Daniel Hannan compares American and British/European politics

[Kalis]

America wants Labor to win every election in the UK for example. Because they by FAR are the strongest supporters of US colony status for the UK.

1. Labor is not interested in building up the UK military.
2. Labor wants to punish the business sector in the UK.
3. Labor embraces Hollywood more than the Tories.

That's perfect. That's driving the UK into US colony status. If we can just get Labor to win every election for the next 50 years, the UK might be the 51st state.

Luckily for us we don't have any political parties by that name.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Germany and New Zealand don't seem to be complaining.

Plenty of people complain about the inefficacy of coalition governments in Germany.

[Kalis]

Milliband likes movies more than Cameron?

Cameron is certainly more of a theatre/ballet chap, though he secretly loves the West End musicals.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Cameron is certainly more of a theatre/ballet chap, though he secretly loves the West End musicals.

I thought it was the Lib Dems that were in to musicals

[Kalis]

This is the French rioting over a small change in labor laws.

To be fair, it is France. They do love their rioting/protests/sheep burning.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

To be fair, it is France. They do love their rioting/protests/sheep burning.

Rioting, along with striking, is a national sport in France.

[Kalis]

I thought it was the Lib Dems that were in to musicals

You may have a point there.

Thinking about it, Cameron does look more of a Last Night of the Proms than Starlight Express sort of bloke.

[Nakura Chambers]

Slight problem with your genius theory that us dopey Europeans haven't worked out yet...who exactly are you protecting us from?

Russia maybe? Meh, they spend less than 40% of a combination of Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Can't be them, as they wouldn't be able to wage an aggresive war on the EU.

You've been to war with Iraq...Saddam wasn't going to march on London anytime soon. Can't be them.

You went into Afghanistan...those Talibans weren't much of a threat to Belgium's borders. Can't be them.

Eureka! Those Eskimos look like sneaky buggers, thanks for keeping an eye on them for us. Muchos gracias.

To be fair, al-Qaeda has done quite a bit of damage in Spain and Britain.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

To be fair, al-Qaeda has done quite a bit of damage in Spain and Britain.

True, although the King's Cross fire (which started by accident) killed more than the 7th July bombings. And Americans were bank-rolling the IRA, who killed many times more people and did much more damage to property.

[Kalis]

To be fair, al-Qaeda has done quite a bit of damage in Spain and Britain.

Number who died during the 7th July bombings versus number of Al-quaeda operatives killed by UK forces. Hmm.

And if the US is supposed to be protecting us, then should we really trust them to be able to do so? You know, considering what happened.

[Nakura Chambers]

True, although the King's Cross fire (which started by accident) killed more than the 7th July bombings. And Americans were bank-rolling the IRA, who killed many times more people and did much more damage to property.

Some American citizens may have supported the IRA, but the American government didn't. It wasn't only American citizens either, there were groups sympathetic to the IRA all over the world. I'm sure some people were sympathetic to the Ulster Unionist factions as well, albeit, probably not as many.

Number who died during the 7th July bombings versus number of Al-quaeda operatives killed by UK forces. Hmm.

And if the US is supposed to be protecting us, then should we really trust them to be able to do so? You know, considering what happened.

The UK and EU didn't manage to prevent the 7th July bombings either. I think it's fair to say that the entire system of international relations that the United States set up benefits the United Kingdom and Europe. Look at the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, European Communities, United Nations Security Council (Britain and France are permanent members) and NATO. This entire framework was largely set up to protect Europe and help them rebuild their economies.

It was also the United States who provided logistical and political support during the Falklands War (UK), Indochina (France), Zaire (France/Belgium), Western Sahara (France), Chadian-Libyan War (France), Iran (UK) and Indonesia (Netherlands). We also supported insurgents and political position in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. In more recent years we've supported the independence of the Balkan states during the Yugoslav crisis, which was right on the EU's doorstep, but they couldn't do anything to stop it. And all of this is to say nothing for the American military presence in Europe throughout the Cold War, deterring a Soviet invasion.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Sometimes you hit internet gold, this is one of those times.

[Kalis]

Some American citizens may have supported the IRA, but the American government didn't. It wasn't only American citizens either, there were groups sympathetic to the IRA all over the world. I'm sure some people were sympathetic to the Ulster Unionist factions as well, albeit, probably not as many.

It's nice to know that it wasn't just the Americans giving money to people so that they could bomb children in shopping centres.

The UK and EU didn't manage to prevent the 7th July bombings either. I think it's fair to say that the entire system of international relations that the United States set up benefits the United Kingdom and Europe. Look at the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, European Communities, United Nations Security Council (Britain and France are permanent members) and NATO. This entire framework was largely set up to protect Europe and help them rebuild their economies.

It was also the United States who provided logistical and political support during the Falklands War (UK), Indochina (France), Zaire (France/Belgium), Western Sahara (France), Chadian-Libyan War (France), Iran (UK) and Indonesia (Netherlands). We also supported insurgents and political position in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. In more recent years we've supported the independence of the Balkan states during the Yugoslav crisis, which was right on the EU's doorstep, but they couldn't do anything to stop it. And all of this is to say nothing for the American military presence in Europe throughout the Cold War, deterring a Soviet invasion.

UK alone has helped the US in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, intelligence gathering for decades, logistics, etc., etc., etc. Your post implies this was all one way.

Nor did I infer that the UK prevented the 7th July bomings, just that the original poster was implying that we rely on the US for defence, when it is quite clear that the Europe can protect itself against conventional attacks, and terrorist attacks are a joint exercise involving numerous nations, which sometimes fail.

The US had bases in Europe to protect their own self interest during the Cold War as much as that of Europe. The US was paranoid beyond the rational about those Reds.

If we're going back to Cold War days, then why not go a little further? Without the UK there would have been no second front, no foothold in Europe to defeat Nazi Germany, no pushing back the forces in North Africa. Without little Greece saying oXi and beating Italy, the Germans wouldn't have had to get involved there and delay their invasion of Russia.

Everybody has played their part in history, the glorification of the US at the expense of others is something incredibly sad to see.

[tehealadin]

If we're going back to Cold War days, then why not go a little further? Without the UK there would have been no second front, no foothold in Europe to defeat Nazi Germany, no pushing back the forces in North Africa. Without little Greece saying oXi and beating Italy, the Germans wouldn't have had to get involved there and delay their invasion of Russia.

Everybody has played their part in history, the glorification of the US at the expense of others is something incredibly sad to see.

Nu uh, pinko, Bin Laden and Lenin was blowing the shit out of Europe and Thatcher came crying to the eagle for help, saddened by this begging and spurred by no reason other than a strong sense of right, Uncle Sam jumped on top of the eagle, with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other, he flew over Europe and liberated Beijing from the Japs, kicking Putin's ass all over Cuba, going ratatatatataa to Hitler in his mosque's in order to stop them Allah luvin nazi communists from enslaving your asses.

MURICA!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

On a serious note, Nigel Farrage is pretty much a nobody in UK politics. Despite him stealing away some of the more right wing in the Tory party, the best he can hope for is a few more seats in European elections. As for Hannan, he is a nobody.

[bufferunderrun]

Slight problem with your genius theory that us dopey Europeans haven't worked out yet...who exactly are you protecting us from?

Russia maybe? Meh, they spend less than 40% of a combination of Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Can't be them, as they wouldn't be able to wage an aggresive war on the EU.

You've been to war with Iraq...Saddam wasn't going to march on London anytime soon. Can't be them.

You went into Afghanistan...those Talibans weren't much of a threat to Belgium's borders. Can't be them.

Eureka! Those Eskimos look like sneaky buggers, thanks for keeping an eye on them for us. Muchos gracias.

But he has a point, true those country defense spending combined is high but in practice there is 0 chance that those armies are used without the US supporting them, if we are going to look back on all the recent wars around Europe, since the ex Yugoslav to the recent Libya European countries where passive and always ask for USA intervention first never taking responsibilities and fix shit by themselves.
The fact that to fix shit in central africa only france moved without real support from the other European countries is another proof of that, europe is failing into estabilishing a sphere of influence where it's more needed aka near it's own border.

[Kalis]

But he has a point, true those country defense spending combined is high but in practice there is 0 chance that those armies are used without the US supporting them, if we are going to look back on all the recent wars around Europe, since the ex Yugoslav to the recent Libya European countries where passive and always ask for USA intervention first never taking responsibilities and fix shit by themselves.
The fact that to fix shit in central africa only france moved without real support from the other European countries is another proof of that, europe is failing into estabilishing a sphere of influence where it's more needed aka near it's own border.

European armies, bar Britain and France, aren't intended to be able to project any significant power abroad, whereas the US forces are. They are primarily defensive forces, so why do you think it is some sort of major shock that they aren't used in any significant capability for roles they weren't intended to be used for?

He has no point, and neither do you, as none of the wars fought have been defensive ones. So how does anything you mentioned show that the US is defending the EU from mystery bogeymen?

You also seem to be under the impression that the EU has a unified foreign policy, which they don't, e.g. Iraq, where France and others refused, but Britain and others joined, and you think that their sphere of influence should be enforced militarily as a singular entity, but that is not the purpose of the EU - it is primarily an economic endeavour - and France or Britain (the two most likely candidates) projecting force overseas is usually of their own accord, and for historical reasons associated with Empire.

[Valerean]

Hannan is one of three UK politicians I've met, and you'd be hard pressed to find a more decent guy on either side of the Atlantic - my little girl (who was 7 at the time) has been obsessed with all things British ever since. Agree or disagree with his political views as you like, but in my own humble experience, he's a fantastic ambassador for the Sceptered Isle and I wish we had more guys like him over in our Capitol.

[Kalis]

Hannan is one of three UK politicians I've met, and you'd be hard pressed to find a more decent guy on either side of the Atlantic - my little girl (who was 7 at the time) has been obsessed with all things British ever since. Agree or disagree with his political views as you like, but in my own humble experience, he's a fantastic ambassador for the Sceptered Isle and I wish we had more guys like him over in our Capitol.

Which other ones have you met?

Well known ones that I have met: Charles Kennedy (really nice and genuinely funny, chatted privately for about 20 minutes at an insurance do - my boss asked if I'd pulled), Boris Johnson (very briefly, he said hello when he was campaining for Mayor of London the first time whilst I was at Waterloo), Ken Livingstone (surprisingly likeable, met him in a queue and chatted briefly about Greenwich - don't recall why we did that), and Keith Vaz (unsurprisingly slappable, who I showed around my department of our offices and who only spoke to the Asian employees).

[Deleted]

If we're going back to Cold War days, then why not go a little further? Without the UK there would have been no second front, no foothold in Europe to defeat Nazi Germany, no pushing back the forces in North Africa. Without little Greece saying oXi and beating Italy, the Germans wouldn't have had to get involved there and delay their invasion of Russia.

To be fair 90% of all German divisions were broken by the soviet union, if Britain had said no mas and stayed out of it they would have just pummelled the Germans to France and made the entire European continent a communist dictatorship.
That's not to say their monetary support of the soviet union wasn't important, but strategically the entire second front was largely pointless, though historically certainly not so.

[Kalis]

To be fair 90% of all German divisions were broken by the soviet union, if Britain had said no mas and stayed out of it they would have just pummelled the Germans to France and made the entire European continent a communist dictatorship.
That's not to say their monetary support of the soviet union wasn't important, but strategically the entire second front was largely pointless, though historically certainly not so.

Without a second front, Russia may not have had the ability to defeat Germany.

Despite the loathing for it now, the bombing campaign launched from Britain by the RAF and USAF (not sure they were called that then), was one of the key instruments in defeating the industrial might of Germany - Russia wasn't capable of doing that at the time, so the Luftwaffe would have been able to devote their entire resources to blowing the crap out Russia.

That's not counting the infantry divisions in Western Europe, or that the German Navy wouldn't have been stretched over the Atlantic as they were forced to be.

The North African campaign, pitting the charisma of Rommel against the sheer bloody-mindedness of Montgomery, was another important win for the Allies by denying resources for the Axis.

What eventually happened on the Eastern Front was largely due to what the Western Front forced on the German resources.