Airstrip One

The Final Word

Iain Murray has kindly given me the final word on the Anglosphere debate, for now. So I propose to take advantage of it. His contributions in italics (his full contribution is here). I must firstly apologise to comparing Mr Murray with Christina Odone, he seems to have been mightily peeved. It was the first name that came into my head.

On Jamaican immigrants and crime.
Personally, I think that the only stricter immigration rule that should be applied is increased screening of all persons flying in from Jamaica.

Screening of people is virtually impossible with the present system, which is why compulsory tourist visas are being talked about. Screening for drugs at the airport is not going to have any effect on the large number of "yardies" who are immigrating and proving to be the motive force behind the massive increase in urban gun crime.

That's hardly a step away from the Anglosphere

Presumably Anglosphere countries (including Jamaica) would have more liberal migration rules than with non-Anglosphere countries. Stoping more liberal treatment for Jamaican immigration, as compared with similar third world countries, most certainly is a step away from the Anglosphere.

Australia the Asian power
That's an illusion that Australia is turning away from.

It's an illusion that the right in Australia are turning away from. They won't always be in power.

The monarchy.
I have one simple date that disproves the idea of the monarchy being in any way a unifying factor in the Anglosphere: 1776.

The point is that Commonwealth countries are weakening their links with one another rather than strengthening them. The monarchy is a link that is being weakened. It may not be the unifying factor, but republicanism is certainly seen as a way for many countries to sever links with Britain and to become "normal" countries.

NAFTA and the EU
simple answer is because the EU didn't just "evolve" that way. Monnet and Adenauer were quite blunt about what they wanted.

History is always written by the victors. Most histories of the rise of the EU will always look back at Monnet and Adeneur and see them as the heroes/evil geniuses, behind a Bilderberg style conspiracy. This was not the way in which the EEC actually started. There were large safeguards for state sovereignty, many of the founding members were sceptical - notably the French and the Dutch. There was a conspiracy to unite Europe, but it was not in overall charge. It took years before the EEC become powerful enough to become the EU, and it was not so much the ideologically charged conspirators but the bureaucratic evolution that is necesary for these economic pacts to stay alive.

The recent release of the cabinet papers from 1971 show that anyone who looked at what the EEC was about realized it would at the very least turn into an Economic Union.

David Owen, Labour foreign secretary from 1977 to 1979 didn't see this. Margaret Thatcher, who pushed the Single European Act in 1985 didn't see this. The pro-Europeans want the public to believe that the nature of the EEC was manifest when we joined, so that any argument is swotted by the line "well that's what you voted for in 1975". Well it's not, and it's not what many intelligent and (then)pro-European politicians and business men supported either.

The Bennett Anglosphere idea has no such ulterior motive

I'm not worried about Jim Bennett, I'm worried about the head of the North Atlantic commision in 2025.

Defence Pacts
Defence pacts dictate where our troops go and what our defensive capabilities are. - EG
It's not an objection to the Anglosphere per se.

It is when the Anglosphere includes defence co-operation.

Constitutional protections
Heaven's sake it's difficult enough to get fast-track trade authority for the President. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to give away trade authority to an Anglosphere version of the EU.

Politics ain't static. "It was difficult enough to get Parliament to ratify the Treaty of Accession in 1972. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to ratify the Treaties of Nice or Amsterdam." There's also this article on the way NAFTA limits sovereignty already.

Defence Pacts
With current technology, alliances can trascend geography.

They always could, it is the wisdom that I'm questioning.

It's usefulness, capability and inter-operability rather than geographical proximity that should dictate our choice of allies.

With respect, its our strategic priorities rather than choice of allies, that should be a function of geographical proximity. The problem with bringing in America, Australia or South Africa in as our allies is that we also bring on board their strategic priorities as well. They may be, indeed they are, splendid chaps - but their geography dictates an entirely different set of strategic priorities from our own.

The Anglo-Indians
Of course Britain would be under greater external threat if India were overrun by Pakistan tomorrow. A massively resurgent Islamic power with the bomb and the sense of invincibility that would generate would almost certainly be looking for new targets. The former colonial power would probably be a good candidate.

Why? Pakistan's strategic priorities are to arrest Russian expansionism from the north (often expressed through Pashtun and Baluchi nationalism within Pakistan), and to hold off aggresive Iranian and Indian powers sandwiching it east and west. The Pakistanis have got enough on their hands without worrying about a grudge match.

It has never once occured to Israel's leaders to use their bomb against a (thoroughly disliked) ex-colonial power - even when the old bosses of the Stern gang had their hands on the trigger.

Furthermore, a significant proportion of British Indians would be somewhat unhappy. There would be an internal threat too.

Internal threats can be dealt with by internal measures.

It looks like correspondance is closed from Iain Murray's point of view, but if anyone else would like to join battle - just let me know.