NationStates Jolt Archive

I wonder if it is possible for Britain to re-emerge as the world's dominant power again sometime in the 21st century? What do others think?

hahahahahaha

I doubt Britian has any territorial aspirations in mind, which are what you sorta need to be an Empire.

I would love that, however I feel it is just as unlikely as the US getting an empire.

Not a fucking chance!

Not a f--- chance!

We could but it would probably be as part of the United States of Europe

An empire can be economic, land-based or even a combination of both. The USA is an economic empire, so with this understanding, could British rise up to control global industry? (thereby making the UK an economic empire).

No, more becuase we've been there bought the T shirt and had enough of it.
It's alot of hard work and cost you the lives of your men (something the US are now finding out).
Empires are now more about technology than land, the UK has enough interests around the world to be happy with, so why expand. The US on the other hand is still going through that period of expansion, trying to get a toe in here and there.

So again no, but when we did we had the nerve to do the nasty stuff you have to do to keep and empire. I don't think that will exists anywhere in the civilized world anymore (thank God).

Technically we already have an economic dominance over many nations, and political influnence through the Commonwealth

England is an island with limited natural resources and a socialist economy. It would be very unlikely that it would come to dominant the world markets like China or the US have.

England is an island with limited natural resources and a socialist economy. It would be very unlikely that it would come to dominant the world markets like China or the US have.

Socialist economy!?

Not yet, we have a very right wing economy compared to some of Europe, although I admit it is unlikely we would gain dominance through resources, but we could gain a large amount of power through our tertiary industry (Lloyds etc)

England is an island with limited natural resources and a socialist economy. It would be very unlikely that it would come to dominant the world markets like China or the US have.

Understandable about US supremacy, but China has very limited resources (imports most of its raw materials) and is pseudo-communist. So how do we explain that?

But still, is it simply a case that British industry lacks the capital to expand? And as for political influence in the Commonwealth, what kind of influence is being referred to here?

The influence we have through connections with other nations within it, and it giving us our ability to propogate our own political ideals such as democracy.

China has a lot of the most valuable resource, slave labor. Forcing people to work in sweatshops and total totalitarian control can compensate for lack of a capitalist system. The core benefit of capitalism is that it inspires people to work, since work is correlated with pay and success. The Chinese simply replace the incentive of pay with the incentive of not being shot.

i love the way people in the US say the UK is socialist. If you plant a flag way to the right and call it the centre then I suppose there is alot of others who must be socialist or comunist.
The UK may be a little left of centre (but not far) you want to take your US polarity glasses off mate.

China has a lot of the most valuable resource, slave labor. Forcing people to work in sweatshops and total totalitarian control can compensate for lack of a capitalist system. The core benefit of capitalism is that it inspires people to work, since work is correlated with pay and success. The Chinese simply replace the incentive of pay with the incentive of not being shot.

Unfortunately for them I doubt it will continue. The Chinese economy is inflated I believe, but I remember reading that even if it collapses we willn get the benifits for a long while

The influence we have through connections with other nations within it, and it giving us our ability to propogate our own political ideals such as democracy.

That really didn't work with Zimbabwe did it.

Not a f--- chance!

We could but it would probably be as part of the United States of EuropeThe EU or any future effort to unite Europe will end te same way that all past attempts to unite Europe have.

The influence we have through connections with other nations within it, and it giving us our ability to propogate our own political ideals such as democracy.

That really didn't work with Zimbabwe did it.

No, but they got thrown out and so no longer get the benifits of the commonwealth which should serve as a warning.

China has a lot of the most valuable resource, slave labor. Forcing people to work in sweatshops and total totalitarian control can compensate for lack of a capitalist system. The core benefit of capitalism is that it inspires people to work, since work is correlated with pay and success. The Chinese simply replace the incentive of pay with the incentive of not being shot.

Unfortunately for them I doubt it will continue. The Chinese economy is inflated I believe, but I remember reading that even if it collapses we willn get the benifits for a long while

I believe that as long as China's currency remains fixed and they do not float it globally, when their economy inevitably overheats the rest of us will not experience a repeat of the 1929 Wall Street crash.

The influence we have through connections with other nations within it, and it giving us our ability to propogate our own political ideals such as democracy.

That really didn't work with Zimbabwe did it.

No, but they got thrown out and so no longer get the benifits of the commonwealth which should serve as a warning.

What benefits would those be?

i love the way people in the US say the UK is socialist. If you plant a flag way to the right and call it the centre then I suppose there is alot of others who must be socialist or comunist.
The UK may be a little left of centre (but not far) you want to take your US polarity glasses off mate.
Then define socialist. If socialism isn't ridiculously high (upwards of 80 and 90 percent for the extremely wealthy) income taxes to redistribute health, goverment sponsored services extending to free medical care, and minimal government intervention in social policy, what pray tell is it?

Well, that's a benifit at least, and in the meantime we get the benifit of cheaper Chinese manufactured goods.

Well, that's a benifit at least, and in the meantime we get the benifit of cheaper Chinese manufactured goods.

Everybody can get cheap goods from China (this doesn't equate to quality mind you). Chinese manufactures are not limited to Commonwealth members. So what benefits would you be referring to?

Well, that's a benifit at least, and in the meantime we get the benifit of cheaper Chinese manufactured goods.

Everybody can get cheap goods from China (this doesn't equate to quality mind you). Chinese manufactures are not limited to Commonwealth members. So what benefits would you be referring to?

Sorry that wasn't in answer to your point. I was talking about the benifit of the Chinese economy.

For the Commonwealth, free trade, funds, strength of Unity, help with democracy and elections.

"I wonder if it is possible for Britain to re-emerge as the world's dominant power again sometime in the 21st century? What do others think?"
COMPLETLY IMPOSSIBLE. How could they? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
A small little island in Europe. On the world economic list they are behind the US, Japan and Germany.
Limitted territory, limitted population and an already developed economy.
China and India - as well as other east asian countries - have more potential than Britain.
No single european country has the chance to become the worlds dominant power. Even if they all pull themselves together they couldn´t.
The only country which can dominate the world is for any foreseable timeframe the US. :wink:

For the Commonwealth, free trade, funds, strength of Unity, help with democracy and elections.

Free trade? No, sorry there is limited free trade between Commonwealth members. Funds? What kind of funds? Also...by strength are you referring to military strength? And democracy and elections...by that you clearly don't mean helping to preserve democracy. After all, Tony Blair would not commit to removing Mugabe from Zimbabwe; instead allowing him to commit vile crimes against humanity.

The only country who's star is really rising right now is China, with India lagging behind. If any country is going to rival the US as a super power I would wager it would be one of those two.

"I wonder if it is possible for Britain to re-emerge as the world's dominant power again sometime in the 21st century? What do others think?"
COMPLETLY IMPOSSIBLE. How could they? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
A small little island in Europe. On the world economic list they are behind the US, Japan and Germany.
Limitted territory, limitted population and an already developed economy.
China and India - as well as other east asian countries - have more potential than Britain.
No single european country has the chance to become the worlds dominant power. Even if they all pull themselves together they couldn´t.
The only country which can dominate the world is for any foreseable timeframe the US. :wink:

We controlled the world once, even without the US as part of our Empire, while still a small country.

Rome controlled the World once. It doesn't necessarily matter how large the nation is.

@Enerica,
your statements can´t be true. Trade policy and customs are issues of the EU. The EU has a COMMON TRADE policy. It is also a CUSTOMS UNION. That means: It is one market with out any customs between the countries and with the SAME customs to all other countries of the world. They can´t be any special trade arrangements which are not valid to any other EU member as well. France has almost the same economic power than the UK and Germany - although of its economic crisis - still much more. After all: they have more than 20 million people more than the UK.

"I wonder if it is possible for Britain to re-emerge as the world's dominant power again sometime in the 21st century? What do others think?"
COMPLETLY IMPOSSIBLE. How could they? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
A small little island in Europe. On the world economic list they are behind the US, Japan and Germany.
Limitted territory, limitted population and an already developed economy.


So...how did they do it the first time around then? With an even smaller population of 9 million?

Yes Ernica, but you mainly got your power from being the first in India and Australia, and later acquiring Canada. The small island only made the ships to get the resources and the power, it didn't produce much of either by itself.

@Enrica,

hello: we have the year 2004 and not 1900. The Empire is GONE :twisted: :twisted: You lost it :twisted: :twisted: UNDERSTAND :evil: :evil:

Yes Ernica, but you mainly got your power from being the first in India and Australia, and later acquiring Canada. The small island only made the ships to get the resources and the power, it didn't produce much of either by itself.

We still managed to do it now, and in this century we have more support from other nations. I don't think we will get the empire back though, it would not be looked on kindly.

@Enrica,

hello: we have the year 2004 and not 1900. The Empire is GONE :twisted: :twisted: You lost it :twisted: :twisted: UNDERSTAND :evil: :evil:


I believe most people are aware of this...the question is regarding whether the Empire (as an economic one) could come about now under Britain.

@Enrica,

hello: we have the year 2004 and not 1900. The Empire is GONE :twisted: :twisted: You lost it :twisted: :twisted: UNDERSTAND :evil: :evil:

I know.

In modern terms 'greatness' is measured in economic power more than anything else. What does it take to have a powerful economy? A lot of people working at producing goods that are at the top of their price-life-cycle. That is a country made up of a lot of people who have relatively high incomes. How many people? About 200 million. So, basically, Britian has to triple its population to come near this, while educating them so they can work in 'new economy' sectors. That's pretty unlikely if you ask me.

A better chance for Britain is to take a leading role in the EU. If the member nations of the EU can sort out their differences, and if the citizens of EU nations can get over their EU-phobia, and if the EU can be formed into some sort of function, non-corrupt, confederacy (or, even, a federation), then you'll easy have the world's premier economic power right there.

Yes Ernica, but you mainly got your power from being the first in India and Australia, and later acquiring Canada. The small island only made the ships to get the resources and the power, it didn't produce much of either by itself.

We still managed to do it now, and in this century we have more support from other nations. I don't think we will get the empire back though, it would not be looked on kindly.
Yes, but there are no more Canada's for you. All that's left is space. Whoever lands on Mars first will be the real dominant power.

Placing all your eggs in one basket - China - is a dangerous move. Within the next decade, China's economy will implode. The Chinese government has acknowledged this likely possibility, yet nothing they seem to do can slow down the average annual growth rate of 10%.

Also, China is in huge debt and their deficits make Bush's $500 billion look pitiful in comparison.

I would not be banking on China's success in the future. Their decline will be as rapid as their rise. Let us just hope they do not float their currency.

@Thuthmose III,

"So...how did they do it the first time around then? With an even smaller population of 9 million?"
With technology. They were the most advanced nation. They had the steam engine first (already at the end of the 18th century) and they tried everything to hide this secret. But within the 19 century french and germans found out about it and the race began. However: Britain was in the lead for some decades and had a big economic distance towards the continent which the continental powers were only able to minimise till the begining of the 20th century.

In modern terms 'greatness' is measured in economic power more than anything else. What does it take to have a powerful economy? A lot of people working at producing goods that are at the top of their price-life-cycle. That is a country made up of a lot of people who have relatively high incomes. How many people? About 200 million. So, basically, Britian has to triple its population to come near this, while educating them so they can work in 'new economy' sectors. That's pretty unlikely if you ask me.

A better chance for Britain is to take a leading role in the EU. If the member nations of the EU can sort out their differences, and if the citizens of EU nations can get over their EU-phobia, and if the EU can be formed into some sort of function, non-corrupt, confederacy (or, even, a federation), then you'll easy have the world's premier economic power right there.

I can't help but think that the EU will just drag us down a socialist economic path, not helping us.

@Thuthmose III,

"So...how did they do it the first time around then? With an even smaller population of 9 million?"
With technology. They were the most advanced nation. They had the steam engine first (already at the end of the 18th century) and they tried everything to hide this secret. But within the 19 century french and germans found out about it and the race began. However: Britain was in the lead for some decades and had a big economic distance towards the continent which the continental powers were only able to minimise till the begining of the 20th century.

And what is stopping Britain being the leading nation in the technologies of the 21st century?

Whoever lands on Mars first will be the real dominant power.

Not if Mars has nothing of value (minerals etc). Only if the land is resource rich can a nation achieve dominance.

Whoever lands on Mars first will be the real dominant power.

Not if Mars has nothing of value (minerals etc). Only if the land is resource rich can a nation achieve dominance.
Land is just as much a commodity as its resources. If Britain was the size of all of Europe, it would be a shade more powerful.

Thuthmose III

"And what is stopping Britain being the leading nation in the technologies of the 21st century?"

Well: the fact that the US are the leading power in allmost all technologies. Also the fact that Britain has accepted place two since Churchill and is a happy second in the special US-British relationship.

By the way: Japan is also much more technological advanced than Britain.

Thuthmose III

"And what is stopping Britain being the leading nation in the technologies of the 21st century?"

Well: the fact that the US are the leading power in allmost all technologies. Also the fact that Britain has accepted place two since Churchill and is a happy second in the special US-British relationship.

By the way: Japan is also much more technological advanced than Britain.

But what is stopping Britain being the leading nation in the technologies of the 2st century?

I can't help but think that the EU will just drag us down a socialist economic path, not helping us.
I agree that's a possible outcome.

There's a point where you just become too big, the USSR, the UK, the UN, and probably the EU as well. You have too few people leading far too many.

@Thuthmose III

"But what is stopping Britain being the leading nation in the technologies of the 2st century"
WRONG QUESTION :evil: :evil:
How could they??? They simply can´t.
There were a few experts at the end of the 19 century who predicted the rise of Russia and the US. How could they???? Well: look to the ressources those countries have and had.
Now: look to the US: leading in all important technology sectors and in the military (British was once leading there as well). 400 billion Dollars military budget is the sum the US spends. They also spent the most on technology and are most advanced.
How much those Britain spent??? I estimate below 30 billion.
The "evil" Franco-German alliance puts together about 60 billion in the military sector about double the British. However: compared to the US thats also ridiculous.

i love the way people in the US say the UK is socialist. If you plant a flag way to the right and call it the centre then I suppose there is alot of others who must be socialist or comunist.
The UK may be a little left of centre (but not far) you want to take your US polarity glasses off mate.
Then define socialist. If socialism isn't ridiculously high (upwards of 80 and 90 percent for the extremely wealthy) income taxes to redistribute health, goverment sponsored services extending to free medical care, and minimal government intervention in social policy, what pray tell is it?
Since you asked for a definition...
Socialism = (complete or near compelte) State ownership of means of production.

7th (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp) biggest GDP overall isn't very bad.

The graph also shows what little a factor geographical area is in the 21st century.

i love the way people in the US say the UK is socialist. If you plant a flag way to the right and call it the centre then I suppose there is alot of others who must be socialist or comunist.
The UK may be a little left of centre (but not far) you want to take your US polarity glasses off mate.
Then define socialist. If socialism isn't ridiculously high (upwards of 80 and 90 percent for the extremely wealthy) income taxes to redistribute health, goverment sponsored services extending to free medical care, and minimal government intervention in social policy, what pray tell is it?
Since you asked for a definition...
Socialism = (complete or near compelte) State ownership of means of production.
Shrug, I would argue that it is state ownership of the wealth.

@Thuthmose III,

"So...how did they do it the first time around then? With an even smaller population of 9 million?"
With technology. They were the most advanced nation. They had the steam engine first (already at the end of the 18th century) and they tried everything to hide this secret. But within the 19 century french and germans found out about it and the race began. However: Britain was in the lead for some decades and had a big economic distance towards the continent which the continental powers were only able to minimise till the begining of the 20th century.

And what is stopping Britain being the leading nation in the technologies of the 21st century?
Underinvestment in research universities and underdeveloped venture capital industry (that is, investment firms that fund start-up companies) -- especially compared to the US. But on the bright side, UK is doing better in that department than the rest of Europe :wink:

Beyond Oxford and Cambridge England isn't really known for elite institutions, but then again college is generally an American thing (not that I'm badmouthing Europe, just saying).

i love the way people in the US say the UK is socialist. If you plant a flag way to the right and call it the centre then I suppose there is alot of others who must be socialist or comunist.
The UK may be a little left of centre (but not far) you want to take your US polarity glasses off mate.
Then define socialist. If socialism isn't ridiculously high (upwards of 80 and 90 percent for the extremely wealthy) income taxes to redistribute health, goverment sponsored services extending to free medical care, and minimal government intervention in social policy, what pray tell is it?
Since you asked for a definition...
Socialism = (complete or near compelte) State ownership of means of production.
Shrug, I would argue that it is state ownership of the wealth.
UK and other European nations are Liberal Welfare States (or, Innofensive Centrist Democracies -- in the NS parlance). You're certainly free to criticise them from the Libertarian perspective, but term "Socialist" properly belongs to Soviet Union and its East European allies, back in the old days. (In case you ask, Communist State is a contradiction in terms, as Communism is a stage of social development when humans have overcome their selfishness and alienation, and State institutions are no longer necessary -- not that I'm saying it's ever possible :wink: )