Will Britain ever be a super-power again?

[blindreaper]

Britain, not that long ago, enjoyed what might be referred to as a 'super-power' status. We possessed a quarter of the world, had the biggest navy and army and were the heart of trade and industrialization.

Those days feel long gone now though, yet it was only in the 20th century that we had to 'pass the throne' to the modern super-powers, namely the U.S.A. Now even France and Germany are regarded as being more 'powerful' than Britain.

As Britain this year tries to create an impression that we have 'power' once again with the presidency of both the G8 and the EU (even though the ability to focus a discussion has no real power), and China is widely tipped to be the next super-power, does anyone think it possible that Britain could ever overtake other countries once more both economically and militarily, or does Britain’s future depend on the EU and/or an alliance with America?

[Flashman's Ghost]

Who regards Germany and France as more powerful than the UK?

Also people have been predicting China as the next super-power since the time of Marco Polo, only for it to never quite happen.

Personally I think the UK's position is in the middle of three concentric circles of the US, Commonwealth and Europe, rather than fully in one and ignoring the others.

[The Matadore]

No.

There is only 1 superpower - the USA, and it will stay like that for many years to come - to the anger of European leftists everywhere.

[Aladdin]

Contrary to what you might wish to believe Matadore, opposition to the US government does not originate from its status as a superpower itself, but from the abuse of power, war crimes, illegal wars and bullying successive US administrations have perpetrated. Nor does the opposition come from "leftists". In fact it comes from everyone with an ounce of decency and common sense, be left, right, centre or of no political denomination (see cross-section of demonstrators during the anti-war protests).

But let's not derail this thread eh?

I don't know if Britain will be a superpower again. It might be- things can change quickly in the space of a couple of decades. But what kind of superpower are we talkin about? Military? Economic? Territorial? Cultural? Or all of the above? It could be one or another, but not an all-round power. No country will ever be such superpower again, I don't think.

[Teh_Gerbil]

China has been steadily growing and updating its Military for ages. She is now more than capable of ending a war with the US in stalemate.

Plus the new FAC is sexy. As is the J-10 (Eurofighter *cough*).

And the Type 98 is actually a good tank. Soon China will have tech and numbers on its side, rather than some old some new tech and numbers. And 20 million people who can be called up at any time for services, to complement the 2 million standing army... ouch.

Oh and Britain? Yeah, we could. Easily. Under good learship. We have the tech, just those bastards in Westminster are trying to limit our armed forces. Grr. Soon it'll be three fucking men. One Soldier, One Pilot, On Naval man with a speed boat.

[The Matadore]

As a superpower the US has an obligation to engage with the world. If it didnt, you lot would be tearing your hair out begging them to. Its a case with 'damned if you do, damned if you dont' with the US.

To the Hamster:

Britain is a tiny country you moron, the only reason it was a superpower in the first place was because it industrialised first and could send lost of men with guns around the world telling natives armed with sticks what to do.

[Teh_Gerbil]

A superpower is not necessarily big. If your weaponry is good enough you can be a superpower and be small. Because, you can take everything.

The US happens to have size and tech on its side at the moment. It has no obligation to engage the world. At all. It just see's it as being in its curent interests to do so, and it thought it couldget away with it. Well, it can. Just the troops it sends don't. The poor, getting the crap end again.

Only some people would beg them to do so. Those who agree with them. Who it seems, are fewer and fwewr these days. Not many people want a US style system, it seems. Probably because hte US hsa betrayed the very things it used to stand for.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Britain is a tiny country you moron, the only reason it was a superpower in the first place was because it industrialised first and could send lost of men with guns around the world telling natives armed with sticks what to do.

Pretty simplistic - if you look at India for much of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries the Indians had comparable military technology to the British.

[Ibex]

Britain punches above its weight in international affairs because of its past. Strip all that away, and you're left with a medium-sized European economy which need have no more influence than, say, Belgium. However, the legacy of empire is that Britain retains far more influence globally - in ex-colonies - than powers of comparable size.

Superpowers aren't only about military strength: they're about economic muscle. Britain was a nineteenth century superpower not because of its military - although that helped - but because it was the world's most advanced and productive economy. Much the same goes for the US now. But the US isn't invincible economically. Japan and much of Europe made major inroads into its lead in the 1970s and '80s: China, and to a lesser extent India, are starting to do the same now.

China will be the next 'superpower.' Already it has enormous regional influence, and its global power is expanding rapidly. They used to say, 'when America sneezes the rest of the world catches cold:' they'll be saying that about China as well in the next decade or two.

[badassmother]

keep on dreaming.

[budda]

Superpowers aren't only about military strength: they're about economic muscle.

Exactly, America is the biggest market and the richest country, but soon enough China will be the bigger market and the richer country. At some point America might have to pay back some of its government debt, that might be uncomfortable.

[Flashman's Ghost]

I'm not convinced by China. Whilst its economy is improving - its not the economic powerhouse than many seem to suggest (and isn't even the most economically powerful state in SE Asia). It also has a habit of discouraging innovative or independent thinking.

Its military whilst large and relatively well-equipped also suffers from doctrinal defects, including lack of flexibility and the tendency for rank to be decided on allegiance to the Party line, rather than any other military virtue.

The US's superpower status might take a dent when the debt has to be repaid, but whilst that may cause short-term losses and difficulties, it will not lead to the collapse of US power. What might cause the loss of US power is if it retreats towards isolationism again (and there is growing minority in the US who support that view), practing economic protectionism and refusing to compete against other countries. And all the aircraft carriers in the World don't make you a superpower if you have no willingness to use them.

In as far as we can predict the future I suspect the US will remain the major super-power for the next one hundred years, with a gradual move towards isolationism. India will be the state moving to take over from them.

[The Matadore]

A superpower is not necessarily big. If your weaponry is good enough you can be a superpower and be small. Because, you can take everything.

Yes it is, the USSR and the USA were considered superpowers because they had massive internal arkets, natural resources, large populations and numerous armed forces.

The US happens to have size and tech on its side at the moment. It has no obligation to engage the world. At all. It just see's it as being in its curent interests to do so, and it thought it couldget away with it. Well, it can. Just the troops it sends don't. The poor, getting the crap end again.

Of course it has an obligation. The last time it was isolationist (1939) The bloodthirsty Europeans started a little thing called World War 2.

Pretty simplistic - if you look at India for much of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries the Indians had comparable military technology to the British.

Yes, it was simplistic but in general terms that is what happened. With its manufacturing industries the British could corner the world markets in pretty much everything. Informal economic empire led to formal colonial control etc etc.

[Ibex]

I'm not convinced by China. Whilst its economy is improving - its not the economic powerhouse than many seem to suggest (and isn't even the most economically powerful state in SE Asia). It also has a habit of discouraging innovative or independent thinking.

Its military whilst large and relatively well-equipped also suffers from doctrinal defects, including lack of flexibility and the tendency for rank to be decided on allegiance to the Party line, rather than any other military virtue.


China's manufacturing industries are among the largest and most successful in the world. Granted, it's not especially hi-tech stuff on the whole but then it doesn't need to be: there's still plenty of global demand for cheap low-tech products, which China is well-placed to supply. Broadly speaking, economic development of the sort that propelled Britain and the US to 'superpower' status in the 19th and 20th centuries requires cheap labour, a large domestic market and access to export markets, raw materials, an efficient transport system, a willingness to assert yourself and not too many scruples about human rights and working conditions. China has all of those - and several other things - in abundance.

As for its military, I think you overestimate the importance of a strong military. Power is at root economic. You can have the largest military in the world, but it's useless without a strong economy to support it - as the collapse of the USSR should demonastrate. Besides, as for inflexibility, myopia and dogmatism, most militaries sufer from that - not least the US.

The US's superpower status might take a dent when the debt has to be repaid, but whilst that may cause short-term losses and difficulties, it will not lead to the collapse of US power. What might cause the loss of US power is if it retreats towards isolationism again (and there is growing minority in the US who support that view), practing economic protectionism and refusing to compete against other countries. And all the aircraft carriers in the World don't make you a superpower if you have no willingness to use them.

Let us hope that the US has the good sense to realise that there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost in trying to resist the rise of other superpowers, and moves to accomodate and work with them. Otherwise we will be facing another clash of superpowers, which will not be to anyone's benefit - apart from people who sell arms.

It's not strictly relevant, but it is worth pointing out that economic protectionism is a fact of life. Always has been, always will be - no matter what 'free trade' dogmatists might say. That's why the US (and every other major economy) preaches free trade whilst subsidising their own farmers, miners, raw material producers etc etc. I think some of the more pressing economic problems in the world could be more easily tackled if this fact were recognised...

In as far as we can predict the future I suspect the US will remain the major super-power for the next one hundred years, with a gradual move towards isolationism. India will be the state moving to take over from them.

You can't just write China out of the equation. Like it or not, along with Japabn it's the most influential power in the east now, and it's only going to grow in influence.

[budda]

China's manufacturing industries are among the largest and most successful in the world. Granted, it's not especially hi-tech stuff on the whole but then it doesn't need to be: there's still plenty of global demand for cheap low-tech products, which China is well-placed to supply.

China is producing computers now, granted they are just desktops, but its a step upwards and there is no reason why they cant just buy in the technology they need.

[badassmother]

china will be a next super power, no doubt, but america will still be the empire! can you imagine people around the world speaking in mandarin? plus americans/capitalists are too wise to let their riches be gone.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Too much to respond to overall (and I'm supposed to be working), so I hope you don't mind if I reply selectively.

Broadly speaking, economic development of the sort that propelled Britain and the US to 'superpower' status in the 19th and 20th centuries requires cheap labour, a large domestic market and access to export markets, raw materials, an efficient transport system, a willingness to assert yourself and not too many scruples about human rights and working conditions. China has all of those - and several other things - in abundance.

It also relies on them being an improvement on others (either in cost or quality). The British in the early days of the industrial revolution achieved that. China has no such edge over other competitors such as Korea, India etc. Its Labour is no cheaper than many other countries and whilst it does have access to raw materials in abundance - its transport system is no better (and can be worse than others). However, it does lack not seem to be innovative (which was also the reason fro Britain's decline) and whilst it can buy in technology it will always be that crucial step behind those who do innovate.


As for its military, I think you overestimate the importance of a strong military. Power is at root economic. You can have the largest military in the world, but it's useless without a strong economy to support it - as the collapse of the USSR should demonastrate. Besides, as for inflexibility, myopia and dogmatism, most militaries sufer from that - not least the US.

Not for a superpower. If you are saying that those without strong militaries may be wealthier and happier you may be right (as long as they rely on someone else to protect them - yes Japan I'm looking at you), but they are not and can never be a superpower. In the end those with guns and money will be able to bring power to bear quicker and more efficiently than those with just money.

It's not strictly relevant, but it is worth pointing out that economic protectionism is a fact of life. Always has been, always will be - no matter what 'free trade' dogmatists might say. That's why the US (and every other major economy) preaches free trade whilst subsidising their own farmers, miners, raw material producers etc etc. I think some of the more pressing economic problems in the world could be more easily tackled if this fact were recognised...

True to an extent. Most states will always practice some sort of protectionism and a completely free global market will probably never exist (and it may not be desirable for it to do so). But I was talking relatively - the US is certainly more a free-trader than other countries and has in the medium/long-term benefitted from this


You can't just write China out of the equation. Like it or not, along with Japabn it's the most influential power in the east now, and it's only going to grow in influence.

I'm not saying that they won't be a major player - I'm just slightly more cynical that they will be the future superpower. Historical predicitions are a fools game and being a fool my money is still on India in the long term.

[budda]

I'm not saying that they won't be a major player - I'm just slightly more cynical that they will be the future superpower. Historical predicitions are a fools game and being a fool my money is still on India in the long term.

But you were saying China wouldnt be a superpower because it couldnt innovate, isnt India's political power system stupidly slow and nightmare-ishly complex?

[Flashman's Ghost]

To a certain extent - but their business leaders do have the power to innovate and change (or more so than Chinas) and the Chinese system of Govt isn't nay quicker than Indias (and is even more centralised)

[budda]

To a certain extent - but their business leaders do have the power to innovate and change (or more so than Chinas) and the Chinese system of Govt isn't nay quicker than Indias (and is even more centralised)

But everyone is getting excited about China so it must be true.

[Flashman's Ghost]

But everyone is getting excited about China so it must be true.

Everyone, but me... :nervous: not sure what this means....

[budda]

There is ingrained sterotypes at work here I think, the Chinese, much like the other Far Easterns are thought to be hard workers, and the Chinese are known for their long term planning.

[Senor Miguel]

I think a lot of people underestimate Britain's status, it is still a superpower, power has merely shifted from colonial control to economic and financial power over other countries, it's just a lot more subtle, deals done behind closed doors, we don't have to flex our might as overtly as the yanks, and we still exert a great deal of political influence abroad (along with america) through organisations like the WTO and World Bank, if people knew just how shady our foreign policies are you wouldn't even be asking the question........and we will still be here long after america's economy has brought the country to its knees.

[Ibex]

Too much to respond to overall (and I'm supposed to be working), so I hope you don't mind if I reply selectively.

I did just write out a long reply to your post - and then my computer had one of its periodic sulks and lost it. And I'm at work too, so I'd best not try writing it out again.

In brief, I think China does have the advantage over Korea and other asian economies, purely by virtue of size, which allows it to take advantage of economies of scale. It also has a virtally unlimited labour supply and a huge domestic market. This is also true of India, but China seems to be the one taking real advanatge of it at the moment. Of course its industries are primnarily low-tech at the moment, but it's still producing goods that people want and, as bongbudda points out, it is more than able to buy in technology from abroad.

I think you place too much emphasis on China's political system. Stalinist it may be in name and some aspects of practice, but it's been pursuing a market-based approach, especially in certain designated free trade areas (ie Shanghai) for a decade and more now. On the other hand, there is definite and growing resistance to the one-party state, and it's a virtual certainty that there will be major political change within the next few years. Whether this will destabilise the economy or not remains to be seen... Either way, it's owrth pointing out that India's political system is hardly a model of efficiency either.

Not for a superpower. If you are saying that those without strong militaries may be wealthier and happier you may be right (as long as they rely on someone else to protect them - yes Japan I'm looking at you), but they are not and can never be a superpower. In the end those with guns and money will be able to bring power to bear quicker and more efficiently than those with just money.

There is nothing - except the risk of provoking hostilities with the west, but that applies also to any other upcoming economy - to stop China projecting power in exactly the same way as any other superpower. Britain and the US are the past masters at it after all, having spent the last two centuries deploying military power to topple hostile regimes, break up opposing trading blocs and generally re-order the world system in their own interests.

True to an extent. Most states will always practice some sort of protectionism and a completely free global market will probably never exist (and it may not be desirable for it to do so). But I was talking relatively - the US is certainly more a free-trader than other countries and has in the medium/long-term benefitted from this

This is a separate issue and probably best not gone into here, but it is worth noting that part of the problem with 'free trade' is that it is preached at poorer countries by rich western antions that protected their own growing economies in the past and, to a great extent, still do. It's highly profitable for western multinationals, who can go in and buy up assets sold off under 'liberalisation' programmes, but does little good for the countries concerned. Anyway, best save that one for another thread...

I'm not saying that they won't be a major player - I'm just slightly more cynical that they will be the future superpower. Historical predicitions are a fools game and being a fool my money is still on India in the long term.

India will be a big player - no two ways about it. BUt my guess is still that in twenty years' time we'll be living in a largely bipolar world - with the poles in Washington and Beijing!

[Aladdin]

As a superpower the US has an obligation to engage with the world. If it didnt, you lot would be tearing your hair out begging them to. Its a case with 'damned if you do, damned if you dont' with the US.
LOL! Nice piece of spin there Matadore!

If by 'engage with the world' you mean embark in all sorts of illegal as hell bombardements, invasions, wars and coups d' etat for the sole purpose of furthering the interests of the US government, not the interests of those it bombs, invades and interferes with, then yes, the US has been 'engaging' with the world rather profusely. :rolleyes:

[Aladdin]

Of course it has an obligation. The last time it was isolationist (1939) The bloodthirsty Europeans started a little thing called World War 2.

''The last time it was isolationist'', eh?

Have you heard of

Guatemala 1954, 1960 and 1967-69

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Congo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Chile 1973

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Grenada 1983

Libya 1986

Iraq 1998

Iraq 2003

TO NAME BUT A FEW...

ffs... :rolleyes:

[Teh_Gerbil]

And there was, of course, nothing bloodythirsty about them.

Nor about raping and slaughtering Native american women and children. No no.

[budda]

''The last time it was isolationist'', eh?

Have you heard of

Guatemala 1954, 1960 and 1967-69

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Congo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Chile 1973

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Grenada 1983

Libya 1986

Iraq 1998

Iraq 2003

TO NAME BUT A FEW...

ffs... :rolleyes:

Is that really isolationism though, surely if they were isolationist they would have stayed home and not gotten involved in those conflicts?

[Aladdin]

From a certain point of view, yes. But my angle is that in none of those conflicts the US had any authority, moral, legal or otherwise to act, and yet it did. Illegally, against the wishes of the international community and without authorisation from the United Nations (which is the only body that can authorise force).

In other words, the US government has consistently ignored international law and the international community, and done what it pleases for self-interest reasons only.

You can't get more isolationist than that.

[budda]

Illegally, against the wishes of the international community and without authorisation from the United Nations (which is the only body that can authorise force).

I am not trying to defend their record here but who decided that the UN was the only body who could authorise force?

Kosovo was generally considered to be a 'good war' yet that was against the UN wasnt it?

I think its more their methods and targets rather than them ignoring the law which is the issue.

[Clandestine]

I suspect that the point Al is making is to directly confront the preior suggestion that US isolationism somehow was a contributing factor in the conflagration of war in Europe.

The very fact that my nation's post-isolationalist prerogatives have been repeatedly marked by militant impositions upon countless nations around the globe only demonstrates its refusal to learn from the historic failures of nationalism and its inevitable demand for expansionistic brutality.

This is the very disposition which resulted in the wars which ravaged Europe.

Given what we've seen of Washington's repeated abuse of power, it is quite legitimate to consider isolationism as a preferable route to world peace.

[Clandestine]

Ah well, seems you meant something other than I what I supposed, Al. In that case, you are confusing terms a bit. Its not "isolationism" that America has displayed by its repeated warmongering, but rather "exceptionalism" (i.e the presumption of being above the rule of law which it demands be applied to others).

[Aladdin]

Perhaps I'm mixing up the terms. What I mean is that when practically the entire world was against intervention in Iraq (other than lapdog Blair and a couple of other arse-lickers) and the UN did not authorise force but the US ignored all of this and waged a war anyway, the US was isolating itself from the international community and doing what it pleased.

But come to think of it, perhaps the term I should have been thinking of is unilateralism, not isolationism.

[budda]

But come to think of it, perhaps the term I should have been thinking of is unilateralism, not isolationism.

Thats the one! I've been thinking since you made that first comment...hmm...theres a word for this.

[sticktofacts]

Britain is a small island of 60 million people with a poor recent record of building things.
Japan is also a small island but is a very sucessful manufacturer of stuff and thus emits a global presence. This is how China has gained traction on the world stage and Russia dependent on its rate of modernisation may follow.
Britain is small and will remain so.

[blindreaper]

In simplistic terms, here it is:

Britain, a small country learns how to trade, make weapons and develop a civilised society. Britain then uses this knowedge to colonise less developed countries, e.g australia, parts of Africa, India. Although other nations have empires, e.g France, Britain has the biggest. Britain is therefore the most powerful, the superpower. European Imperialism reaches it's peak, world war 1 breaks out, and Britain's empire, along with it's power starts to disintergrate.

The USA, a big country once part of the British Empire, becomes rich from the war when most countries become crippled. Through a cycle of prosperity, it becomes rich. A Superpower. America suffers a depression, but so does the world as a result; the US doesn't lose any power.

Britain, once a quarter of the world, becomes a small stone in a big pond once again. The U.S.A, the 4th largest country in the world develops it's wealth and becomes a superpower*.

The moral of the story?
Big country = lots of people = lots of taxes = lots of money = lots of weapons = power

Why else will Luxembourg never be a superpower?

Go on, tell me why I'm wrong, curse at me, but remember one thing:

Britiain once owned most of the U.S and if it wasn't for France (amoungst other things), we would still govern it.

*The USSR has been omitted from this story.

[Yerascrote]

Britiain once owned most of the U.S and if it wasn't for France (amoungst other things), we would still govern it.


no we wouldn't, practically all of Britains colonies were returned to their people and i'm sure America would have aswell..

[blindreaper]

Maybe your right, but its not certain, we will never know what might have been.

[Yerascrote]

Maybe your right, but its not certain, we will never know what might have been.

you got to be joking, if they found it hard keeping African countries what makes you think America would want to stay...

[blindreaper]

The World Wars of the 20th century were the main cause of the end of imperialism and therefore the British Empire, not necessarily the rebellions.

[Clandestine]

Imperialism never ended, friend, it only rebranded itself as corporate-serving "globalisation" and thus it has carried on, complete with use of military power to exert its will upon weaker nations when client governments no longer tow the line.

[blindreaper]

Very true.

[morrocan roll]

what makes you think America would want to stay...
cos white americans are of european stock.

[morrocan roll]

did i just read somewhere in this post that china has loads of resources?
wrong.
they have no timber or oil and less and less good arable land.
south american forrests are being destroyed faster than ever just to grow soya bean to feed the new and rapidly growing cities in china.
america have already started the resource wars for oli ...it will continue to do so, meaning it can break chinas growth quite rapidly.
china is sucking in more and more resources from around the globe at an alarming rate.
india won't have a chance ...to many problems arising with water shortages.

[sticktofacts]

america have already started the resource wars for oli
poor old oli doesnt he have it bad enuff already?
South China Sea has oli and gas in it and the Japanese and Chinese have kicked off over it. Both sides claiming to have the rights to most of it and worried the oli and gas feilds which may stretch under ground into the others teritory could be mined illegaly.
The row continues.

[morrocan roll]

america have already started the resource wars for oli
poor old oli doesnt he have it bad enuff already?
South China Sea has oli and gas in it and the Japanese and Chinese have kicked off over it. Both sides claiming to have the rights to most of it and worried the oli and gas feilds which may stretch under ground into the others teritory could be mined illegaly.
The row continues.
:D

[Yerascrote]

cos white americans are of european stock.

and my great great multiply great by 1000 grandmother was of African stock, and yours also...doesn't mean i don't have a sense of patriotism to the country i was brought up in...

[klintock]

Imperialism never ended, friend, it only rebranded itself as corporate-serving "globalisation" and thus it has carried on, complete with use of military power to exert its will upon weaker nations when client governments no longer tow the line.

And it wasn't even imperialism. it was something older, fouller still. Self interest from the blind maybe, or something more twisted.

The World Wars of the 20th century were the main cause of the end of imperialism and therefore the British Empire, not necessarily the rebellions.

Attempts to keep the population on it's knees and nothing more or less than that. The people with money and the "monarchy" etc financed both sides. Scum.

did i just read somewhere in this post that china has loads of resources?

They have the most precious resource to the financial mind, human beings. When the governments over here ran out of cash, they borrowed it based on the worth of the people within their jurisdiction, both at the time and in the future. This is what backs the value of the pound....the dollar.

Any look at this kind of thing has to start from the most fundamental point, that is that those "in power" don't give a shit where the boundaries lie, what agreements there are, because they know they aren't real and they aren't bound by them. It's a big fucking con they rig between themselves and never take part in ever.

[Yerascrote]

Any look at this kind of thing has to start from the most fundamental point, that is that those "in power" don't give a shit where the boundaries lie, what agreements there are, because they know they aren't real and they aren't bound by them. It's a big fucking con they rig between themselves and never take part in ever.

take part in what?

[Teh_Gerbil]

take part in what?

A good question.

[Clandestine]

Take part in "the great con of "boundaries" they rig for others (aka the masses). In other words, they establish what they call the "rule of law" to which all others than themselves are to be held to account.

[Yerascrote]

Take part in "the great con of "boundaries" they rig for others (aka the masses). In other words, they establish what they call the "rule of law" to which all others than themselves are to be held to account.

a position, worringly, thats some people on this earth have...

[Spliffie]

no we wouldn't, practically all of Britains colonies were returned to their people and i'm sure America would have aswell..

The USA basically told us to end colonial rule after WW2...the swift subsequent ceacesation of British rule didn't exactly help Africa though.

He is partly correct in a sense...although it was inevitable the US would become indepedent. Britain did, however, leave the American colonies by choice rather being kicked out...

[john the hippy]

Who Governs the IMF, WTO and the World Bank?





http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm

ps, wasn't that when 'Bretton Woods was imposed?

http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/article.shtml?cmd[126]=x-126-183338

We've (UK) have only just finished payments to our cousins across the pond for WW II, we still owe them for WWI.

Great cousins huh?