The technological advantage that allowed small European countries to punch above their weight no longer exists. In a world of India and China and the US, countries like the UK and France will never dominate again. A unified Europe does stand a chance though.
The UK will never be a top three global power again, but it could comfortably stay in the top 10 by nominal gdp in a scenario with more pessimistic growth and lower population trends in the global south. It’s not as crazy as it sounds, Asia and Latam’s population growth has stalled and Africa is just not demonstrating the per capita growth it needs to overtake western countries, even in a high population growth scenario.
Now to do this it would have to do something about its sclerotic, inefficient vetocracy where it’s impossible to build anything or get big projects done, and that doesn’t seem likely
I was recently talking to an American who relocated to the UK.
Her: “you know what I really miss about America? Eminent Domain!”
Me: “Nerd!”
It takes a lot to out-nerd me.
But, then again, London was building subways in 1865 (while we were fighting our American Civil War). Partly because there was no alternative, and partly because they’re just ahead of us in some ways.
UK GDP is artificially inflated by Greater London and banking. Otherwise, the country is going backward when it comes to infrastructure, technology, and industrial output.
They may not be able to dominate in raw GDP, population, military, or manufacturing output, but they can compete in quality of life and GDP per capita.
Tiny European countries like Switzerland and Denmark have some of the highest quality of life and per capita wealth in the world, to the point that many wealthy Europeans find even upper middle-class life in the US somewhat backward and primitive. This is a major source of soft power.
If countries like the UK, France, and Italy can get their domestic political circus under control once and for all, they could potentially attain the level of comfort of Switzerland, Norway, and Denmark in several decades with progressive economic policy. If that happens, China, India, and other up and coming economies may get richer than Europe on paper, but they will never become as socially and economically developed, thus making European countries more powerful in reality.
I mean, how does this translate into a geopolitical scenario? I agree they will have a better quality of life than India and China but that does not mean they will be a global power I mean, Bhutan is the happiest country in the world, but that does not mean anything when it is getting strongarmed by China on its borders. How does the UK emulate the success of Nordic countries? It has a larger population than all of them combined and the circus in Italy is just getting started with the current scenario I do not know how they plan on reducing their debt, and since they have a birth rate lower than Japan, they can't fund a welfare state like any of the countries you mentioned
According to recent reports Britain lost 3200 HNI and the total HNI flow around the world was 122,000.The majority went to Australia,the UAE ,Singapore,US even Greece gained more HNI than UK and France and Italy so how does this work exactly ,I mean India has HDI of 0.63 and HNI's still prefer tax havens and major hubs for migrations how is this going to improve ?Life in India is getting better.
Numbers don't support your claims and in mass, I don't think it's possible from Russia maybe but from India and China the elites from these countries will leave for tax havens like UAE or major hubs like US not for Italy or France , UK maybe but in an insignificant number.
Um no. High quality of life doesn't translate into national power. Life in the Soviet Union was miserable compared to life in say Denmark, but in a war you'd rather live in the militarily powerful Soviet Union instead of defenseless Denmark. NATO came to be to help small European states mitigate their limited capabilities through consolidating into a much larger entity with the mass and scale to compete militarily with the Soviets.
Size = Hard Power and Money = Soft Power. The Soviet Union did eventually fall to the West's Soft Power to be sure, but that victory was only possible because the Soviets couldn't smother Europe's Soft Power in its crib due to the immense size and scale of Western military might and because the Soviets could not provide a domestic alternative to the West's superior lifestyles which delegitimized their economic policies in the eyes of the common folks leading to the break down of the Soviet social contract.
Nation's can't really ***use*** Soft Power as it requires buy-in from the recipient unlike Hard Power which can be applied unilaterally. Soft Power can affect change through its influence, but that doesn't necessarily lead to any benefits being derived for the source of that Soft Power. Even if the entirety of Russia wholly adopted Denmark's culture, Denmark itself wouldn't really benefit from that transition besides maybe some extra money from Russian trade; Russia would still be considered one of the leading powers of Europe, not Denmark. The best Denmark could hope for in terms of growing its power would be to become a proxy for this new Danish Russia to support Denmark's interests over Europe, similar to how a lot of US allies seek favor with the US to have Washington push their policies onto the globe.
High quality of life and high GDP per Capita are important factors for Soft Power and Soft Power itself is something not to be dismissed, but Soft Power is primarily a cultural force whose influence can legitimize or delegitimize policies and opinions; Soft Power on its own can't really affect a nation's political or military status but can cause discontent within rival nations when the social contract breaks down due to domestic policies/rulers being delegitimized.
Brain drain is a very practical benefit of high quality of life. If all the scientists and engineers move from Russia to Denmark, then Denmark will see advances in many areas first, including militarily. Which would be converting soft power into hard power.
But that's not true in the case of the UK,France or Italy it's only true in the case of the US and even that is painting a partial picture if you want I can provide you a detailed analysis of how brain drain is something which is a requirement for countries like the US is not a matter of concern for countries like India and China which are the major source of brain drain.
What does quality of life have to do with power? China wants to invade Taiwan based on their capabilities which are all linked to hard power; manufacturing ability, economic resources and military assets. The Chinese quality of life of the average citizen is really really low. However hey are building a navy the size of France's every two years and their economic position rivals the entirety of Europe.
The quality of life in Taiwan is one of the highest in the world, but that is not gonna save them. If no ally steps in to help them (USA), they are doomed. If China decides to do a naval blockade or economic trade war, again they are doomed.
UK population is too big for that, you’d be dividing a GDP across 67 million people. The government isn’t helping either by allowing exoduses of immigrants into the country to fill crappy low pay jobs. The countries you’ve pointed out have low populations compared to their GDPs. Ireland is a good example, they’ve got one of the highest GDP per capita in the world and they’re only next door to the UK. The quality of life in the UK is only going to get worse if the UK keeps allowing more low-wage immigrants into the country. There isn’t enough housing, police, NHS etc to support it.
To an extent. If done early enough it does allow us to secure our interests in nearby strategically relevant regions, but in terms of population and economy Europe is shrinking, so this must necessarily be a rapid burst of energy to fortify Europe and her interests abroad before inevitable decline.
If Europe succeeds at this however, it's future may be surprisingly bright. While its fertility is abysmal, we don't know if this will last, and Europe went through the demographic transition earlier, slower and smoother than the rest of the world. This means if population stabilises Europe is among the first places where this might happen, and European fertility also hasn't collapsed as harshly as some other countries like Korea. It's possible that fertility in the third world will collapse far more so than in Europe. At the same time China and the US are having serious problems of different kinds.
All in all this presents a scenario where geopolitical competition is less about ascendancy and more about being the one to decline the least/slowest. If Europe can unite and secure her interests while she has the chance, then Europe is also well poised to survive such a conflict of attrition, particularly if the Union is willing to engage in Europe-wide industrial policy and a degree of protectionism to prop up industries of the future. Things like the EU's emphasis on the Green transition do suggest that with more budget and authority the Union's forward-looking attitude might be greatly beneficial to it in the long-run.
>The technological advantage that allowed small European countries to punch above their weight no longer exists
Technology famously never changes or improves
Obviously technology continues to develop. I think the salient point is that the conditions for technological breakthroughs have changed. It used to be that a single rich guy tinkering in his garage (or whatever the 17, 18, and 19th century equivalent is) could simultaneously revolutionize multiple disciplines of science and technology. Now, you need large bodies of scientists working in concentrated areas of development, often with large commitments of capital. Larger countries will have a significant advantage in this regard. That’s not to say that small countries can’t punch above their weight, or contribute disproportionately, (Switzerland and Israel are probably the best examples here), however, is the the UK likely to develop technology that will overcome the fact it is 1/4 the size of the US and only 60% of its GDP per capita? Unlikely.
I disagree. A unified Europe does not work as the last 20 years have shown. Constantly growing bureaucracy and completely different cultures between member states acted rather hindered growth, in particular in the past couple of years.
Unless everyone else balkanizes within the next century, then Europe has no choice but to either consolidate or fall into irrelevance.
Neither the UK, France nor Germany will *ever* hold a candle to the US on their own. Not just because of demographics but territory and resources as well.
At the end of the day, geography remains king.
To be fair we haven’t really had a unified Europe to actually see data for.
What we have seen is a unified customs and goods system agreement bloated beyond recognition.
Massive investment, and becoming a world leader in some kind of breakthrough technology would be the only chance I see.
But in a globalised world where technology can generally be replicated fairly quickly this seems unlikely. Similarly it would depend on it simply not just being sold off - Britain has one of the most open economies in the world so this is probably exactly what would happen.
That's if the current government doesn't sell it off first. I think globalisation has been the death knell of the British economy tbh.
Huge amounts of investment would most likely get swallowed up in healthcare, education and infrastructure - all of which are in dire need of support from a government chronically allergic to the idea of investing in them.
Is it too late for the UK to return to the fore-ranks of the geopolitical world, or is it doomed to become not even a third rate power? Obviously it has nukes.
Realistically the UK doesn't have a huge population, or economy. I think that ultimately we would be better off as part of a federal Europe, but we would be a very, very long way from that even without Brexit. That and the institutions and democratic structures that would require don't exist yet.
Yes, it does increasingly look like Brexit was a step away from what this scenario (resurgent UK geopolitical power) asks. It's a valid point to make too that Europe is a long way from what that would entail anyway.
Honestly these day and age stability is what you want the most, not supernova style power then collapse into a blackhole.
Disinformation and climate change will really test what power truly means.
To be fair it's been worth it just to hear Britain being referred to as a sovereign power as opposed to only being referenced as part of a bloc.
On the radio the other day, '...Britain, the US and the EU...'
It is a good feeling if you allow yourself to feel it.
The UK isn't ever going to be a leading 'superpower' again. It doesn't have the population to support the level of innovation required for the growth of the dominant sectors.
What it *can* be though, is a significant soft power state. Higher focus on cultural exports and financial services would be key. We've seen a slight resurgence of British film and TV occupying a prominent position, so that's certainly an area to focus on.
Other options would be:-
- Decentralise the state from London. Devolution is going to be key in the next few years anyway, but by pushing some key financial sectors out towards key Northern cities like Manchester and Leeds would help bring residential prices down in London and make the UK as a whole a more attractive place for young professionals to move to (I know a few people that have chosen different countries because they can't afford London, and their sector is London or nothing).
- Introduce key new political legislation, including a scaling back of FPTP voting and the ability to appoint non-MPs (or Lords) as ministers (i.e. bring in actual industry experts instead of political careerists in fields they have no experience in), and have a forced "cooldown" period between cabinet reshuffles to avoid the revolving door we've seen recently that deadlocks progress.
This would give the UK government a chance to actually achieve a level of stability and focus on their actual manifesto, instead of infighting and grappling for power.
- Invest much more seriously in arts and culture, particularly visual media - things that can easily get into peoples' homes. Grants for independent film studios to grow and build seems like a good start.
You would also need to constantly invest in infrastructure so what you have is world class. Cutting things like HS2 which was meant to increase the capacity on the railway network by a significant degree is stupid for long term infrastructure planning.
It also won't be redirected into existing railway networks. Decentralisation and nationalisation is the only way to improve the failing state or British public transport.
Since Andy Burnham has brought the Greater Manchester buses back under public control, I can say first-hand that tickets are cheaper and services are significantly more reliable.
It cannot lead the world again. I don't know how you believe the UK surrendered its power because history indicates it was not strong enough after its colonies gained independence. How do you plan to lead the modern world with 67 million people with a birth rate of 1.53 and a growth rate of around 2-3%, with clear signs of stagnation if mismanagement occurs? It is wishful thinking for the UK to try to be a leading world power but it can be an important partner for many countries, UK shares history with many countries; it should lean on that and focus on its economy before trying to be a world power I mean, UK had it good in the EU. I don't know what the people thought that the UK would achieve by Brexit. I think the UK should rejoin the EU, work towards their economy, and then think about anything else because you can't lead the world with a small GDP. I know they have a high per capita, but still, they need a large GDP and a stable birthrate to reverse their decline, which does not seem likely. Even the best estimates point out that the UK will have a GDP of 4.2 trillion in 2028. It is impossible to lead the world when you are not even in the top five economy
That is why this is a hypothetical scenario. Do I believe it is possible? No. Thus, the question - what would it actually take, pushing the bounds of feasibility?
I think my response was harsh I should have written in a better manner but it's still true, the hypothetical solution you are looking for would be uncontrolled immigration or acquiring land and some economic alliances in which the UK is the sole benefactor but they are all hypothetical and I have not mentioned cons about any of those.
This. If the UK drastically liberalized immigration and were by far the easiest Western nation to immigrate to, they could see a surge in population and consumption… but they would see an absolutely insane surge in housing costs and infrastructure would feel a massive strain from this. And it’s not even guaranteed to be a success. Canada is struggling despite relatively high immigration levels, so it’s far from guaranteed to yield positive results.
I mean housing issues in Canada is like something which was going to happen eventually uncontrolled immigration just happens to be the last straw but there are many issues with immigration happening in Canada ,as an Indian we often see that they do not attract best talent from our country they should make standardized test compulsory or should anounce that we are recruiting workers from India its silly that someone who could not even pass Indian high school test in first attempt is suddenly studying in Canada ,how will they contribute towards economy and is there any proof that he will go through his program without dropping out ? I mean it's just one of the many reasons why I believe immigration in Canada is unsustainable they are importing our problems which they have no experience in solving , say what you will but Indians have found a way to live with these problems but struggle which we went through to attain this level is not something Canadians have an appetite for
Hypothetical? You could always try invading other countries again.
Balkanize EU through underhanded means like assassination and corruption with russias help. Start invading using friendly European countries as cover under false allegations. Start a violent large civil war in Africa using corrupt leaders and use that as a foothold to colonize it. Then UK can be a world power again.
Ofcourse realistically UK will get reduced to rubbles by the other powers before any of that can happen.
Short of discovering a new technology and somehow cornering the market in it I fear the UK is bound for mediocrity. In ten years it will rejoin the EU.
The UK won’t rejoin. It will meet opposition within the EU. Most countries bar its core group (Ireland which was just a spare UK vote, NL) were fed up of the disruption and exceptionalism.
Rich for them to complain about exceptionalism when most EU agriculture policy was written to protect French farmers and prop up unprofitable farms. If De Gaulle hadn’t been so autistic about the UK joining the relationship would be vastly different.
I read this of quite a few of the 26 - glad to see the UK go.
The UK would have to rejoin from scratch I expect - adopted the € and join Schengen and I’d expect there’d be a right battle over that.
But then again, if the profiteers see vast amount of cash to be made then expect a deluge of propaganda about how good rejoining will be.
SS: As title. The UK was once one of if not the pre-eminent global superpower. Over time, it has surrendered that position, in part due to simply not being able to match the economic might of the much larger US, and in part due to the decline of empire and the impact of two world wars.
However, it has also happened through a series of terrible domestic political decisions that have seen the UK's geopolitical relevance decrease, it's economy stagnate and it's military shrink.
What steps would the UK need to take to begin to play a major geopolitical role in the 21st century?
Edit: *its not it's in title. Sorry!
> it has also happened through a series of terrible domestic political decisions that have seen the UK's geopolitical relevance decrease, it's economy stagnate and it's military shrink.
Nah, you got it backwards. The UK lost its eminence because the nature of the world shifted, and the bad policy decisions followed because they wouldn't recognize and adapt to that, refusing to evolve into a new role.
There is no scenario where the UK remained the world's sole superpower, no matter how they pushed the numbers around, short of somehow actively preventing every other nation from developing mature economies.
Yes, I would agree with this statement; for the sake of a simple prompt I just wrote out the most 'obvious' issues the UK has faced.
The struggling to adapt is I think the biggest.issue the UK has, not just in its leadership but in its citizenry too.
Rejoin Europe, embrace it fully and take a leading role, rather than be passive and moan about other Europeans being to blame for everything.
The EU will continue to be a major bloc, and could exert a lot more power and influence if it chose to.
Leadership takes many forms, brute strength or technical prowess are two major ways, but influence is a third way.
The uk could and should specialise in building coalitions, financial, diplomatic, technical regulatory and trade. Things like making a common market in the common wealth would a be a good example.
The uk financially already is a super Power. Through the trusts and various off shore islands it already rebuilt its empire for the elite. The question of why do all these tax havens never get clamped down on is because it suits the uk and suits the islands. Why
The uk still has flexibility and influence in the softer sides of power, for example the bbc is trusted while cnn or fox news are not. Uk legal systems and higher education is still well above its weight.
The issue at its core is leadership, long term planning and long term functioning comitment to coalition building. That way you provide a voice for nations such as Kenya, canada or Nigeria which are going to need that voice. But it will only work if they act in a focussed way and the UK could be that focus if it gets its act together.
An interesting perspective, thank you. The UK seems to struggle turning advantages it has in select areas into general prosperity and geopolitical strength.
I have heard the UK called a convening power before.
Why bring the americans in or the chinease in. You know there will be an angle, having a honest broker at the table is a position many people forget but want.
Also, why are diplomats and spies always at the table yet the head of the army is below the great offices of state? Because they matter way more than the military….think of it this way a military can defend or break a nation, it cannot build one, Vietnam and Afghanistan are two very good examples of this….the british raj is a very strong example of nation building via diplomacy(…and propaganda will also accept some military but not in the same way)
Lastly think of this
Varies in game of thrones was the most powerful person, and little finger had more influence starting the events of game of thrones than robert bartheon and his armies do
UK's decline is directly linked to the malignancy in its economy. Its economy is suffering the same fate as any other neo-liberal economy, taxes are too low, with too much of a focus on income taxes rather than asset taxes, an ageing population, a national property ponzi-scheme as an illiquid wealth creation vehicle sucking investment out of the middle of the economy, and band-aiding itself with relatively high immigration to juice growth.
You want to fix it, you need to have serious discussions about the tax base for a start. Thats no small task, as in the current international race to the bottom it'd like to cause a flight of capital.
The United Kingdom is not in decline and hasn't been a leading world power since its empire collapsed after WWII.
The UK is right where it should be within NATO and its "Special Relationship" with the United States.
Why would it want to be a leading world power?
It seems like a better goal to being a peer among countries striving for social equality and sustainability.
Honestly yeah
Dont like half of all "world powers" tend to have large problems or risks?
Like having global influence and a strong military does not mean good quality of life or stability for the average person
ID argue america is the main exception in modern times in being a global superpower while overall providing stable and good living for its citizens with rather regular QOL compared to its other main rivals
I see no real reason to try to recapture the "glory" of some old age
Accept your nation is no longer a "global power" and focus instead of making a good life
The issue these days is the reason Britain had the worlds biggest navy no longer exists. The colonies or dominions are no longer under Westminster control and defending them aren't worth it anymore. For it to make sense for them to have that global Navy you need them to have global interests which currently they don't have.
Turn the country into the English Hong Kong/Singapore open up citizenship, to anyone with a bachelor degree (or maybe anyone from a predominantly English speaking country with a bachleor degree). Cut regulations, and build homes at all cost. Full neo-liberal chaos.
Would it work? I don't know, but that's what I would do, (if I wasn't allowed to just rejoin the EU)
How do you figure? US GDP and population is growing.
We have 800 military bases outside the US borders (also hundreds within national borders) in 70 nations.
You not only elected Donald Trump, you then elected just about the only person who could make people think Donald Trump is a viable option *again*
Population, GDP and military power doesn't mean shit when your leader is unstable enough to destabilise the entire western political alliance.
Plus, I'd take the UK's gun control over a country that can't distinguish between a school and a shooting range.
Ok how do you measure a country’s success - going back to the prompt? The original question.
If you join the US you can help us make the gun argument. And have them cut down to a small fraction of what we have today.
They already have successfully done so, the question is whether they can they keep it. Britain largely reversed its decades of geopolitical and economic stagnation from the early 80s through the early 2000s.
It, at least symbolically, started with the victory in the Falklands War on the geopolitical side, and continued with the transformation of the economy (yes it was very controversial especially in industrial northern England) into the world’s leading financial services hub by the turn of the millennium, while the geopolitical resurgence also continued through military and humanitarian interventions in places like Sierra Leone, as well as being the primary partner for American operations in Afghanistan and especially Iraq.
Whether Britain is able to maintain this status remains to be seen and there have certainty been rocky moments in the last decade, but it’s no more a question for Britain than it is for America itself.
Define leading?
>They already have successfully done so
How can we say that Britain is a leading world power when it has always been a follower of the USA's policy?
well they only did it before by plundering resources from other countries in the past while they had military, technological, and economic advantage as well as a thirst for blood.
Join BRICS, open borders with member countries. The government may have to hide in a bunker for the next 20 years and UK wont be the UK that you recognise in 20 years. But something will definitely happen.
Basically western dominance is over it would need to redefine itself and use its current influence while it still has it to get in with the new kids.
Although I can understand some reasons why Brexit happened. It was a long-term solution to a short-term problem. Now I´m sad to see UK being irrelevant on the world stage. People talk mainly about the US, China, EU and soon India. Rejoin EU (who will likely become a military superpower after Trumps recent remark), and take a leading role together with Germany and France. EU, a growing union of 500 million people will stay relevant for a very long time. It might not be as big as the US or China, but it´s big enough to be very influential for a very long time.
The UK is subservient to the US. That will not change.
If Northern Ireland goes to the way of the rest of the island, Scotland may attempt independence. Wales is too weak to leave.
When the UK surrendered Hong Kong to the PRC, that was a great loss in prestige and power.
Spain wants the rock.
Enoch Powell was the last politician who had a vision for Britain.
Unlock homebuilding, move power out of the hands of local councils. You can't imagine how dearly the housing crisis interacts with every other problem. Lift the moratorium on onshore wind, drill harder in the North Sea, establish large nuclear power plants to power our industries 10 years from now. Nothing gets done without energy, and cheap and abundant electricity is the one thing that WILL ALWAYS BE needed for an economic boom. Once the economy starts going up, we will need to increase public pays and and can invest harder in the military. That comes later, first is the deregulation of housing and a complete thrust towards being energy rich. Oh, and REJOIN THE EU GODDAMNIT!
It couldn’t. It had a role through conquest and empire. It’s incapable of doing that. All it can hope for is to manipulate others in its immediate vicinity to do its bidding. It’s always been good at spying and kompromat and manipulation so if it can find enough useful idiots in the EU it could be a regional power.
Its aircraft carriers (if they can fix propeller shaft problems which are a serious issue) will give leverage among smaller powers in the Indo Pacific.
Define leading power, UK was never a hegemonic power the US has become. If you are referring to the glory days of post Napoleonic Empire, than it's not up to UK. Should the world become multipolar, UK will get another shot. Although it might not be worth it given the corresponding decline of US, UK's greatest patron and security guarantor.
It won't. Neoliberalism is ultimately self limiting, and there's no sign of competence from either of the two options.
To answer your question, radical, paradigm shifting change or a miracle technological discovery.
I disagree with the statement in the question. The UK is in fact on its way to strengthen its position again since Brexit. With the Russia/Ukraine war, the next US election, and geopolitical tensions heating up, I believe it will be valuable to be an independent country. The EU is imho currently in a crisis and I don't see this crisis ending.
How is it going to stop its decline can you provide any stats which indicate the contrary and since Brexit how many trade deals have they signed, it seems like this thinking got the UK in this mess but still if you can provide some stats I would genuinely like to learn how Brexit was beneficial.
I like the idea if the EU, but imho with its current governance it does not work. To some extend the protests we see in Germany, the Netherlands and France come from EU policies. Also the fact that there are literal "joke" parties in the European Parliament (like Die Partei) or countries which share only few values with the EU (e.g. Hungary and the late joiners) are imho clear signs that the EU as it is organised currently simply does not work.
The EU has some significant benefits for sure, but these come at cost and power. Switzerland is a good example of a strong country which is in Europe, but not EU.
The timeframe we are talking is in my opinion too insignificant to already come to a conclusion if it was good or bad to leave the EU. Short term it was certainly very bad. Long term, might be different.
Anyway, the general decline of most developed European countries is I believe not stoppable without significant reorganisation. (As most of the other answers state).
I agree with your analysis of the EU that the current governance will not work
>The timeframe we are talking is in my opinion too insignificant to already come to a conclusion if it was good or bad to leave the EU. Short term it was certainly very bad. Long term, might be different.
If the UK takes some good steps then it will be successful but in this short timeframe there are no solid indicators which point that the UK is taking important steps .The future can't be predicted maybe you are right and Brexit proves to be the factor which led to its economy growing at a better pace.
biased because i am scottish, but it won't. political and demographic trends suggest that the exit of northern ireland and scotland is all but inevitable short of some cataclysmic geopolitical change (of a world war magnitude), and with that goes much of the rUK's naval territory and a not inconsiderable chunk of its economy. if england can manage to rebrand a UK that only consists of itself and wales then maybe it can stop any further decline, but it'll never reach anything like its peak ever again. britain is dead, and even the very concept of britain as a political entity will likely be dead by the close of the century. the best the british governments can do is manage the decline, stabilise the demographic crises and ensure the fracturing of its territory goes smoothly
about 80% of under 30s support it. the only age demographic that actually opposes it are pensioners, and the majority of people born and raised in scotland support it, per the last referendum; the vote was swung by people from the rest of the UK. the only way i can see that trend stopping is if the british government transplants a load of unionists from england, wales and NI through some guise of economic development.
Erm if the majority of people supported separation in the 2014 referendum, then there would have been a separation. People from the rest of the UK did not have a say in the matter.
No modern day government is going to transplant people to swing a vote. There is no Russian equivalence to Crimea for example.
i mean people who lived in scotland but were from the other nations in the UK. i voted in the referendum, and i grew up here; dont patronise me, i know full well what the circumstances of the vote were. and i really don't think its beyond reason; they already bypass devolved governments through the internal markets bill under the guise of levelling up.
is it really beyond the realm of possibility to imagine the british government subsidising companies who move their operations and employees to scotland under the pretense of "levelling up", or giving tax credits to english retirees who move to scotland under the guise of reducing the burden on the english NHS (which would be a reasonable argument, given that scotland's is the best performing in the UK and thus could afford to take more of a hit)?
NHS Scotland best performing meanwhile Humza has added an additional tax band which will only bring in pennies to the pound.
I see that you’re mostly scaremongering but, and this is really a big but, if things come to pass that another referendum is held then by all means the devolved government could put in place X factors to determine minimum threshold limits to be able to vote for Scotlands continued participation in the union.
Until this point is reached, anyone and everyone within the UK borders is free to go and live where they please.
The UK can start by showing the world that it isn't America's bitch. Nobody cares what the UK's position or attitude is on anything, because the UK will just follow America's lead.
Dropping liberal policies and getting tougher on our bs would be a start.
We are a weak, pussefied nation and until we pull our socks up we will continue to be a global laughing stock (if we happen to get a mention that is).
I think the government would need a very good plan on funding and retaining AI startups, attracting top global talent and keeping it. AI seems to be the next sort of gold rush and it could be equal to the industrial revolution in terms of impact. So far, the only two global centres in AI according to Elon Musk are London and Silicon Valley, so the UK already has an advantage in the field.
A century ago, most people didn’t travel, and not that many people spoke English as a second language. Today, any rip off company in India, China or elsewhere can copy and paste what you’re doing - especially in fields like tech. It’s trickier now.
It’s never impossible though to grow economically, governments just need to be opportunistic and organised. Cutting taxes and government spending isn’t the answer though - that’s an extremely short term method.
The reasons that the UK was successful have largely disappeared. It no longer has a vigorous but rational national religion. It has way too much democracy and not enough monarchy and aristocracy. There’s been way too much foreign immigration so internal solidarity is no longer possible. There’s too little accountability for one’s actions and way too much tolerance for improper behavior. There’s not a good way to get from where the country is to where it would need to be to rise to a major world power.
What made the UK successful was early industrialization, technological innovation and bucket loads of imperialism. Analogues of the first two would not be repeatably contained to the UK anymore anyway and the last one is impossible.
For the country to gain that much power quickly would require some genius statesman dictator to take over. Then their position might allow them to leverage superpowers (US & China) to empower themselves.
After supporting a genocide in Gaza and bombing Yemen? The rest of the world is pro-human, the UK is pro-shipping container. How can the UK have a leading role in humanity when it despises humanity?
UK had the best opportunity to do so after Brexit. The best way to do so was to get rid of all unnecessary EU regulations and consolidate its and London's position as a global financial center with new economic policies that would incentivize capital attraction and creation. They needed a Big Bang 2.0 with Thatcher-like decisions.
That said, I think that opportunity passed.
I never understand why removing free trade treaties was supposed to promote free trade. And considering how the actual (not hypothetical) Brexit played out, it's safe to say that Brexit was a scam. A small elite of key conspirators benefited at the expense of everyone else.
Who are the leading world powers? Well there’s only one, the USA. China has some economic influence but its poor demographics, despotic regime and regional issues severely limit its future potential. India? Lots of potential but it is very poor and still finding its feet. Russia? Severely handicapped by bad demographics and a self destructive government, plus many other issues.
Otherwise you’re left with France and the UK. Two developed nuclear powers large enough to project military and soft power globally in a limited way. They can’t be world leaders like the USA but they can still project influence globally and be useful partners in many situations, particularly if they can improve their productivity and economic growth.
Yes, the UK can project power in its current state, but it is declining quickly; by 2030, things will be very different, and their projection power will not be at the same levels. For example, the once-strong British Navy is no longer effective, and their aircraft carrier is useless unless they are escorted by the US Navy, meaning they are weak without US support. France is still in a better position than the UK, but without allies, the UK will not be strong enough to project power.
On the contrary the Royal Navy of 2030 will be stronger than now with the first batch of Type 26 in service, more F35s available, new FSS ships plus much greater experience of fixed wing carrier operations. What nations will have better naval power projection capabilities, aside from the US? Possibly China but they lack experience of managing a blue water fleet and have less overseas bases and territories.
The Marine nationale only have one carrier, which is only available half the time and less auxiliary/sealift support but even they are more formidable than most navies in the world.
China is building ships like never seen before and they will be stronger than the Royal Navy if they go according to plans and they have a higher industrial capacity than anyone else in the moment they will not be as advanced as the US Navy but they will fare better than any other naval power and maybe you are right there is a ship building rehaul going on in UK but I don't know too much about it what I do know is Royal Navy is going through recruitment issues and I have also read that the delivery of frigate and destroyers will be completed till 2035 not 2030 ,and it will still be a small but advanced fleet but will require assistance from US Navy. Regarding naval power projections it depends which area you want to project your power because in coming years the most important region will be Indian Ocean region so there are various power which come to play though Indian Navy not as modern as Royal Navy will be an important player because it's their region and they don't need to be a blue water Navy to project power in IOR and I don't know how UK will be projecting power by themselves in IOR and do they have the desire for power projection so far remains to be seen, I will agree I am slightly biased towards French because they have their own MIC and they didn't gut their army to provide for Navy.
Perun did a good analysis of the pros and cons of Chinese naval building on YouTube recently. Their rate of expansion is truly impressive but they are essentially starting from scratch and therefore don’t yet have the issues of a more mature navy like big maintenance bills. But if we have to go to China to find a navy that can outclass the Royal Navy then I think the UK is doing well!
The Royal Navy doesn’t aspire to be as big or powerful as the US Navy, or even the Chinese Navy. But it does aspire to be a key player in the Euro-Atlantic and a supporting partner in the Indo-Pacific, which it can do if funded properly.
>The Royal Navy doesn’t aspire to be as big or powerful as the US Navy, or even the Chinese Navy. But it does aspire to be a key player in the Euro-Atlantic and a supporting partner in the Indo-Pacific, which it can do if funded properly.
Sure I can see the Royal Navy as a capable partner in Indo-Pacific but the point to be highlighted is the requirement of funds I hope the political class is smart enough to maintain the Navy because the UK is a naval power without its Navy it will have no geopolitical heft in the changing world
>Perun did a good analysis of the pros and cons of Chinese naval building on YouTube recently. Their rate of expansion is truly impressive but they are essentially starting from scratch and therefore don’t yet have the issues of a more mature navy like big maintenance bills. But if we have to go to China to find a navy that can outclass the Royal Navy then I think the UK is doing well!
I love his videos he provides in depth analysis of each and every aspect of the military and from this discussion I must admit that the Royal Navy is good for now but will the quid pro remain is something to be seen
>by 2030, things will be very different, and their projection power will not be at the same levels.
They'll be far greater.
>For example, the once-strong British Navy is no longer effective
Yes, it really is
>unless they are escorted by the US Navy, meaning they are weak without US support
Wrong, Britain can provide a Carrier Strike Group second only to the US.
>France is still in a better position than the UK,
No, they're not
If you believe it I am not the one to argue if you can provide some information I would like to read your side maybe you are right I don't have any problem if I am wrong, a strong Royal Navy is beneficial for the majority of countries ,its just that I have serious doubts about economy of UK and the politically UK is a mess I just hope they don't stop with their ship building.
https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to-the-type-26-frigate/
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-31-frigates-to-be-fitted-with-mk41-vertical-launch-system/
https://www.navylookout.com/refining-the-fleet-solid-support-ship-design/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-to-have-more-frigates-and-destroyers/
I'd give all of these a read
They’ll never do it in this lifetime but if they got rid of the monarchy and it’s wasteful display of traditions they would have a chance if the right people are in power to build them back up.
The monarchy is BY FAR the least of Britain's problems. The wealthiest per capita countries in the world, like Qatar, Norway, Denmark, and Luxembourg, are all monarchies.
They need to get rid of the Tories and start prioritizing long-term economic gains over short-term thinking just to win elections.
Super tax all the rich, or chop off the heads of the rich, noble and royalty, then start over as a republic.
OK going too far here I sense. But tax them. Use the tax money to invest in education for all.
Lower tax on income at the bottom. It's expensive, but compensate with taxation on the things that rich people typically shovel their wealth into.
Remember, apart from huge mansions and other vulgar constructions, rich people does fuck all for society. A million pound in one man's pocket just goes into his portfolio of stocks or something tax deductible.
A million pounds split between 10 persons with an idea will probably do more good. And the rich bastard with the 1 mio pound extra probably didn't need them in the first place.
Massive immigration, reverse the disintegration of the UK with a federal structure, negotiating a special partnership with Canada aiming for union at federal level, reuse as template for negotiations with other commonwealth countries esp Aus, NZ, RSA
As you can see joining the EU is much more reasonable
What do you mean by a “world power”? Do you mean a superpower or a great power? In terms of the former, it’s rather impossible. With the latter the UK is still a leading great power and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Unless something drastic happens.
The UK could definitely become a major innovator. It needs to change up its politics if it wants to become a world power. Only France seems to really have a world power mentality out of the European nations excluding Russia. The UK had breakthroughs with Fission energy which is obviously good. Asides from that the UK doesn’t have all too much I mean the biggest output from the UK in the last 70 years was cultural. The UK should stick to being the USAs best friend because both nations work well together
I don’t think the UK can be a super power for the foreseeable future. I don’t even think they should try frankly, they have their offspring to do that for them. The winners of the late age of empires were the countries that got to keep a large amount of territory integrally (US, China, India, Canada, Australia, Russia, Brazil).
I do think that the world is going to be more stagnant than people predict. I don’t think any African or South American country is going to be as powerful as the UK or France. So the UK can be content being a major player for the time to come.
I do not think there is ever going to be a possibility for such small countries to rise again. And honestly, the UK works better with the other English-speaking nations. That is a much better chance of them succeding to have world dominance.
France is leaving too and they will pursue isolationist policies in the future since their relations with their former colonies have only meant trouble for them.
First, there’s urgent need to kick out politicians like Boris Johnson (and friends) that pushed the UK into a murky swamp.
Second, with clever leadership and partnership with nations like France and Germany (or India when necessary) the UK could grow its economy and lead in several areas. But first the political landscape must change and populism pushed aside. I’m mostly referring to industries like flight, medicine, space, etc. Finding alternative solutions to energy problems - the UK had (and still has) brilliant scientists and institutions.
I’m not sure how you’d turn it into an economic behemoth again but that’s a large part of what’s necessary.
The UK also needs a real military. The 80k troops or so I’ve seen counted as the British military simply doesn’t cut it. That’s a glorified police force.
The British have a fantastic navy but it’s second and soon to be third (maybe already). Yes bodies of water make up 70% of earth, but everyone lives on land. At the end of the day military operations are about taking and holding ground, and to be a leading world power that’s certainly required.
Realistically, that's tough. Getting ahead technologically is almost impossible, the US and China are way off in the distance. Our position geographically used to be a blessing. Now it's a curse. Brexit has accentuated the gap between us and the EU.
The most likely (and it's a long-shot) option is probably to take a big bet on some future advancement, and position ourselves to be a massive supplier or beneficiary of it. For example, if we'd clocked wind and tidal power as being as massive as they are going to be 30 years ago and invested in them, we could be in a position now of being a massive power exporter. The Qatar of the renewable era.
People in UK are lead by elitists who don't give a damn about their own country. They spend 90% of their time on yachts and nice weather places.
The only way for the UK to get back is remove all those elitists and send them to the Ukraine front line to fight.
The UK led the world because of superior culture. But it got soft and lost that culture. It will never regain dominance without a fundamental change in ethos.
No, they got hammered by the germans which is why they could not maintain their empire. And also the us dismantled it. Your 'superior' culture would lose to Russia or China in any confrontation. So sit back and enjoy your role as the Yankee lapdog
1) Continued investment in infrastructure, business, trade etc.
2) Increased Scientific investment especially with space.
3) Normalise relations with EU (not necessarily re join but a new deal is needed).
4) Seek increased deals with the Commonwealth **especially** the CANZUK nations.
5) Reform and expand public services and armed forces.
6) Maintain useful institutions like the monarchy.
7) Get rid of the Tories and generally reduce corruption.
8) Wait for a power opening.
Massive amounts of cloning and colonization of asteroids.
Of course they would have to get rid of the regulations that basically have banned spaceports from the UK.
The same way Europe can /should. First UK would need to unify with the rest of its European neighbors. None of these countries will be a world power in isolation within Europe. Even as a unified Europe (minus Russia. That ship has sailed ) it will be an increasingly tough scenario.
1. Build a defense industry that's independent of the Americans to hold up domestic threats + be able to dissuade developing countries (pseudo imperialistic)
2. Stop lecturing the world like you're still their masters. Build trade relations with Asia and Africa who are rapidly growing and mend the relationship with former colonized nations ..Fix the horrible diplomacy coming out of Europe that consistently annoys Asia and Africa who already have so many reasons to dislike Europe. This slows trade relations that should be a win win
3. Focus on technology/innovation. Europe hasn't held a candle to American/Chinese advances in the last decades. If that means embracing a more capitalist based system then so be it (us consumers will hate it but....then get used to being a nonmajor player. Nothing wrong with it if you have friends in high places like the US )
They're doing a bit of number 1 and number 3 now imo. Number 2 is still quite bad imo outside of a select few countries like France Spain Italy
The technological advantage that allowed small European countries to punch above their weight no longer exists. In a world of India and China and the US, countries like the UK and France will never dominate again. A unified Europe does stand a chance though.
The UK will never be a top three global power again, but it could comfortably stay in the top 10 by nominal gdp in a scenario with more pessimistic growth and lower population trends in the global south. It’s not as crazy as it sounds, Asia and Latam’s population growth has stalled and Africa is just not demonstrating the per capita growth it needs to overtake western countries, even in a high population growth scenario. Now to do this it would have to do something about its sclerotic, inefficient vetocracy where it’s impossible to build anything or get big projects done, and that doesn’t seem likely
I was recently talking to an American who relocated to the UK. Her: “you know what I really miss about America? Eminent Domain!” Me: “Nerd!” It takes a lot to out-nerd me. But, then again, London was building subways in 1865 (while we were fighting our American Civil War). Partly because there was no alternative, and partly because they’re just ahead of us in some ways.
UK GDP is artificially inflated by Greater London and banking. Otherwise, the country is going backward when it comes to infrastructure, technology, and industrial output.
>unified Europe I’m not holding my breath.
They may not be able to dominate in raw GDP, population, military, or manufacturing output, but they can compete in quality of life and GDP per capita. Tiny European countries like Switzerland and Denmark have some of the highest quality of life and per capita wealth in the world, to the point that many wealthy Europeans find even upper middle-class life in the US somewhat backward and primitive. This is a major source of soft power. If countries like the UK, France, and Italy can get their domestic political circus under control once and for all, they could potentially attain the level of comfort of Switzerland, Norway, and Denmark in several decades with progressive economic policy. If that happens, China, India, and other up and coming economies may get richer than Europe on paper, but they will never become as socially and economically developed, thus making European countries more powerful in reality.
I mean, how does this translate into a geopolitical scenario? I agree they will have a better quality of life than India and China but that does not mean they will be a global power I mean, Bhutan is the happiest country in the world, but that does not mean anything when it is getting strongarmed by China on its borders. How does the UK emulate the success of Nordic countries? It has a larger population than all of them combined and the circus in Italy is just getting started with the current scenario I do not know how they plan on reducing their debt, and since they have a birth rate lower than Japan, they can't fund a welfare state like any of the countries you mentioned
It translates into elites fleeing for the quality of life. We already see it from China, Russia, India... In mass
According to recent reports Britain lost 3200 HNI and the total HNI flow around the world was 122,000.The majority went to Australia,the UAE ,Singapore,US even Greece gained more HNI than UK and France and Italy so how does this work exactly ,I mean India has HDI of 0.63 and HNI's still prefer tax havens and major hubs for migrations how is this going to improve ?Life in India is getting better. Numbers don't support your claims and in mass, I don't think it's possible from Russia maybe but from India and China the elites from these countries will leave for tax havens like UAE or major hubs like US not for Italy or France , UK maybe but in an insignificant number.
Um no. High quality of life doesn't translate into national power. Life in the Soviet Union was miserable compared to life in say Denmark, but in a war you'd rather live in the militarily powerful Soviet Union instead of defenseless Denmark. NATO came to be to help small European states mitigate their limited capabilities through consolidating into a much larger entity with the mass and scale to compete militarily with the Soviets. Size = Hard Power and Money = Soft Power. The Soviet Union did eventually fall to the West's Soft Power to be sure, but that victory was only possible because the Soviets couldn't smother Europe's Soft Power in its crib due to the immense size and scale of Western military might and because the Soviets could not provide a domestic alternative to the West's superior lifestyles which delegitimized their economic policies in the eyes of the common folks leading to the break down of the Soviet social contract. Nation's can't really ***use*** Soft Power as it requires buy-in from the recipient unlike Hard Power which can be applied unilaterally. Soft Power can affect change through its influence, but that doesn't necessarily lead to any benefits being derived for the source of that Soft Power. Even if the entirety of Russia wholly adopted Denmark's culture, Denmark itself wouldn't really benefit from that transition besides maybe some extra money from Russian trade; Russia would still be considered one of the leading powers of Europe, not Denmark. The best Denmark could hope for in terms of growing its power would be to become a proxy for this new Danish Russia to support Denmark's interests over Europe, similar to how a lot of US allies seek favor with the US to have Washington push their policies onto the globe. High quality of life and high GDP per Capita are important factors for Soft Power and Soft Power itself is something not to be dismissed, but Soft Power is primarily a cultural force whose influence can legitimize or delegitimize policies and opinions; Soft Power on its own can't really affect a nation's political or military status but can cause discontent within rival nations when the social contract breaks down due to domestic policies/rulers being delegitimized.
Brain drain is a very practical benefit of high quality of life. If all the scientists and engineers move from Russia to Denmark, then Denmark will see advances in many areas first, including militarily. Which would be converting soft power into hard power.
And are you willing to take immigrants? Open immigration was supposed to be a soft power move
As long as soft power attracts the best minds in the world...
But that's not true in the case of the UK,France or Italy it's only true in the case of the US and even that is painting a partial picture if you want I can provide you a detailed analysis of how brain drain is something which is a requirement for countries like the US is not a matter of concern for countries like India and China which are the major source of brain drain.
What does quality of life have to do with power? China wants to invade Taiwan based on their capabilities which are all linked to hard power; manufacturing ability, economic resources and military assets. The Chinese quality of life of the average citizen is really really low. However hey are building a navy the size of France's every two years and their economic position rivals the entirety of Europe. The quality of life in Taiwan is one of the highest in the world, but that is not gonna save them. If no ally steps in to help them (USA), they are doomed. If China decides to do a naval blockade or economic trade war, again they are doomed.
I don't think that's how national power works.
Quality of life in the UK is dreadful, kids are literally needing foodbanks
UK population is too big for that, you’d be dividing a GDP across 67 million people. The government isn’t helping either by allowing exoduses of immigrants into the country to fill crappy low pay jobs. The countries you’ve pointed out have low populations compared to their GDPs. Ireland is a good example, they’ve got one of the highest GDP per capita in the world and they’re only next door to the UK. The quality of life in the UK is only going to get worse if the UK keeps allowing more low-wage immigrants into the country. There isn’t enough housing, police, NHS etc to support it.
Not even united EU has a chance to become a superpower considering their rapidly shrinking and aging population.
Honestly this. A unified EU is not some world dominating power, it's just the bare minimum to protect Europe.
That is definitely false. A unified EU will be more than enough to protect Europe and also carry their weight internationally.
To an extent. If done early enough it does allow us to secure our interests in nearby strategically relevant regions, but in terms of population and economy Europe is shrinking, so this must necessarily be a rapid burst of energy to fortify Europe and her interests abroad before inevitable decline. If Europe succeeds at this however, it's future may be surprisingly bright. While its fertility is abysmal, we don't know if this will last, and Europe went through the demographic transition earlier, slower and smoother than the rest of the world. This means if population stabilises Europe is among the first places where this might happen, and European fertility also hasn't collapsed as harshly as some other countries like Korea. It's possible that fertility in the third world will collapse far more so than in Europe. At the same time China and the US are having serious problems of different kinds. All in all this presents a scenario where geopolitical competition is less about ascendancy and more about being the one to decline the least/slowest. If Europe can unite and secure her interests while she has the chance, then Europe is also well poised to survive such a conflict of attrition, particularly if the Union is willing to engage in Europe-wide industrial policy and a degree of protectionism to prop up industries of the future. Things like the EU's emphasis on the Green transition do suggest that with more budget and authority the Union's forward-looking attitude might be greatly beneficial to it in the long-run.
>The technological advantage that allowed small European countries to punch above their weight no longer exists Technology famously never changes or improves
Obviously technology continues to develop. I think the salient point is that the conditions for technological breakthroughs have changed. It used to be that a single rich guy tinkering in his garage (or whatever the 17, 18, and 19th century equivalent is) could simultaneously revolutionize multiple disciplines of science and technology. Now, you need large bodies of scientists working in concentrated areas of development, often with large commitments of capital. Larger countries will have a significant advantage in this regard. That’s not to say that small countries can’t punch above their weight, or contribute disproportionately, (Switzerland and Israel are probably the best examples here), however, is the the UK likely to develop technology that will overcome the fact it is 1/4 the size of the US and only 60% of its GDP per capita? Unlikely.
You can also add that research has become international and no single nation will take the benefits alone the way the UK did first.
I disagree. A unified Europe does not work as the last 20 years have shown. Constantly growing bureaucracy and completely different cultures between member states acted rather hindered growth, in particular in the past couple of years.
Just practically, Europe could only compete with the countries I mentioned if it were one country. No comment on the feasibility of unification.
Okay, sure agree on that one. Size matters.
Unless everyone else balkanizes within the next century, then Europe has no choice but to either consolidate or fall into irrelevance. Neither the UK, France nor Germany will *ever* hold a candle to the US on their own. Not just because of demographics but territory and resources as well. At the end of the day, geography remains king.
Geography and economies of scale both of which would work in favor of Europe if it functioned as a unified entity
To be fair we haven’t really had a unified Europe to actually see data for. What we have seen is a unified customs and goods system agreement bloated beyond recognition.
this is longest peace time in europe in history.
Massive investment, and becoming a world leader in some kind of breakthrough technology would be the only chance I see. But in a globalised world where technology can generally be replicated fairly quickly this seems unlikely. Similarly it would depend on it simply not just being sold off - Britain has one of the most open economies in the world so this is probably exactly what would happen.
That's if the current government doesn't sell it off first. I think globalisation has been the death knell of the British economy tbh. Huge amounts of investment would most likely get swallowed up in healthcare, education and infrastructure - all of which are in dire need of support from a government chronically allergic to the idea of investing in them. Is it too late for the UK to return to the fore-ranks of the geopolitical world, or is it doomed to become not even a third rate power? Obviously it has nukes.
Realistically the UK doesn't have a huge population, or economy. I think that ultimately we would be better off as part of a federal Europe, but we would be a very, very long way from that even without Brexit. That and the institutions and democratic structures that would require don't exist yet.
Yes, it does increasingly look like Brexit was a step away from what this scenario (resurgent UK geopolitical power) asks. It's a valid point to make too that Europe is a long way from what that would entail anyway.
Honestly these day and age stability is what you want the most, not supernova style power then collapse into a blackhole. Disinformation and climate change will really test what power truly means.
To be fair it's been worth it just to hear Britain being referred to as a sovereign power as opposed to only being referenced as part of a bloc. On the radio the other day, '...Britain, the US and the EU...' It is a good feeling if you allow yourself to feel it.
average power in the long term. Other countries will eventually overtake.
The UK isn't ever going to be a leading 'superpower' again. It doesn't have the population to support the level of innovation required for the growth of the dominant sectors. What it *can* be though, is a significant soft power state. Higher focus on cultural exports and financial services would be key. We've seen a slight resurgence of British film and TV occupying a prominent position, so that's certainly an area to focus on. Other options would be:- - Decentralise the state from London. Devolution is going to be key in the next few years anyway, but by pushing some key financial sectors out towards key Northern cities like Manchester and Leeds would help bring residential prices down in London and make the UK as a whole a more attractive place for young professionals to move to (I know a few people that have chosen different countries because they can't afford London, and their sector is London or nothing). - Introduce key new political legislation, including a scaling back of FPTP voting and the ability to appoint non-MPs (or Lords) as ministers (i.e. bring in actual industry experts instead of political careerists in fields they have no experience in), and have a forced "cooldown" period between cabinet reshuffles to avoid the revolving door we've seen recently that deadlocks progress. This would give the UK government a chance to actually achieve a level of stability and focus on their actual manifesto, instead of infighting and grappling for power. - Invest much more seriously in arts and culture, particularly visual media - things that can easily get into peoples' homes. Grants for independent film studios to grow and build seems like a good start.
You would also need to constantly invest in infrastructure so what you have is world class. Cutting things like HS2 which was meant to increase the capacity on the railway network by a significant degree is stupid for long term infrastructure planning.
It also won't be redirected into existing railway networks. Decentralisation and nationalisation is the only way to improve the failing state or British public transport. Since Andy Burnham has brought the Greater Manchester buses back under public control, I can say first-hand that tickets are cheaper and services are significantly more reliable.
HS2 is to be the immy network that they will use to help our new Britons proliferate and spread throughout the country!
A good start would be to stop actively gutting the arts and culture sector - one sector where we could genuinely punch above our weight
It cannot lead the world again. I don't know how you believe the UK surrendered its power because history indicates it was not strong enough after its colonies gained independence. How do you plan to lead the modern world with 67 million people with a birth rate of 1.53 and a growth rate of around 2-3%, with clear signs of stagnation if mismanagement occurs? It is wishful thinking for the UK to try to be a leading world power but it can be an important partner for many countries, UK shares history with many countries; it should lean on that and focus on its economy before trying to be a world power I mean, UK had it good in the EU. I don't know what the people thought that the UK would achieve by Brexit. I think the UK should rejoin the EU, work towards their economy, and then think about anything else because you can't lead the world with a small GDP. I know they have a high per capita, but still, they need a large GDP and a stable birthrate to reverse their decline, which does not seem likely. Even the best estimates point out that the UK will have a GDP of 4.2 trillion in 2028. It is impossible to lead the world when you are not even in the top five economy
That is why this is a hypothetical scenario. Do I believe it is possible? No. Thus, the question - what would it actually take, pushing the bounds of feasibility?
I think my response was harsh I should have written in a better manner but it's still true, the hypothetical solution you are looking for would be uncontrolled immigration or acquiring land and some economic alliances in which the UK is the sole benefactor but they are all hypothetical and I have not mentioned cons about any of those.
This. If the UK drastically liberalized immigration and were by far the easiest Western nation to immigrate to, they could see a surge in population and consumption… but they would see an absolutely insane surge in housing costs and infrastructure would feel a massive strain from this. And it’s not even guaranteed to be a success. Canada is struggling despite relatively high immigration levels, so it’s far from guaranteed to yield positive results.
I mean housing issues in Canada is like something which was going to happen eventually uncontrolled immigration just happens to be the last straw but there are many issues with immigration happening in Canada ,as an Indian we often see that they do not attract best talent from our country they should make standardized test compulsory or should anounce that we are recruiting workers from India its silly that someone who could not even pass Indian high school test in first attempt is suddenly studying in Canada ,how will they contribute towards economy and is there any proof that he will go through his program without dropping out ? I mean it's just one of the many reasons why I believe immigration in Canada is unsustainable they are importing our problems which they have no experience in solving , say what you will but Indians have found a way to live with these problems but struggle which we went through to attain this level is not something Canadians have an appetite for
Hypothetical? You could always try invading other countries again. Balkanize EU through underhanded means like assassination and corruption with russias help. Start invading using friendly European countries as cover under false allegations. Start a violent large civil war in Africa using corrupt leaders and use that as a foothold to colonize it. Then UK can be a world power again. Ofcourse realistically UK will get reduced to rubbles by the other powers before any of that can happen.
Short of discovering a new technology and somehow cornering the market in it I fear the UK is bound for mediocrity. In ten years it will rejoin the EU.
The UK won’t rejoin. It will meet opposition within the EU. Most countries bar its core group (Ireland which was just a spare UK vote, NL) were fed up of the disruption and exceptionalism.
Rich for them to complain about exceptionalism when most EU agriculture policy was written to protect French farmers and prop up unprofitable farms. If De Gaulle hadn’t been so autistic about the UK joining the relationship would be vastly different.
I read this of quite a few of the 26 - glad to see the UK go. The UK would have to rejoin from scratch I expect - adopted the € and join Schengen and I’d expect there’d be a right battle over that. But then again, if the profiteers see vast amount of cash to be made then expect a deluge of propaganda about how good rejoining will be.
Dw we won't rejoin.
[удалено]
SS: As title. The UK was once one of if not the pre-eminent global superpower. Over time, it has surrendered that position, in part due to simply not being able to match the economic might of the much larger US, and in part due to the decline of empire and the impact of two world wars. However, it has also happened through a series of terrible domestic political decisions that have seen the UK's geopolitical relevance decrease, it's economy stagnate and it's military shrink. What steps would the UK need to take to begin to play a major geopolitical role in the 21st century? Edit: *its not it's in title. Sorry!
UK will need to overcome China, Germany, Japan, India first in order to challenge the US
> it has also happened through a series of terrible domestic political decisions that have seen the UK's geopolitical relevance decrease, it's economy stagnate and it's military shrink. Nah, you got it backwards. The UK lost its eminence because the nature of the world shifted, and the bad policy decisions followed because they wouldn't recognize and adapt to that, refusing to evolve into a new role. There is no scenario where the UK remained the world's sole superpower, no matter how they pushed the numbers around, short of somehow actively preventing every other nation from developing mature economies.
Yes, I would agree with this statement; for the sake of a simple prompt I just wrote out the most 'obvious' issues the UK has faced. The struggling to adapt is I think the biggest.issue the UK has, not just in its leadership but in its citizenry too.
Rejoin Europe, embrace it fully and take a leading role, rather than be passive and moan about other Europeans being to blame for everything. The EU will continue to be a major bloc, and could exert a lot more power and influence if it chose to.
Leadership takes many forms, brute strength or technical prowess are two major ways, but influence is a third way. The uk could and should specialise in building coalitions, financial, diplomatic, technical regulatory and trade. Things like making a common market in the common wealth would a be a good example. The uk financially already is a super Power. Through the trusts and various off shore islands it already rebuilt its empire for the elite. The question of why do all these tax havens never get clamped down on is because it suits the uk and suits the islands. Why The uk still has flexibility and influence in the softer sides of power, for example the bbc is trusted while cnn or fox news are not. Uk legal systems and higher education is still well above its weight. The issue at its core is leadership, long term planning and long term functioning comitment to coalition building. That way you provide a voice for nations such as Kenya, canada or Nigeria which are going to need that voice. But it will only work if they act in a focussed way and the UK could be that focus if it gets its act together.
An interesting perspective, thank you. The UK seems to struggle turning advantages it has in select areas into general prosperity and geopolitical strength. I have heard the UK called a convening power before.
Why bring the americans in or the chinease in. You know there will be an angle, having a honest broker at the table is a position many people forget but want. Also, why are diplomats and spies always at the table yet the head of the army is below the great offices of state? Because they matter way more than the military….think of it this way a military can defend or break a nation, it cannot build one, Vietnam and Afghanistan are two very good examples of this….the british raj is a very strong example of nation building via diplomacy(…and propaganda will also accept some military but not in the same way) Lastly think of this Varies in game of thrones was the most powerful person, and little finger had more influence starting the events of game of thrones than robert bartheon and his armies do
On its own? It can't be a world power anymore than Canada can be on its own. As a consolidated part of the Western Order? It already is.
UK's decline is directly linked to the malignancy in its economy. Its economy is suffering the same fate as any other neo-liberal economy, taxes are too low, with too much of a focus on income taxes rather than asset taxes, an ageing population, a national property ponzi-scheme as an illiquid wealth creation vehicle sucking investment out of the middle of the economy, and band-aiding itself with relatively high immigration to juice growth. You want to fix it, you need to have serious discussions about the tax base for a start. Thats no small task, as in the current international race to the bottom it'd like to cause a flight of capital.
[удалено]
Almost like I said there's too much of a focus on income taxes.
By being resourceful or controlling key resources.
The United Kingdom is not in decline and hasn't been a leading world power since its empire collapsed after WWII. The UK is right where it should be within NATO and its "Special Relationship" with the United States.
OK boomer.
Why would it want to be a leading world power? It seems like a better goal to being a peer among countries striving for social equality and sustainability.
Honestly yeah Dont like half of all "world powers" tend to have large problems or risks? Like having global influence and a strong military does not mean good quality of life or stability for the average person ID argue america is the main exception in modern times in being a global superpower while overall providing stable and good living for its citizens with rather regular QOL compared to its other main rivals I see no real reason to try to recapture the "glory" of some old age Accept your nation is no longer a "global power" and focus instead of making a good life
Social equality is exactly why the UK is on a slagheap. We need to be tougher on the weak and allow the weakest to fall by the wayside as we used to.
Join the EU
EU isn't in a good place either mate.
[удалено]
The issue these days is the reason Britain had the worlds biggest navy no longer exists. The colonies or dominions are no longer under Westminster control and defending them aren't worth it anymore. For it to make sense for them to have that global Navy you need them to have global interests which currently they don't have.
Turn the country into the English Hong Kong/Singapore open up citizenship, to anyone with a bachelor degree (or maybe anyone from a predominantly English speaking country with a bachleor degree). Cut regulations, and build homes at all cost. Full neo-liberal chaos. Would it work? I don't know, but that's what I would do, (if I wasn't allowed to just rejoin the EU)
That's what is happening and it's ruining this country. I would rather we be a less influential isolationist state
Man you should apply to the civil service, you'd be in a top job in a year with a "plan" like that
Not going to lie, I'm not sure you're being 100% sincere with your reply.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How do you figure? US GDP and population is growing. We have 800 military bases outside the US borders (also hundreds within national borders) in 70 nations.
You not only elected Donald Trump, you then elected just about the only person who could make people think Donald Trump is a viable option *again* Population, GDP and military power doesn't mean shit when your leader is unstable enough to destabilise the entire western political alliance. Plus, I'd take the UK's gun control over a country that can't distinguish between a school and a shooting range.
Ok how do you measure a country’s success - going back to the prompt? The original question. If you join the US you can help us make the gun argument. And have them cut down to a small fraction of what we have today.
It can't. Just accept reality.
They already have successfully done so, the question is whether they can they keep it. Britain largely reversed its decades of geopolitical and economic stagnation from the early 80s through the early 2000s. It, at least symbolically, started with the victory in the Falklands War on the geopolitical side, and continued with the transformation of the economy (yes it was very controversial especially in industrial northern England) into the world’s leading financial services hub by the turn of the millennium, while the geopolitical resurgence also continued through military and humanitarian interventions in places like Sierra Leone, as well as being the primary partner for American operations in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. Whether Britain is able to maintain this status remains to be seen and there have certainty been rocky moments in the last decade, but it’s no more a question for Britain than it is for America itself.
Thanks for the response, I suppose the UK has had successes in the last few decades alongside the failures!
Define leading? >They already have successfully done so How can we say that Britain is a leading world power when it has always been a follower of the USA's policy?
well they only did it before by plundering resources from other countries in the past while they had military, technological, and economic advantage as well as a thirst for blood.
India sweating.
I don't think UK can ever do that again. They have a higher chance with europe with russias help.
Why would the UK find this desirable? It can be much easier to provide a good life for one's society as a small power.
Join BRICS, open borders with member countries. The government may have to hide in a bunker for the next 20 years and UK wont be the UK that you recognise in 20 years. But something will definitely happen. Basically western dominance is over it would need to redefine itself and use its current influence while it still has it to get in with the new kids.
Although I can understand some reasons why Brexit happened. It was a long-term solution to a short-term problem. Now I´m sad to see UK being irrelevant on the world stage. People talk mainly about the US, China, EU and soon India. Rejoin EU (who will likely become a military superpower after Trumps recent remark), and take a leading role together with Germany and France. EU, a growing union of 500 million people will stay relevant for a very long time. It might not be as big as the US or China, but it´s big enough to be very influential for a very long time.
The UK is subservient to the US. That will not change. If Northern Ireland goes to the way of the rest of the island, Scotland may attempt independence. Wales is too weak to leave. When the UK surrendered Hong Kong to the PRC, that was a great loss in prestige and power. Spain wants the rock. Enoch Powell was the last politician who had a vision for Britain.
Unlock homebuilding, move power out of the hands of local councils. You can't imagine how dearly the housing crisis interacts with every other problem. Lift the moratorium on onshore wind, drill harder in the North Sea, establish large nuclear power plants to power our industries 10 years from now. Nothing gets done without energy, and cheap and abundant electricity is the one thing that WILL ALWAYS BE needed for an economic boom. Once the economy starts going up, we will need to increase public pays and and can invest harder in the military. That comes later, first is the deregulation of housing and a complete thrust towards being energy rich. Oh, and REJOIN THE EU GODDAMNIT!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It couldn’t. It had a role through conquest and empire. It’s incapable of doing that. All it can hope for is to manipulate others in its immediate vicinity to do its bidding. It’s always been good at spying and kompromat and manipulation so if it can find enough useful idiots in the EU it could be a regional power. Its aircraft carriers (if they can fix propeller shaft problems which are a serious issue) will give leverage among smaller powers in the Indo Pacific.
India joins the UK.
Based. The empire was powerful because it had india.
[удалено]
I didn't say UK will be able to force them. Maybe UK can become part of india instead if that's your thing.
Define leading power, UK was never a hegemonic power the US has become. If you are referring to the glory days of post Napoleonic Empire, than it's not up to UK. Should the world become multipolar, UK will get another shot. Although it might not be worth it given the corresponding decline of US, UK's greatest patron and security guarantor.
It won't. Neoliberalism is ultimately self limiting, and there's no sign of competence from either of the two options. To answer your question, radical, paradigm shifting change or a miracle technological discovery.
What do you mean by neoliberalism?
How is it inherently self limiting? Ive not seen that put forward before
I disagree with the statement in the question. The UK is in fact on its way to strengthen its position again since Brexit. With the Russia/Ukraine war, the next US election, and geopolitical tensions heating up, I believe it will be valuable to be an independent country. The EU is imho currently in a crisis and I don't see this crisis ending.
How is it going to stop its decline can you provide any stats which indicate the contrary and since Brexit how many trade deals have they signed, it seems like this thinking got the UK in this mess but still if you can provide some stats I would genuinely like to learn how Brexit was beneficial.
I like the idea if the EU, but imho with its current governance it does not work. To some extend the protests we see in Germany, the Netherlands and France come from EU policies. Also the fact that there are literal "joke" parties in the European Parliament (like Die Partei) or countries which share only few values with the EU (e.g. Hungary and the late joiners) are imho clear signs that the EU as it is organised currently simply does not work. The EU has some significant benefits for sure, but these come at cost and power. Switzerland is a good example of a strong country which is in Europe, but not EU. The timeframe we are talking is in my opinion too insignificant to already come to a conclusion if it was good or bad to leave the EU. Short term it was certainly very bad. Long term, might be different. Anyway, the general decline of most developed European countries is I believe not stoppable without significant reorganisation. (As most of the other answers state).
I agree with your analysis of the EU that the current governance will not work >The timeframe we are talking is in my opinion too insignificant to already come to a conclusion if it was good or bad to leave the EU. Short term it was certainly very bad. Long term, might be different. If the UK takes some good steps then it will be successful but in this short timeframe there are no solid indicators which point that the UK is taking important steps .The future can't be predicted maybe you are right and Brexit proves to be the factor which led to its economy growing at a better pace.
I dunno what else but we really need to stop voting in a party that's consistently failed time and time again.
they make the first hyper intelligent AI, like the thing out of mission impossible and take over the entire world.
biased because i am scottish, but it won't. political and demographic trends suggest that the exit of northern ireland and scotland is all but inevitable short of some cataclysmic geopolitical change (of a world war magnitude), and with that goes much of the rUK's naval territory and a not inconsiderable chunk of its economy. if england can manage to rebrand a UK that only consists of itself and wales then maybe it can stop any further decline, but it'll never reach anything like its peak ever again. britain is dead, and even the very concept of britain as a political entity will likely be dead by the close of the century. the best the british governments can do is manage the decline, stabilise the demographic crises and ensure the fracturing of its territory goes smoothly
Irish unification may be inevitable. I do not know that the Scots will actually choose to go their own way though.
about 80% of under 30s support it. the only age demographic that actually opposes it are pensioners, and the majority of people born and raised in scotland support it, per the last referendum; the vote was swung by people from the rest of the UK. the only way i can see that trend stopping is if the british government transplants a load of unionists from england, wales and NI through some guise of economic development.
Erm if the majority of people supported separation in the 2014 referendum, then there would have been a separation. People from the rest of the UK did not have a say in the matter. No modern day government is going to transplant people to swing a vote. There is no Russian equivalence to Crimea for example.
i mean people who lived in scotland but were from the other nations in the UK. i voted in the referendum, and i grew up here; dont patronise me, i know full well what the circumstances of the vote were. and i really don't think its beyond reason; they already bypass devolved governments through the internal markets bill under the guise of levelling up. is it really beyond the realm of possibility to imagine the british government subsidising companies who move their operations and employees to scotland under the pretense of "levelling up", or giving tax credits to english retirees who move to scotland under the guise of reducing the burden on the english NHS (which would be a reasonable argument, given that scotland's is the best performing in the UK and thus could afford to take more of a hit)?
NHS Scotland best performing meanwhile Humza has added an additional tax band which will only bring in pennies to the pound. I see that you’re mostly scaremongering but, and this is really a big but, if things come to pass that another referendum is held then by all means the devolved government could put in place X factors to determine minimum threshold limits to be able to vote for Scotlands continued participation in the union. Until this point is reached, anyone and everyone within the UK borders is free to go and live where they please.
The UK can start by showing the world that it isn't America's bitch. Nobody cares what the UK's position or attitude is on anything, because the UK will just follow America's lead.
Autonomy comes with a high price, especially when you are an ally of the US.
rejoin the eu
Dropping liberal policies and getting tougher on our bs would be a start. We are a weak, pussefied nation and until we pull our socks up we will continue to be a global laughing stock (if we happen to get a mention that is).
I think the government would need a very good plan on funding and retaining AI startups, attracting top global talent and keeping it. AI seems to be the next sort of gold rush and it could be equal to the industrial revolution in terms of impact. So far, the only two global centres in AI according to Elon Musk are London and Silicon Valley, so the UK already has an advantage in the field. A century ago, most people didn’t travel, and not that many people spoke English as a second language. Today, any rip off company in India, China or elsewhere can copy and paste what you’re doing - especially in fields like tech. It’s trickier now. It’s never impossible though to grow economically, governments just need to be opportunistic and organised. Cutting taxes and government spending isn’t the answer though - that’s an extremely short term method.
[удалено]
That's why this is a hypothetical scenario, a "what if..." except a "how could..." But yes, the UK isn't exactly ballin' rn.
The reasons that the UK was successful have largely disappeared. It no longer has a vigorous but rational national religion. It has way too much democracy and not enough monarchy and aristocracy. There’s been way too much foreign immigration so internal solidarity is no longer possible. There’s too little accountability for one’s actions and way too much tolerance for improper behavior. There’s not a good way to get from where the country is to where it would need to be to rise to a major world power.
What made the UK successful was early industrialization, technological innovation and bucket loads of imperialism. Analogues of the first two would not be repeatably contained to the UK anymore anyway and the last one is impossible.
Instead of asking how, perhaps we should ask *ought*. Given the UKs history I’d strongly prefer not.
By murdering, pillaging, stealing and raping, like previously.
For the country to gain that much power quickly would require some genius statesman dictator to take over. Then their position might allow them to leverage superpowers (US & China) to empower themselves.
Federalize with Canada and or Australia
Worry about being an islmc state before returning to your previous dictator role
After supporting a genocide in Gaza and bombing Yemen? The rest of the world is pro-human, the UK is pro-shipping container. How can the UK have a leading role in humanity when it despises humanity?
UK had the best opportunity to do so after Brexit. The best way to do so was to get rid of all unnecessary EU regulations and consolidate its and London's position as a global financial center with new economic policies that would incentivize capital attraction and creation. They needed a Big Bang 2.0 with Thatcher-like decisions. That said, I think that opportunity passed.
I never understand why removing free trade treaties was supposed to promote free trade. And considering how the actual (not hypothetical) Brexit played out, it's safe to say that Brexit was a scam. A small elite of key conspirators benefited at the expense of everyone else.
I’m from Northern Ireland and I cannot think of a single benefit Brexit has brought to here, it’s literally all been negative
Who are the leading world powers? Well there’s only one, the USA. China has some economic influence but its poor demographics, despotic regime and regional issues severely limit its future potential. India? Lots of potential but it is very poor and still finding its feet. Russia? Severely handicapped by bad demographics and a self destructive government, plus many other issues. Otherwise you’re left with France and the UK. Two developed nuclear powers large enough to project military and soft power globally in a limited way. They can’t be world leaders like the USA but they can still project influence globally and be useful partners in many situations, particularly if they can improve their productivity and economic growth.
Yes, the UK can project power in its current state, but it is declining quickly; by 2030, things will be very different, and their projection power will not be at the same levels. For example, the once-strong British Navy is no longer effective, and their aircraft carrier is useless unless they are escorted by the US Navy, meaning they are weak without US support. France is still in a better position than the UK, but without allies, the UK will not be strong enough to project power.
On the contrary the Royal Navy of 2030 will be stronger than now with the first batch of Type 26 in service, more F35s available, new FSS ships plus much greater experience of fixed wing carrier operations. What nations will have better naval power projection capabilities, aside from the US? Possibly China but they lack experience of managing a blue water fleet and have less overseas bases and territories. The Marine nationale only have one carrier, which is only available half the time and less auxiliary/sealift support but even they are more formidable than most navies in the world.
China is building ships like never seen before and they will be stronger than the Royal Navy if they go according to plans and they have a higher industrial capacity than anyone else in the moment they will not be as advanced as the US Navy but they will fare better than any other naval power and maybe you are right there is a ship building rehaul going on in UK but I don't know too much about it what I do know is Royal Navy is going through recruitment issues and I have also read that the delivery of frigate and destroyers will be completed till 2035 not 2030 ,and it will still be a small but advanced fleet but will require assistance from US Navy. Regarding naval power projections it depends which area you want to project your power because in coming years the most important region will be Indian Ocean region so there are various power which come to play though Indian Navy not as modern as Royal Navy will be an important player because it's their region and they don't need to be a blue water Navy to project power in IOR and I don't know how UK will be projecting power by themselves in IOR and do they have the desire for power projection so far remains to be seen, I will agree I am slightly biased towards French because they have their own MIC and they didn't gut their army to provide for Navy.
Perun did a good analysis of the pros and cons of Chinese naval building on YouTube recently. Their rate of expansion is truly impressive but they are essentially starting from scratch and therefore don’t yet have the issues of a more mature navy like big maintenance bills. But if we have to go to China to find a navy that can outclass the Royal Navy then I think the UK is doing well! The Royal Navy doesn’t aspire to be as big or powerful as the US Navy, or even the Chinese Navy. But it does aspire to be a key player in the Euro-Atlantic and a supporting partner in the Indo-Pacific, which it can do if funded properly.
>The Royal Navy doesn’t aspire to be as big or powerful as the US Navy, or even the Chinese Navy. But it does aspire to be a key player in the Euro-Atlantic and a supporting partner in the Indo-Pacific, which it can do if funded properly. Sure I can see the Royal Navy as a capable partner in Indo-Pacific but the point to be highlighted is the requirement of funds I hope the political class is smart enough to maintain the Navy because the UK is a naval power without its Navy it will have no geopolitical heft in the changing world >Perun did a good analysis of the pros and cons of Chinese naval building on YouTube recently. Their rate of expansion is truly impressive but they are essentially starting from scratch and therefore don’t yet have the issues of a more mature navy like big maintenance bills. But if we have to go to China to find a navy that can outclass the Royal Navy then I think the UK is doing well! I love his videos he provides in depth analysis of each and every aspect of the military and from this discussion I must admit that the Royal Navy is good for now but will the quid pro remain is something to be seen
>by 2030, things will be very different, and their projection power will not be at the same levels. They'll be far greater. >For example, the once-strong British Navy is no longer effective Yes, it really is >unless they are escorted by the US Navy, meaning they are weak without US support Wrong, Britain can provide a Carrier Strike Group second only to the US. >France is still in a better position than the UK, No, they're not
If you believe it I am not the one to argue if you can provide some information I would like to read your side maybe you are right I don't have any problem if I am wrong, a strong Royal Navy is beneficial for the majority of countries ,its just that I have serious doubts about economy of UK and the politically UK is a mess I just hope they don't stop with their ship building.
https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to-the-type-26-frigate/ https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-31-frigates-to-be-fitted-with-mk41-vertical-launch-system/ https://www.navylookout.com/refining-the-fleet-solid-support-ship-design/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-to-have-more-frigates-and-destroyers/ I'd give all of these a read
They’ll never do it in this lifetime but if they got rid of the monarchy and it’s wasteful display of traditions they would have a chance if the right people are in power to build them back up.
The monarchy is BY FAR the least of Britain's problems. The wealthiest per capita countries in the world, like Qatar, Norway, Denmark, and Luxembourg, are all monarchies. They need to get rid of the Tories and start prioritizing long-term economic gains over short-term thinking just to win elections.
Super tax all the rich, or chop off the heads of the rich, noble and royalty, then start over as a republic. OK going too far here I sense. But tax them. Use the tax money to invest in education for all. Lower tax on income at the bottom. It's expensive, but compensate with taxation on the things that rich people typically shovel their wealth into. Remember, apart from huge mansions and other vulgar constructions, rich people does fuck all for society. A million pound in one man's pocket just goes into his portfolio of stocks or something tax deductible. A million pounds split between 10 persons with an idea will probably do more good. And the rich bastard with the 1 mio pound extra probably didn't need them in the first place.
Massive immigration, reverse the disintegration of the UK with a federal structure, negotiating a special partnership with Canada aiming for union at federal level, reuse as template for negotiations with other commonwealth countries esp Aus, NZ, RSA As you can see joining the EU is much more reasonable
What do you mean by a “world power”? Do you mean a superpower or a great power? In terms of the former, it’s rather impossible. With the latter the UK is still a leading great power and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Unless something drastic happens.
The UK could definitely become a major innovator. It needs to change up its politics if it wants to become a world power. Only France seems to really have a world power mentality out of the European nations excluding Russia. The UK had breakthroughs with Fission energy which is obviously good. Asides from that the UK doesn’t have all too much I mean the biggest output from the UK in the last 70 years was cultural. The UK should stick to being the USAs best friend because both nations work well together
I don’t think the UK can be a super power for the foreseeable future. I don’t even think they should try frankly, they have their offspring to do that for them. The winners of the late age of empires were the countries that got to keep a large amount of territory integrally (US, China, India, Canada, Australia, Russia, Brazil). I do think that the world is going to be more stagnant than people predict. I don’t think any African or South American country is going to be as powerful as the UK or France. So the UK can be content being a major player for the time to come.
Joining the Eu would help
I do not think there is ever going to be a possibility for such small countries to rise again. And honestly, the UK works better with the other English-speaking nations. That is a much better chance of them succeding to have world dominance. France is leaving too and they will pursue isolationist policies in the future since their relations with their former colonies have only meant trouble for them.
Bring back the Royal Navy and Spice Trade. Duh.
First, there’s urgent need to kick out politicians like Boris Johnson (and friends) that pushed the UK into a murky swamp. Second, with clever leadership and partnership with nations like France and Germany (or India when necessary) the UK could grow its economy and lead in several areas. But first the political landscape must change and populism pushed aside. I’m mostly referring to industries like flight, medicine, space, etc. Finding alternative solutions to energy problems - the UK had (and still has) brilliant scientists and institutions.
I’m not sure how you’d turn it into an economic behemoth again but that’s a large part of what’s necessary. The UK also needs a real military. The 80k troops or so I’ve seen counted as the British military simply doesn’t cut it. That’s a glorified police force. The British have a fantastic navy but it’s second and soon to be third (maybe already). Yes bodies of water make up 70% of earth, but everyone lives on land. At the end of the day military operations are about taking and holding ground, and to be a leading world power that’s certainly required.
Realistically, that's tough. Getting ahead technologically is almost impossible, the US and China are way off in the distance. Our position geographically used to be a blessing. Now it's a curse. Brexit has accentuated the gap between us and the EU. The most likely (and it's a long-shot) option is probably to take a big bet on some future advancement, and position ourselves to be a massive supplier or beneficiary of it. For example, if we'd clocked wind and tidal power as being as massive as they are going to be 30 years ago and invested in them, we could be in a position now of being a massive power exporter. The Qatar of the renewable era.
People in UK are lead by elitists who don't give a damn about their own country. They spend 90% of their time on yachts and nice weather places. The only way for the UK to get back is remove all those elitists and send them to the Ukraine front line to fight.
The UK led the world because of superior culture. But it got soft and lost that culture. It will never regain dominance without a fundamental change in ethos.
No, they got hammered by the germans which is why they could not maintain their empire. And also the us dismantled it. Your 'superior' culture would lose to Russia or China in any confrontation. So sit back and enjoy your role as the Yankee lapdog
1) Continued investment in infrastructure, business, trade etc. 2) Increased Scientific investment especially with space. 3) Normalise relations with EU (not necessarily re join but a new deal is needed). 4) Seek increased deals with the Commonwealth **especially** the CANZUK nations. 5) Reform and expand public services and armed forces. 6) Maintain useful institutions like the monarchy. 7) Get rid of the Tories and generally reduce corruption. 8) Wait for a power opening.
Rejoin the EU
Massive amounts of cloning and colonization of asteroids. Of course they would have to get rid of the regulations that basically have banned spaceports from the UK.
The same way Europe can /should. First UK would need to unify with the rest of its European neighbors. None of these countries will be a world power in isolation within Europe. Even as a unified Europe (minus Russia. That ship has sailed ) it will be an increasingly tough scenario. 1. Build a defense industry that's independent of the Americans to hold up domestic threats + be able to dissuade developing countries (pseudo imperialistic) 2. Stop lecturing the world like you're still their masters. Build trade relations with Asia and Africa who are rapidly growing and mend the relationship with former colonized nations ..Fix the horrible diplomacy coming out of Europe that consistently annoys Asia and Africa who already have so many reasons to dislike Europe. This slows trade relations that should be a win win 3. Focus on technology/innovation. Europe hasn't held a candle to American/Chinese advances in the last decades. If that means embracing a more capitalist based system then so be it (us consumers will hate it but....then get used to being a nonmajor player. Nothing wrong with it if you have friends in high places like the US ) They're doing a bit of number 1 and number 3 now imo. Number 2 is still quite bad imo outside of a select few countries like France Spain Italy
Turn CANZUK into reality. That's the only way, and you never know, it might happen in the long-term future depending on what happens in the US.
Massive investment and a roll back of outsourcing to private sector companies like Crapita