Empire: An Argument in Favour of a 'European Superstate'

[WatcherZero]

In my experience you wouldnt normally get ice cubes in a drink with soda water unless you ask for it. If you ordered a soft drink or something like Scotch they will always ask you if you want ice.

[Restless]

Forget the Great In Britain

Its fall was inevitable, but the economic crisis will shrink the last pretenses of empire faster than anyone expected.

Scott Barbour / Getty Images
An Uncertain Future: London
By Stryker McGuire | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 1, 2009

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209953/page/1

Even in the decades after it lost its empire, Britain strode the world like a pocket superpower. Its economic strength and cultural heft, its nuclear-backed military might, its extraordinary relationship with America—all these things helped this small island nation to punch well above its weight class. Now all that is changing as the bills come due on Britain's role in last year's financial meltdown, the rescue of the banks, and the ensuing recession. Suddenly, the sun that once never set on the British Empire is casting long shadows over what's left of Britain's imperial ambitions, and the country is having to rethink its role in the world—perhaps as Little Britain, certainly as a lesser Britain.

This is a watershed moment for the United Kingdom. The country's public debt is soaring, possibly doubling to a record high of 100 percent of GDP over the next five years, according to the International Monetary Fund. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research forecasts that it will take six years for per capita income to reach early-2008 levels again. The effects will cascade across government. Budgets will be slashed at the Ministry of Defense and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, affecting Britain's ability to project power, hard and soft. And there's little that can be done to reverse the trend, either by Prime Minister Gordon Brown or by the incoming government of David Cameron's Conservatives, assuming they win a general election that must be held within the next 10 months. As William Hague, Cameron's deputy and shadow foreign secretary, said in a recent speech: "It will become more difficult over time for Britain to exert on world affairs the influence which we are used to."

History has been closing in on Britain for some time. The rise of giant emerging economies like China and India always meant that Britain would have a smaller seat at the increasingly crowded top table of nations. It also meant that the United States would recalibrate the so-called special relationship as it sought new partners and alliances, inevitably shrinking the disproportionate role Britain has long played in world affairs. Brown's predecessor, Tony Blair, made a final stab at greatness with what amounted to a 51st-state strategy: by locking Britain into America's wars—on terror, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq—London achieved an importance it hadn't had since Churchill and the war. But whatever advantage Britain gained in the short term was wiped out by the political damage Blair's strategy caused at home. Ordinary Britons and even members of the British establishment grew increasingly critical of what they saw as London's subservient relationship with Washington. Blair's authority was diminished, his political agenda at home suffered as a result, and it became clear that Britain's geopolitical default setting would no longer be to automatically follow America's lead. In fact, Blair may merely have postponed the inevitable: a lesser Britain is a consequence of world events, not unlike the slow relative decline of the United States, which finds itself today where Britain was at its apogee.


The global recession has hit virtually every country, but Britain more than most. The great engine room of British prosperity, the financial sector, now feels like an anchor. Britain has slipped into deflation—a decline in general price levels—for the first time in 50 years. The IMF believes Britain's economic slump will be deeper and longer than that of any other advanced economy. The number of Britons claiming unemployment benefits has jumped from 1.3 million (4.6 percent of the workforce) in 1999 to more than 2 million and is on track to top 3 million. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development says Britain's recovery may begin later this year, but will lag behind those of other rich countries like Japan and the United States. At the moment, Britain is arguably saddled with the worst public finances of any major nation, thanks to voracious spending in recent years and to borrowing that is growing faster than in other developed nations or even fast-growing developing ones. Britain is so heavily indebted that one political commentator dubbed it "Iceland-on-Thames," suggesting Britain could follow that nation into bankruptcy.

What makes the British case stand out even more is that it is the only country of its size in recent history that has sought such a disproportionately large role on the world stage. During the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher saw herself as second only to Ronald Reagan as a leader who helped to bring down the Soviet Union and make the world safe for capitalism. During Blair's decade in office, from 1997 to 2007, Britain fought three wars—in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq—in which its military participation was right behind that of the United States. Now that's changing. "Although we are a relatively wealthy country and we have a seat on the U.N. Security Council, we are a power in decline," says Ian Kearns of the Institute for Public Policy Research, which recently conducted a British security review. Paddy Ashdown, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats who took part in the IPPR study, recalled the gibe by the late U.S. secretary of state Dean Acheson in 1962: "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role." Britain found its footing for a while, but Acheson's words sting again today. "If you were to say we haven't found a role," says Lord Ashdown, "it's true."

The U.K. still maintains one of the largest defense budgets in the world, but probably not for much longer. Recently, as the number of British deaths in Afghanistan has risen dramatically during the summer fighting season, both Labour and the Conservatives have felt obliged to say they would not reduce defense spending, so as not to put troops at greater risk. But in the longer term, experts say big cuts are inevitable. In a recent paper for the Royal United Services Institute, Malcolm Chalmers estimates that the Ministry of Defense budget will be cut by 11 percent in real terms over the next six years. Other estimates are much higher. Ashdown, a former Royal Marine, has said the annual £35 billion Ministry of Defense budget might have to be cut by almost a quarter, which would put Britain more in line with traditionally lower-spending continental powers.

Britain's role in the world will shrink with its budget. A cash-starved British Army would have important implications for NATO, already weakened by the fuzziness of its post–Cold War mission. As it stands, Britain is usually second only to the United States in terms of troop commitments to NATO operations such as Afghanistan, and its loyalty to the cause has encouraged other European NATO partners to do their part. Flagging British commitment will have the opposite, depressing effect and could further alter transatlantic alliances by boosting the relative power of France, which only recently reentered NATO's integrated military-command structure. Long before Britain's withdrawal from Iraq earlier this year, the U.S. military hierarchy was concerned about growing British domestic opposition. Now, as the focus shifts to Afghanistan and British military casualties rise there, public support for that war is waning, too; in a July poll, a majority said the war is "unwinnable" and that British troops should be withdrawn immediately. It hasn't helped that troops and officers have complained of equipment shortages. It was the cause of some embarrassment a few weeks ago that Gen. Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, had to hitch a ride on an American Black Hawk helicopter while visiting British troops in Helmand province because a British chopper wasn't available.

The future of Britain's nuclear force, the ultimate symbol of a great power, is also uncertain. Britain's submarine-based Trident missile system is due to be replaced over the next decade at a cost of some £20 billion. But according to a recent Guardian/ICM poll, 54 percent of the British people say Britain should give up its nuclear deterrent altogether. That's unlikely, but it may force the next government to find a cheap way to extend Trident's life span. Traditionally, being a nuclear power was one way of securing permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council, and any downgrading of Britain's deterrent could strengthen the demands of big emerging powers that they should have more seats on the council, possibly at Europe's and the U.K.'s expense.

Britain, having paid a steep political price for the hard power it wielded in Iraq and recognizing the limits to the money it can pour into weapons systems and the like, is keen to project soft power. But the government is seemingly weakening what should be a chief instrument of soft power, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan is "strategic incoherence" and has left the FCO adrift, says Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to Washington. FCO cuts suggest that the diplomatic corps, once the envy of the entire world, is losing the bureaucratic wars. In 2004, the FCO closed 19 overseas missions out of about 300. In Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Spain, and the United States, some consulates were downgraded, leaving only local personnel in place. Since then, the FCO has cut staff from 6,000 to 4,000. This year's FCO budget of £2 billion is widely expected to be pared to £1.6 billion in the next fiscal year.

The glory days of the City of London are now grinding to a halt, too. The main symbol of Britain's global might—the City boasts walls from Roman times—found financing for some of the world's earliest and most prominent multinational companies, and has had greater influence in global finance than Westminster has had in geopolitics. London stole the march on Wall Street by seizing the highest-growth areas, like hedge funds, exotic derivatives, and the like. Unluckily for London, these areas were also the hardest hit by the financial crisis. But now London, like New York, awaits a slew of new national, regional, and global regulation that appears likely to diminish its role in the world for years to come. The European Union has already endorsed the creation of a Systemic Risk Board with oversight powers that will include the City, even though Britain is outside the euro zone and is not a member of the European Central Bank, whose members will appoint the SRB chair. Britain has sidestepped such intervention in the past, but this time is different. Germany and France appear intent on restraining the excesses of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and may seek to engineer reforms that steer a greater share of global capital flows into more cautious continental hands.

When the dust settles, both the City and Wall Street will likely remain preeminent but less so, confronting rival financial power centers in Europe and Asia. It can also be argued that London, as the glitzier icon of laissez faire, will pay a steeper price than Wall Street in the financial new world order. Ever since the "big bang" of the 1980s, London has regulated the banking industry with a light touch—controlling bankers' practices with sets of principles, rather than law on the books as in the U.S. If European regulations are "harmonized" to include London and if London's light touch gets a little heavier, the City could suddenly become "more antagonistic to the institutions that are being regulated," as Andrew Hilton of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation in London puts it. In that event, financial centers like Singapore and Hong Kong could draw business away from the City.


Britain's bout of reflection on its last gasps of empire comes at a natural point in its history. The Great Recession came as a surprise and has accelerated the trend, but the rise of China, India, and Brazil, and the changing ties to a declining America, have been visible for many years. As America turns to building new ties with the advancing powers of Asia and Latin America—even sending its top envoys to promise its creditors in China that the U.S. will handle its debts responsibly—-Britain can only feel less special. The nation is in the totally predictable grip of the ennui and general grumpiness that accompany the end of a political era.

Eleven years ago, the year after Tony Blair's Labour Party had swept to victory, ending 18 years of Conservative rule, he spoke in Dublin of a Britain that was "emerging from its post-empire malaise." He was characteristically optimistic. He said he hoped the Irish saw Britain as a country that was "modernizing, becoming as confident of its future as it once was of its past." Those were indeed heady times for Britons. Phrases like "New Labour" and "new dawn" and "new Britain" were not yet curdling on the tongue. Today, Blair is two years out of office, Labour's reign 12 years old. His successor, Gordon Brown, suffers from a gray, been-there-too-long aura. Long gone is the cultural ferment of "Cool Britannia" that made London the capital of cool in the early Blair years. The gloom was made all the deeper in recent months by a parliamentary-expenses scandal that heaped public scorn on politics and politicians alike.

Pity the prime minister who takes over from Brown. A Conservative victory at the next election—a victory by any party at the next election—would have little of the game-changing feeling that accompanied Blair's triumph 12 years ago. Then, Britain bought into Blair's mantra because it was real enough: the economy had already begun a period of unprecedented growth, immigration was enriching the country, an entrepreneurial fervor crackled across even the old industrial heartland. Today that has evaporated. The great test of the next prime minister, and probably the one after that, will be not only to redefine Britain's place among great nations but also to renew the kind of spirit that has ruled Britannia in the past.

With Christopher Werth

[Restless]

I thought this article neatly summed up our predicament.

If anything, it understates how much our influence will decline in a world.

In 2008, we were the 6th largest economy in the world at market exchange rates.
By 2020, a number of other countries will have larger economies (including probably Mexico).
And it won't be because we're not growing or getting wealthier... it's just that everyone else is growing even faster.

In a future where the UK as a standalone entity is regarded as irrelevant, where do our long-term interests lie?

[TSRJames]

Originally Posted by Restless

I thought this article neatly summed up our predicament.

If anything, it understates how much our influence will decline in a world.

In 2008, we were the 6th largest economy in the world at market exchange rates.

By 2020, a number of other countries will have larger economies (including probably Mexico).

Then we should get the cane out of the cupboard and give those nations a damn good thrashing!

Originally Posted by Marathaman

Lets just make Queen Elizabeth the head of the EU. Voila!

Indeed.

The only time Europe should be united under one flag, as a single state is when they are colonies and dominions of the British Commonwealth of European States.


Then there is this alternative:

[Big Cat]

Restless, thanks for the interesting article. I have put it here, as well -> European Union - European Identity.

[makita09]

Interesting read....but, there are a few factual issues with the article. It starts out ok, but these events have the benefit of hindsight. Unfortunately some of the more recent issues are hyperbole, such as Dannat flying in the helicopter allocated to him from the available pool, that coincidentally happened to not be a British helicopter. It was chance timing.

Also, I distrust the IMF immensely. I was one of the few who predicted the Credit Crunch and its cause, and I was constantly dismayed over the preceeding 2 years from 2005 and ever since at the IMFs ability to miss the point. I cannot fathom what they are doing with their statistics to come up with the results they do. Of course our finances are bad, but I'm not sold that we have the worst, or that it is all over for the government if they want to do anything at all that requires money.

The IMF underplay the economic boost the EU trade market will provied, especially post PSD/SEPA (yes it has a bad wrap at the moment but should sort itself out) and post Lisbon treaty. Time will tell how the EU project has fared through its first major recession. I wager marginally better than those outside.

[Tony Sebo]

maybe, but most countries also inside the Eurozone will fare worse than most.

[Restless]

However, we can't deny that the UK is doing worse than the Eurozone

Eurozone emerges from recession
Friday, 13 November 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8358227.stm

Q&A: Why is the UK still stuck in recession?
Friday, 13 November 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8199970.stm

[Tony Sebo]

I don't think you would find anyone disagreeing with you about that. This is because we have had a lunatic government for 12 years.

It is not a dick waving comeptition between the EU and UK when considering wether the UK should remian in the political project or not.

And as for the particular issue about economic structures, well, the other anglo-saxon country has also came out of recession, better than most!

The particular problem about the Eurozone, and why I mentioned it, is that whilst it has helped Germany and France to ride the recession better than some, and recover quicker, the inability to use monetery devices to adapt has led to other Euro members to really suffer.

[VaastuShastra]

Originally Posted by Restless

Forget the Great In Britain

Its fall was inevitable, but the economic crisis will shrink the last pretenses of empire faster than anyone expected.

Scott Barbour / Getty Images
An Uncertain Future: London
By Stryker McGuire | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 1, 2009

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209953/page/1

Even in the decades after it lost its empire, Britain strode the world like a pocket superpower. Its economic strength and cultural heft, its nuclear-backed military might, its extraordinary relationship with America—all these things helped this small island nation to punch well above its weight class. Now all that is changing as the bills come due on Britain's role in last year's financial meltdown, the rescue of the banks, and the ensuing recession. Suddenly, the sun that once never set on the British Empire is casting long shadows over what's left of Britain's imperial ambitions, and the country is having to rethink its role in the world—perhaps as Little Britain, certainly as a lesser Britain.

With Christopher Werth

And this is why Britain needs to be at the centre of a stronger EU, I think.

We 'could' go it alone, if we had competent governments - we don't.

[Smarty]

Originally Posted by Tony Sebo

The particular problem about the Eurozone, and why I mentioned it, is that whilst it has helped Germany and France to ride the recession better than some, and recover quicker, the inability to use monetery devices to adapt has led to other Euro members to really suffer.

It means they have to use different tools to achieve the same effect. The UK has had a reduction in the value of sterling of around 20% (I think it is). great for our exporters, awful for companies importing raw materials to make their goods, awful for us as it's a hidden pay cut for us all.

Countries like Ireland don't have the option of devaluing (taking a hidden pay cut) so are having to achieve the same result by real pay cuts to make themselves more competitive.

Those countries see the euro as a sign of stability rather than anything else and are hardly rushing to leave, even though the way they have to manage their economies may seem more difficult.

[Restless]

Originally Posted by Tony Sebo

I don't think you would find anyone disagreeing with you about that. This is because we have had a lunatic government for 12 years.

It is not a dick waving comeptition between the EU and UK when considering wether the UK should remian in the political project or not.

And as for the particular issue about economic structures, well, the other anglo-saxon country has also came out of recession, better than most!

The particular problem about the Eurozone, and why I mentioned it, is that whilst it has helped Germany and France to ride the recession better than some, and recover quicker, the inability to use monetery devices to adapt has led to other Euro members to really suffer.

It is very true that the US have come out of recession, but again, where did the global economic crisis originate from? From primarily US financial institutions that lent significant amounts of money for property purchases to individuals with:

1) No income
2) No job
3) No assets (ie. housing deposits)

These loans relied on ever house prices increasing forever, and then were packaged up into AAA!! rated securities that were sold to every other financial institution and investor in the world.

Of course, there were other contributing factors, but the US housing bubble was the main factor that helped inflate commercial and residential markets across the world into price bubbles that also burst.

---------

Anyway, back to the topic.

Every other large trading zone has the same problem where monetary policy is rarely "optimal" for every area. Normally, it is too lax for some regions, whilst too harsh for others.

But how do they manage? By using fiscal policy and a free trade in goods, services and people to help correct the imbalances.

However, we do not have a strong "federal" government that can redistribute fiscal spending where it is required, and our "single" market is still a work in progress - although I can see it becoming a lot more integrated in the future.

In addition, a single currency has the benefit of really forcing each region to enhance their overall competitiveness and efficiency, because they don't have an "easy" way out by devaluing their currency.

So in summary, states in the Eurozone lose their ability to devalue and inflate their economies for short-term gain, and are forced to focus on their long-term economic competitiveness vis-a-vis other the states.

And the net result is a more competitive and productive Eurozone.

Of course, this does depend on sensible fiscal policies for every region and an efficient single market - but I think those are a discussion in themselves.

Comments please?

[Lucky Lukas]

There are dangers inherent in concentrating too much power in too few hands. However we do live in a 'globalised' age which is moving towards the idea of world government rather swiftly. Gordon Brown himself declared that the recent recession and bank bailout were the birth pangs of a 'new world order'.

What that 'new world order' consists of he didn't elucidate very clearly, aside from a few references to international banking regulation, but it certainly piqued my interest to know more. If something calling itself the 'new world order' could precipitate an international financial crisis to its own ends I would like to know about it! There was little discussion in the press, however. But the conspiracy theorists link Brown himself to a slightly sketchy supranational elitist club called the Bilderberg group, numbering in its ranks, presidents, heads of industry and bankers. Political events are moving apace, seemingly outside the usual democratic fori. How much influence these supranationalist hold we don't know. Our governments go to war to promote democracy whilst at home the talk is of the 'post-democratic' age. The contradiction is huge and yet fundamental to the essence of our society. The public scratches its head and wonders whether to bother to vote. Referenda are refused, public opinion ignored, the parties differ little. One wonders if we are heading towards a monumental DDR-type oxymoron. And are there any avenues left for joe public to make a difference? But Joe might be too busy on the playstation or internet porn to care.

If world government is to come, I wonder who would be in charge, and if, say it's someone not very nice, who would be able to challenge it? There exist the elements of an Orwellian nightmare here. Duplicitous government, apathetic post-moral masses.
http://monopoly-of-truth.blogspot.co...rld-order.html

[Tony Sebo]

Originally Posted by Restless

It is very true that the US have come out of recession, but again, where did the global economic crisis originate from? From primarily US financial institutions that lent significant amounts of money for property purchases to individuals with:

1) No income
2) No job
3) No assets (ie. housing deposits)

These loans relied on ever house prices increasing forever, and then were packaged up into AAA!! rated securities that were sold to every other financial institution and investor in the world.

Of course, there were other contributing factors, but the US housing bubble was the main factor that helped inflate commercial and residential markets across the world into price bubbles that also burst.

---------

Anyway, back to the topic.

Every other large trading zone has the same problem where monetary policy is rarely "optimal" for every area. Normally, it is too lax for some regions, whilst too harsh for others.

But how do they manage? By using fiscal policy and a free trade in goods, services and people to help correct the imbalances.

However, we do not have a strong "federal" government that can redistribute fiscal spending where it is required, and our "single" market is still a work in progress - although I can see it becoming a lot more integrated in the future.

In addition, a single currency has the benefit of really forcing each region to enhance their overall competitiveness and efficiency, because they don't have an "easy" way out by devaluing their currency.

So in summary, states in the Eurozone lose their ability to devalue and inflate their economies for short-term gain, and are forced to focus on their long-term economic competitiveness vis-a-vis other the states.

And the net result is a more competitive and productive Eurozone.

Of course, this does depend on sensible fiscal policies for every region and an efficient single market - but I think those are a discussion in themselves.

Comments please?

Well, this is where the issue falls into ones of principle. I have nothing against trade zones. I am sure that if the UK left the EU then a perfectly amenable free trade agreement would be agreed, but as we know, the EU is something profoundly more political, integrationist, supranationalist.

The issue for me is this basic one. All the other issues about power within the EU, democratic deficits, etc, are largely irrelevant as they only become important if you intend to stay in the project.

The EU is a good idea for the smaller states of Europe, and the other big states that could thrive outside the union seem happy to remain inside. Britain should remain a relationship something akin to the relationship that Japan and China will do in the coming decades. I imagine that this will be built on all sorts of close diplomatic, political and trade relations, but both will remain distinct entities, no matter how powerful China becomes.

The issue has to be debated on this basic issue.

Of course, if you are happy to be within the eurozone and a constantly deepening political project then, of course, you want it to work as smoothly and efficiently as possible.

[Restless]

Tony

I would argue that we would NOT receive a favourable trade agreement if we did not participate in the EU. Currently we have a significant amount of influence to protect our interests, but we would lose that if we ever left.

In the event that we left the EU, I imagine we would be offered terms similar to what Norway and Switzerland have negotiated. But, they are required to implement directives decided in Brussels, in order to retain access to the common market.

I also firmly believe that future EU laws and legislation produced without our input will not be our interests. In addition, the UK economy is seven times smaller than the rest of the EU, so you can see that whilst the UK is dependent on access to the EU for half our trade, the rest of the EU can happily live without us.

Make no mistake, the laws from the EU will then be crafted with the national interests of its members - which will not be in line with ours. But we will STILL be required to follow these.

You only have to look at Sarkozy gloating at the impending legislation of the Finance industry. Can you imagine how much worse this could be if we weren't blocking this at every opportunity we have? And this requires us to be inside the corridors of power in Brussels.

And don't think we could ignore the "standard" that has been agreed - not if we still wanted to retain access.

That argument can be extended to a lot of other industries.

----------

In summary, I would love for us to stand proudly by ourselves, but the cold harsh reality is that we need free access to the rest of the EU in order to retain a prosperous and influential economy. And that comes at the price of political integration that the rest of the member states believe in.

The EU is not perfect by any means, but then again, is it really that bad?

Especially since we are one of the few BIG states in the EU that no-one else dares to ignore.


-------

As for Japan, I agree that they won't probably won't give up their sovereignty ever. However, the Sino-Japanese relationship is bad example because it hostile at almost every perspective. The key issues are:

1. Political: Japan is viewed as unrepentant for its actions during WW2, and for the years of invasion and occupation prior to that. In total, there were about 30years of anarchy, chaos and despair during the Japanese attempt to occupy China. In addition, the Japanese ran the whole apparatus of concentration camps, extermination camps, experiments on sub-humans etc.

2. Cultural: Japan is undeniably an "offshoot" of the Chinese cultural zone, but they're in denial and always think they're better than everyone else because they are more "Western". It's really, really strange.

On the other hand, for most of the past 2000years, China was a beacon of culture and civilisation that was surrounded by barbarians. Today, the attitude is that there is much to learn from the outside world, but everyone KNOWS they are still Chinese and are proud of Chinese culture.

3. Economic: Japan is worried about that China will be stronger from an economic and an industrial point of view, and that they will have to submit on a political level in exchange for market access. Even now, Japan needs China to prosper, but the reverse is not true.

4. Military: There are disputes over various islands and seas, and also the occasional military incident

[madjackmcmad]

That Newsweek article is a joke, may well have been written in the 1970's and is just one long Brit bash that haters of this country including those self loathers will lap up. Half of the bashing isn't even linked, it's just added for effect!

So, the UK will be surpassed by India,Brazil & China in the next 20 years? And? I'd rather be the 15th wealthiest country but in control of my own destiny.

I'm not anti-EU by any means but the way in which some of those Europhiles love coming on here posting articles that shit on this country really get on my mantits. Are they supposed to make me want a greater-EU any more?

[Restless]

Unfortunately, when we slip down the economic rankings, our independence increasingly becomes an illusion.

The simple fact is that the bigger powers set the terms by which the smaller countries behave, and lets not kid ourselves about that.

As for the articles, they reflect how the rest of the world sees us.

It's not a pretty picture,is it?

----------

I sincerely hope that it makes every British reader here very uncomfortable so they will look much more closely at what our country is doing.

------

Even the confidence of the US has been shaken by the economic crisis, as the US population now sees China as the world's leading economic power (44%) versus the United States (27%). And this has prompted a national "re-examination" of their priorities and deficiencies.

Where is our own debate?

[madjackmcmad]

Originally Posted by Restless

As for the articles, they reflect how the rest of the world sees us.

It's not a pretty picture,is it?

No. It's 1 article by a journo with a whole lot of rubbish spouted and an obvious agenda, which would have been more in place in the mid 70's when Britain was bailed out by the IMF.

Any article going on about 'empire' in 2009 is not worth the ink its written with.