > LONDON -- On Monday, the Right Honorable David Cameron, prime minister of
> > Great Britain, gave his first major speech after being reelected to his
> > high
> > office -- once held by Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill
> > and Thatcher. Confronting a world of challenges -- including Greece's
> > possible exit from the euro, a massive migration crisis on Europe's
> > shores,
> > Ukraine's perilous state, Russia's continued intransigence, the advance of
> > the Islamic State and the continuing chaos in the Middle East -- Cameron
> > chose to talk about . . . a plan to ensure that hospitals in the United
> > Kingdom will be better staffed on weekends.
> >
> > Okay, that's a bit unfair. Leaders everywhere, including in the United
> > States, understand that "all politics is local." But spending a few days
> > recently in Britain, I was struck by just how parochial it has become.
> > After
> > an extraordinary 300-year run, Britain has essentially resigned as a
> > global
> > power.
> >
> > Over the next few years, Britain's army will shrink to about 80,000. A
> > report from the Royal United Services Institute predicts that the number
> > could get as low as 50,000, which, the Daily Telegraph points out, would
> > be
> > smaller than at any point since the 1770s -- and, as David Rothkopf of
> > Foreign Policy magazine notes, about the same size as the New York Police
> > Department.
> >
> > The International Institute for Strategic Studies concludes that over the
> > past five years "the 8 percent to 9 percent decrease in the U.K. military
> > defense budget . . . has led to a 20 percent to 30 percent reduction in
> > conventional capability." No wonder, then, that Britain has been a minor,
> > reluctant ally in the airstrikes against the Islamic State. Britain's
> > 30-year-old Tornado fleet of planes is a generation behind the American
> > F-22s it flies alongside. The Royal Navy, which once ruled the waves,
> > operates without a single aircraft carrier (although two are under
> > construction).
> >
> > NATO members are supposed to maintain defense spending at 2 percent of
> > their
> > gross domestic product. Britain is hovering around that mark and has
> > refused
> > to commit to maintaining budgets at that level. (It should be said that
> > most
> > other European countries are worse, which means that the United States
> > accounts for more than 70 percent of NATO's military spending.) The same
> > is
> > true of other elements of Britain's global influence. In Cameron's first
> > term, the Foreign Office budget was cut by more than a quarter, and
> > further
> > trims are likely. The BBC World Service, perhaps the most influential arm
> > of
> > the country's global public diplomacy, has shuttered five of its
> > foreign-language broadcasts, and the organization's entire budget has been
> > slashed, with more cuts to come.
> >
> > The country is suspicious of a robust foreign policy of any kind --
> > including serious sanctions against Russia, getting tough in trade talks
> > with China, the use of force in the Middle East and an engaged
> > relationship
> > with the rest of Europe. During the recent election, as The Post reported,
> > foreign policy barely surfaced.
> >
> > Why does this matter? Because on almost all global issues, Britain has a
> > voice that is intelligent, engaged and forward-looking. It wants to
> > strengthen and uphold today's international system -- one based on the
> > free
> > flow of ideas, goods and services around the world, one that promotes
> > individual rights and the rule of law.
> >
> > This is not an accident. Britain essentially created the world we live in.
> > In his excellent book "God and Gold," Walter Russell Mead points out that
> > in the 16th century many countries were poised to advance economically and
> > politically -- Northern Italy's city-states, the Hanseatic League, the Low
> > Countries, France, Spain. But Britain managed to edge out the others,
> > becoming the first great industrial economy and the modern world's first
> > superpower. It colonized and shaped countries and cultures from Australia
> > to
> > India to Africa to the Western Hemisphere, including of course, its
> > settlements in North America. Had Spain or Germany become the world's
> > leading power, things would look very different today.
> >
> > It is a paradox, readily apparent to visitors to Britain, that London
> > continues to thrive as a global hub, increasingly cosmopolitan and
> > worldly.
> > More than a third of Londoners were born outside the United Kingdom. And
> > this government has been more than willing to travel around the world
> > petitioning for investment, whether it be Chinese, Russian or Arab. That
> > is
> > fine as a strategy for an aspiring entrepôt or financial haven, but
> > Britain
> > is not Luxembourg. It is, even now, a country with the talent, history and
> > capacity to shape the international order. Which is why the inward turn of
> > the United Kingdom is a tragedy not just for it but for all of us.
> >
> > ------------------

UK's shackle by EU is now free and easy. UK hence wants to restore its
cunning pride of becoming an evil empire again to dictate and tell and
influence its former colonies not to work with China but them and US and the
5 eyes.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:077ee3ba-0065-428f-8e8c-a779fc266685n@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:44:49 AM UTC-4, Johanne Strause wrote:
> It's irrelevant to the context of this discussion. Oh dear, tiger mom is
> just a typical one with her intent to make her story that she wrote worthy
> of her sales. There is nothing to glue when a empire is reduced and
> diminishing in their own quiet ways.
>
> I believe Britain don’t have this magic glue to keep the empire wealthy
> and
> powerful is a myth and imagination. Their dependent of resources from
> those
> ex-colonies and their stealing of their coffers from them over their years
> made them rich, bullying and powerful pulling further ahead from them.
>
> But ever since their pullouts of their former colonial countries, they
> dwindled from their own fault caused by their own welfare system that
> drained them of their wealth. When they have no more wealth, unless they
> are
> sent home, their problem will begin to fester in their own country, and
> this
> can cause collapses.
>
Brexit and the election of Donald Trump without doubt had forced the Brits
to think
deeply concerning the future of the kingdom. Leaving the EU means the UK
will be
more independent economically speaking. The election of Donald Trump also
afforded
the UK an opportunity through influencing Trump, as suggested by Nigel Kim
Darroch's
(UK's ambassador to the USA) leaked memo .

Since then, the UK appears to pursuit an empire of the mind.

>
> wrote in message
> news:989bf88e-9bd4-4f80...@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 6:40:43 AM UTC-4, Johanne Strause wrote:
> > Britain is bankrupt. Their bankrupt problem lies with them. Their cash
> > flows
> > of meeting these expenses are dependent on raising their internal taxes
> > like
> > value added tax and other taxes.
> >
> > It is their free medical costs and free social costs for their dependent
> > people and their dished out of free money even for their looking of jobs
> > by
> > their lazy people showed that country is no a verge of bankruptcy soon
> > or
> > later.
> >
> > Their high consumption costs of maintaining their non-revenue generating
> > army, non-recovery costs of their increasing numbers of old people in
> > their
> > nursing homes, and the non-refundable of their high amount of public
> > funding
> > of monthly incentive pay for their young people in their ever
> > non-finding-of-job-syndrome are significant contributions to their
> > strains
> > in their budge consumptions.
>
>
> Actually, tiger mom Amy Chua has noted in her book "Day Of Empire" that a
> country could indeed become wealthy by using its army. For example, Japan
> got a sum from China equaled to 3 years of government income after the
> 1895
> war.
> But it then needs something else to glue the empire and its people
> together
> in order to keep the empire wealthy and powerful.
>
> Am I right to conclude that you don't believe the Britain has this magic
> glue and it was wealthy in the past because of the its army directly or
> indirectly. But at present it cannot profitably use its army. Hence it has
> to reduce its size.
>
>
>
> >
> > "Georgina" wrote in message news:mjpc22$bu6$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > Even Singapore would have a big level of troops than them.
> >
> > With 50, 000 left in their armed forces, they are worst than ever. With
> > such
> > a small manpower force, Britain is not able to provide and defend
> > themselves.
> >
> > How can they even protect their country from attacks with such a small
> > number of non-renewable manpower of men whose their replacements can
> > only
> > occur when only they retired from their retirement of age and only when
> > they
> > exited their armed forces, can be replacements and recruited.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote in message
> > news:60a6a9b8-5089-45f3...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Britain is the incredibly shrinking empire. Once the "sun never set"
> > empire
> > and now resigns as a world power. "Over the next few years, Britain's
> > army
> > will shrink to about 80,000. A report from the Royal United Services
> > Institute predicts that the number could get as low as 50,000, which,
> > the
> > Daily Telegraph points out, would be smaller than at any point since the
> > 1770s".
> >
> > What can we learn from it? Writers in the West who sing the praise often
> > invoke western nations "inclusive institutions" (Why Nations Fail: The
> > Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty) and their "strategic
> > tolerance"
> > (Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They
> > Fall)
> > for western success. What will they say now? Has Britain lose its
> > "inclusive
> > institutions" and/or its strategic tolerance? If so, when?
> >
> > ---------------------
> > Britain resigns as a world power
> > Fareed Zakaria
> >
> > Thursday, May 21, 2015
> >
> > LONDON -- On Monday, the Right Honorable David Cameron, prime minister
> > of
> > Great Britain, gave his first major speech after being reelected to his
> > high
> > office -- once held by Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George,
> > Churchill
> > and Thatcher. Confronting a world of challenges -- including Greece's
> > possible exit from the euro, a massive migration crisis on Europe's
> > shores,
> > Ukraine's perilous state, Russia's continued intransigence, the advance
> > of
> > the Islamic State and the continuing chaos in the Middle East -- Cameron
> > chose to talk about . . . a plan to ensure that hospitals in the United
> > Kingdom will be better staffed on weekends.
> >
> > Okay, that's a bit unfair. Leaders everywhere, including in the United
> > States, understand that "all politics is local." But spending a few days
> > recently in Britain, I was struck by just how parochial it has become.
> > After
> > an extraordinary 300-year run, Britain has essentially resigned as a
> > global
> > power.
> >
> > Over the next few years, Britain's army will shrink to about 80,000. A
> > report from the Royal United Services Institute predicts that the number
> > could get as low as 50,000, which, the Daily Telegraph points out, would
> > be
> > smaller than at any point since the 1770s -- and, as David Rothkopf of
> > Foreign Policy magazine notes, about the same size as the New York
> > Police
> > Department.
> >
> > The International Institute for Strategic Studies concludes that over
> > the
> > past five years "the 8 percent to 9 percent decrease in the U.K.
> > military
> > defense budget . . . has led to a 20 percent to 30 percent reduction in
> > conventional capability." No wonder, then, that Britain has been a
> > minor,
> > reluctant ally in the airstrikes against the Islamic State. Britain's
> > 30-year-old Tornado fleet of planes is a generation behind the American
> > F-22s it flies alongside. The Royal Navy, which once ruled the waves,
> > operates without a single aircraft carrier (although two are under
> > construction).
> >
> > NATO members are supposed to maintain defense spending at 2 percent of
> > their
> > gross domestic product. Britain is hovering around that mark and has
> > refused
> > to commit to maintaining budgets at that level. (It should be said that
> > most
> > other European countries are worse, which means that the United States
> > accounts for more than 70 percent of NATO's military spending.) The same
> > is
> > true of other elements of Britain's global influence. In Cameron's first
> > term, the Foreign Office budget was cut by more than a quarter, and
> > further
> > trims are likely. The BBC World Service, perhaps the most influential
> > arm
> > of
> > the country's global public diplomacy, has shuttered five of its
> > foreign-language broadcasts, and the organization's entire budget has
> > been
> > slashed, with more cuts to come.
> >
> > The country is suspicious of a robust foreign policy of any kind --
> > including serious sanctions against Russia, getting tough in trade talks
> > with China, the use of force in the Middle East and an engaged
> > relationship
> > with the rest of Europe. During the recent election, as The Post
> > reported,
> > foreign policy barely surfaced.
> >
> > Why does this matter? Because on almost all global issues, Britain has a
> > voice that is intelligent, engaged and forward-looking. It wants to
> > strengthen and uphold today's international system -- one based on the
> > free
> > flow of ideas, goods and services around the world, one that promotes
> > individual rights and the rule of law.
> >
> > This is not an accident. Britain essentially created the world we live
> > in.
> > In his excellent book "God and Gold," Walter Russell Mead points out
> > that
> > in the 16th century many countries were poised to advance economically
> > and
> > politically -- Northern Italy's city-states, the Hanseatic League, the
> > Low
> > Countries, France, Spain. But Britain managed to edge out the others,
> > becoming the first great industrial economy and the modern world's first
> > superpower. It colonized and shaped countries and cultures from
> > Australia
> > to
> > India to Africa to the Western Hemisphere, including of course, its
> > settlements in North America. Had Spain or Germany become the world's
> > leading power, things would look very different today.
> >
> > It is a paradox, readily apparent to visitors to Britain, that London
> > continues to thrive as a global hub, increasingly cosmopolitan and
> > worldly.
> > More than a third of Londoners were born outside the United Kingdom. And
> > this government has been more than willing to travel around the world
> > petitioning for investment, whether it be Chinese, Russian or Arab. That
> > is
> > fine as a strategy for an aspiring entrepôt or financial haven, but
> > Britain
> > is not Luxembourg. It is, even now, a country with the talent, history
> > and
> > capacity to shape the international order. Which is why the inward turn
> > of
> > the United Kingdom is a tragedy not just for it but for all of us.
> >
> > ------------------

Yes. That is the idea.
In addition, the UK military budget got a double digit increase last year.

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:45:35 AM UTC-4, fawcett wrote:
> UK's shackle by EU is now free and easy. UK hence wants to restore its
> cunning pride of becoming an evil empire again to dictate and tell and
> influence its former colonies not to work with China but them and US and the
> 5 eyes.
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:077ee3ba-0065-428f...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:44:49 AM UTC-4, Johanne Strause wrote:
> > It's irrelevant to the context of this discussion. Oh dear, tiger mom is
> > just a typical one with her intent to make her story that she wrote worthy
> > of her sales. There is nothing to glue when a empire is reduced and
> > diminishing in their own quiet ways.
> >
> > I believe Britain don’t have this magic glue to keep the empire wealthy
> > and
> > powerful is a myth and imagination. Their dependent of resources from
> > those
> > ex-colonies and their stealing of their coffers from them over their years
> > made them rich, bullying and powerful pulling further ahead from them.
> >
> > But ever since their pullouts of their former colonial countries, they
> > dwindled from their own fault caused by their own welfare system that
> > drained them of their wealth. When they have no more wealth, unless they
> > are
> > sent home, their problem will begin to fester in their own country, and
> > this
> > can cause collapses.
> >
> Brexit and the election of Donald Trump without doubt had forced the Brits
> to think
> deeply concerning the future of the kingdom. Leaving the EU means the UK
> will be
> more independent economically speaking. The election of Donald Trump also
> afforded
> the UK an opportunity through influencing Trump, as suggested by Nigel Kim
> Darroch's
> (UK's ambassador to the USA) leaked memo .
>
> Since then, the UK appears to pursuit an empire of the mind.
$120 billion of the budget is committed to new equipment and support.
Is Tiger mom still right? Could the UK use the budget to get itself wealthier?
>
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> > news:989bf88e-9bd4-4f80...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 6:40:43 AM UTC-4, Johanne Strause wrote:
> > > Britain is bankrupt. Their bankrupt problem lies with them. Their cash
> > > flows
> > > of meeting these expenses are dependent on raising their internal taxes
> > > like
> > > value added tax and other taxes.
> > >
> > > It is their free medical costs and free social costs for their dependent
> > > people and their dished out of free money even for their looking of jobs
> > > by
> > > their lazy people showed that country is no a verge of bankruptcy soon
> > > or
> > > later.
> > >
> > > Their high consumption costs of maintaining their non-revenue generating
> > > army, non-recovery costs of their increasing numbers of old people in
> > > their
> > > nursing homes, and the non-refundable of their high amount of public
> > > funding
> > > of monthly incentive pay for their young people in their ever
> > > non-finding-of-job-syndrome are significant contributions to their
> > > strains
> > > in their budge consumptions.
> >
> >
> > Actually, tiger mom Amy Chua has noted in her book "Day Of Empire" that a
> > country could indeed become wealthy by using its army. For example, Japan
> > got a sum from China equaled to 3 years of government income after the
> > 1895
> > war.
> > But it then needs something else to glue the empire and its people
> > together
> > in order to keep the empire wealthy and powerful.
> >
> > Am I right to conclude that you don't believe the Britain has this magic
> > glue and it was wealthy in the past because of the its army directly or
> > indirectly. But at present it cannot profitably use its army. Hence it has
> > to reduce its size.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "Georgina" wrote in message news:mjpc22$bu6$1...@dont-email.me...
> > >
> > > Even Singapore would have a big level of troops than them.
> > >
> > > With 50, 000 left in their armed forces, they are worst than ever. With
> > > such
> > > a small manpower force, Britain is not able to provide and defend
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > How can they even protect their country from attacks with such a small
> > > number of non-renewable manpower of men whose their replacements can
> > > only
> > > occur when only they retired from their retirement of age and only when
> > > they
> > > exited their armed forces, can be replacements and recruited.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > wrote in message
> > > news:60a6a9b8-5089-45f3...@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Britain is the incredibly shrinking empire. Once the "sun never set"
> > > empire
> > > and now resigns as a world power. "Over the next few years, Britain's
> > > army
> > > will shrink to about 80,000. A report from the Royal United Services
> > > Institute predicts that the number could get as low as 50,000, which,
> > > the
> > > Daily Telegraph points out, would be smaller than at any point since the
> > > 1770s".
> > >
> > > What can we learn from it? Writers in the West who sing the praise often
> > > invoke western nations "inclusive institutions" (Why Nations Fail: The
> > > Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty) and their "strategic
> > > tolerance"
> > > (Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They
> > > Fall)
> > > for western success. What will they say now? Has Britain lose its
> > > "inclusive
> > > institutions" and/or its strategic tolerance? If so, when?
> > >
> > > ---------------------
> > > Britain resigns as a world power
> > > Fareed Zakaria
> > >
> > > Thursday, May 21, 2015
> > >
> > > LONDON -- On Monday, the Right Honorable David Cameron, prime minister
> > > of
> > > Great Britain, gave his first major speech after being reelected to his
> > > high
> > > office -- once held by Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George,
> > > Churchill
> > > and Thatcher. Confronting a world of challenges -- including Greece's
> > > possible exit from the euro, a massive migration crisis on Europe's
> > > shores,
> > > Ukraine's perilous state, Russia's continued intransigence, the advance
> > > of
> > > the Islamic State and the continuing chaos in the Middle East -- Cameron
> > > chose to talk about . . . a plan to ensure that hospitals in the United
> > > Kingdom will be better staffed on weekends.
> > >
> > > Okay, that's a bit unfair. Leaders everywhere, including in the United
> > > States, understand that "all politics is local." But spending a few days
> > > recently in Britain, I was struck by just how parochial it has become..
> > > After
> > > an extraordinary 300-year run, Britain has essentially resigned as a
> > > global
> > > power.
> > >
> > > Over the next few years, Britain's army will shrink to about 80,000. A
> > > report from the Royal United Services Institute predicts that the number
> > > could get as low as 50,000, which, the Daily Telegraph points out, would
> > > be
> > > smaller than at any point since the 1770s -- and, as David Rothkopf of
> > > Foreign Policy magazine notes, about the same size as the New York
> > > Police
> > > Department.
> > >
> > > The International Institute for Strategic Studies concludes that over
> > > the
> > > past five years "the 8 percent to 9 percent decrease in the U.K.
> > > military
> > > defense budget . . . has led to a 20 percent to 30 percent reduction in
> > > conventional capability." No wonder, then, that Britain has been a
> > > minor,
> > > reluctant ally in the airstrikes against the Islamic State. Britain's
> > > 30-year-old Tornado fleet of planes is a generation behind the American
> > > F-22s it flies alongside. The Royal Navy, which once ruled the waves,
> > > operates without a single aircraft carrier (although two are under
> > > construction).
> > >
> > > NATO members are supposed to maintain defense spending at 2 percent of
> > > their
> > > gross domestic product. Britain is hovering around that mark and has
> > > refused
> > > to commit to maintaining budgets at that level. (It should be said that
> > > most
> > > other European countries are worse, which means that the United States
> > > accounts for more than 70 percent of NATO's military spending.) The same
> > > is
> > > true of other elements of Britain's global influence. In Cameron's first
> > > term, the Foreign Office budget was cut by more than a quarter, and
> > > further
> > > trims are likely. The BBC World Service, perhaps the most influential
> > > arm
> > > of
> > > the country's global public diplomacy, has shuttered five of its
> > > foreign-language broadcasts, and the organization's entire budget has
> > > been
> > > slashed, with more cuts to come.
> > >
> > > The country is suspicious of a robust foreign policy of any kind --
> > > including serious sanctions against Russia, getting tough in trade talks
> > > with China, the use of force in the Middle East and an engaged
> > > relationship
> > > with the rest of Europe. During the recent election, as The Post
> > > reported,
> > > foreign policy barely surfaced.
> > >
> > > Why does this matter? Because on almost all global issues, Britain has a
> > > voice that is intelligent, engaged and forward-looking. It wants to
> > > strengthen and uphold today's international system -- one based on the
> > > free
> > > flow of ideas, goods and services around the world, one that promotes
> > > individual rights and the rule of law.
> > >
> > > This is not an accident. Britain essentially created the world we live
> > > in.
> > > In his excellent book "God and Gold," Walter Russell Mead points out
> > > that
> > > in the 16th century many countries were poised to advance economically
> > > and
> > > politically -- Northern Italy's city-states, the Hanseatic League, the
> > > Low
> > > Countries, France, Spain. But Britain managed to edge out the others,
> > > becoming the first great industrial economy and the modern world's first
> > > superpower. It colonized and shaped countries and cultures from
> > > Australia
> > > to
> > > India to Africa to the Western Hemisphere, including of course, its
> > > settlements in North America. Had Spain or Germany become the world's
> > > leading power, things would look very different today.
> > >
> > > It is a paradox, readily apparent to visitors to Britain, that London
> > > continues to thrive as a global hub, increasingly cosmopolitan and
> > > worldly.
> > > More than a third of Londoners were born outside the United Kingdom. And
> > > this government has been more than willing to travel around the world
> > > petitioning for investment, whether it be Chinese, Russian or Arab. That
> > > is
> > > fine as a strategy for an aspiring entrepôt or financial haven, but
> > > Britain
> > > is not Luxembourg. It is, even now, a country with the talent, history
> > > and
> > > capacity to shape the international order. Which is why the inward turn
> > > of
> > > the United Kingdom is a tragedy not just for it but for all of us.
> > >
> > > ------------------

"fawcett" wrote in message news:sddl1s$ft5$1@dont-email.me...
>
> UK's shackle by EU is now free and easy. UK hence wants to restore its
> cunning pride of becoming an evil empire again to dictate and tell and
> influence its former colonies not to work with China but them and US and
> the 5 eyes.

For once I can agree with Fareed Zakaria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zj-HFUSagA

Good luck calling HIM a "Nazi"...