We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Britain’s membership of the EU is in the American interest… so what?

One of Obama’s apparatchiks has said that Britain’s membership of the EU was in the American interest.

Two responses spring to mind.

The first was… So what? This remark was obviously aimed the the dismal British government but furthering ‘the American interest’ should be very low on the list of priorities of any government that is not located in Washington DC.  So even if it was true (and frankly nothing could be further from the truth), this should be of trivial import to anyone in the Sceptred Isles.

The second was… ok, so how much are you willing to pay for that “US interest”? If the US interest is served by continued British membership of the sclerotic EU, then perhaps the hapless US taxpayer should get shafted for, oh, lets say 50% of the cost?

28 comments to Britain’s membership of the EU is in the American interest… so what?

  • Paul Marks

    It is not in the interests of the American people that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be a member of the European Union.

    It is in the interests of the collectivist Obama regime – and collectivism generally.

    Which is a good reason why we should leave the European Union.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    I suspect that most of the people who read this blog from the American side of the Big Pond would sing with joy if Britain left the EU.

  • Laird

    As one American, I agree with Johnathan. But I suspect that most Americans are wholly indifferent (indeed, probably don’t even know the Britain is a member). [N.B.: is “Britain” a member of the EU or is it “the UK”? Can’t keep that straight.]

  • RRS

    The Administration we have:




    In every action or pronouncement eminanting therefrom, you will observe one or more, often all, of those defining qualities.

  • RAB

    Philip Gordon has a BA Hons in French and Philosophy. I think we can assume that the cheese eating surrender monkey has someones interests at heart, but it certainly isn’t the UK. The bugger even looks French!

  • Anthony

    As an American living in London, this whole thing has me conflicted.

    On the one hand, I have no vote in the matter.

    On the other hand, if I was British, I would be a Euroskeptic and would vote in a referendum to get Britain out (my preference would be for a real free trade association that makes it easier for people to live in each others countries, though maybe not automatic as it is now).
    On the other other hand, as an outsider, I think that frankly the UK’s future is in
    the EU and that a more centralised union is inevitable.

    What is best for the US I have no clue. I do think that as the world and US demographics change, our old ties of family, culture, economic and political ties with Europe in general and the UK in particular will diminish, replaced by new ties with China and Latin America.

    Considering that I have been pillaried by even my Tory friends and co-workers for not voting for Obama (I voted for McCain in 2008 and Johnson in 2012), I am enjoying the faux outrage regarding the statement.

  • Paul Marks

    Anthony – British ignorance of American affairs is extreme, indeed vile and disgusting.

    You have my sympathy – I am deeply ashamed of my fellow countrymen who say you should have voted for Barack Obama.

    However, and with the greatest respect, you are showing ignorance in saying that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must “inevitablly” submit to the European Union.

    Joseph Kennedy was mistaken in 1940 – and you are mistaken now.

  • Fred Beloit

    As an American, I believe we should be on the friendliest of terms with the UK. Their membership in the EU is none of our business, and none of Obama’s business (but he and his monks never recognize their influence and superiority[/s] have limits).

  • Anthony

    Paul — Just to make it clear (i) I have no idea what is better for the US here (ii) I think the US should keep a disnified silence when it comes to EU matters, and (iii) if British, I would be a Euroskeptic and would vote “out” in a referendum, though I think the best solution is a free trade association with ease of movement across boarders.

    As for what is best for Britain, as an outsider, I think closer union is inevitable. Strangly, that is exactly opposite what I would vote if I were British. I am conflicted about the whole thing. I have ocme to teh conclusion that teh EU is nothing but a retirement vehicle for retired European politicians of a certain stripe (Nick Clegg is already picking out his office in Brussels I think) but I cannot get away from the belief that the EU is necessary for European prosperity. Maybe it is the propaganda finally gettin gto me I do not know. But the world is changing and I guess I just see the EU as the result.

  • RAB

    Anthony, The EU is a gangster protection racket, that doesn’t even do what it says on the tin; Protect.

    It was, in the main the brainchild of this man…


    A never elected to anything Communist. He knew well from it’s inception, that his dream of a United States of Europe, which mirrored the Soviet Union rather than the United States of America, would have to be built by stealth and lies. His bold intention, if openly expressed would have been rejected by the electorates in every European Nation.

    So this is how it has progressed, from Treaty to Treaty accruing more and more power to itself over every aspect of our lives, without us really noticing, and without those who knew well, like Macmillan and the Traitor Heath, what the true end goal was, telling us the electorate the truth. In fact they lied through their teeth.

    Britain was told that we were joining a Free Trade area, full stop. We were promised that we were not losing Sovereignty (an outright lie) just pooling our resources. Well the arse was out of our collective trousers by 1973, due mainly to the insane Nationalisation and instigation of the welfare state by various Labour Govts (and to be fair a couple of Tory ones)so it looked like a good idea that might save this once mighty Nation. But in order to join, the terms the Traitor Heath signed up on were disasterous, so eager and craven was he to do so. He gave away our fishing grounds, he fucked our farming industry (the most productive and efficient in Europe at the time)and we had to stop trading with our Commonwealth cousins on favourable terms (though the French never did with the remnants of their Empire).

    Every British Govt, be it Labour or Consevative, has always repeated the mantra “We must be at the heart of Europe”, which is yet another flat out lie. We will never be at the heart of Europe. The terms and conditions were set up long before we joined, and there is nothing we can possibly do to change them now. the EU wants Britain in the EU well enough, but as the dumb pupil who sits at the back of the class and is told to shut the fuck up, but also wants us to pay everybody elses Dinner Money for them.

    The British electorate if given a Referendum, in or out, at this moment in time would vote overwhelmingly OUT. But if we were ever to be offered such a thing, you can bet that what happened the last time will happen this time… The BBC, the MSM and every Political party except UKIP will tell us that we will be destroyed if we left.

    Well it’s time to call their bluff. The potato faced, brain dead arse who pretends to be a Tory will be giving a speech on Europe later in the month. We know exactly what he will say… We want a looser arangement and repatriate loads of powers from the EU, then we’ll keep paying the Dinner money that the rest of the fuckers rely on. This is not the way the EU thinks, operates or was set up to do. Once power is given to them, hell will freeze over before they give them back.

    Out! and out now!

  • Sam Duncan

    “… is “Britain” a member of the EU or is it “the UK”? Can’t keep that straight.”

    Good question, Laird. Arguably the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, etc. are part of Britain – the Queen as Head of State, their foreign relations and defence handled by Westminster, using Sterling, geographically close to the mainland – while not part of the UK.

    However the word “Britain” is to the UK almost what “America” is to the US, and it’s the UK that’s the EU member. The Crown Dependencies aren’t in the EU, and have no wish to be.

    Interestingly, France does things a little differently. Its overseas posessions are départements of the Republic, and I’m given to understand that Guadeloupe is quite a popular venue for EU meetings.

    RAB: You tell ’em, mate!

  • Paul Marks

    Antony – I was going to reply (and try and explain about the E.U.) but RAB has already done it.

    However, for the practical effect of E.U. regulations I would suggest reading the works of Christopher Booker and Richard North.

    I want naught more to do with the European Union, thank you very much.

  • Kingsley

    Glenn Reynolds had a post recently on UK and EU and he was good enough to post my idea that the UK should exit the EU and seriously look at joining NAFTA. NAFTA is looking more like remaining a trade agreement only with no equivalent of Brussels and one member (Canada) is a member of the Commonwealth and the USA is obviously its Special Relationship partner. Surely a much easier group to belong to and I would argue despite Obamas best efforts a much brighter future than the EU
    Language alone is obviously an easier issue

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    Laird, the country is sometimes called ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, so UK probably to the EU.

  • Rich Rostrom

    furthering ‘the American interest’ should be very low on the list of priorities of any government that is not located in Washington DC

    Nations should pursue their own interests first, but national interests can be very much entangled.

    Bad Things happening to the U.S. would in general be bad for Britain – and vice versa, IMO.

    I do agree with you about the EU. Ecrasez l’infame!

    But tranzis like Obama believe otherwise – no doubt sincerely.

  • Julie near Chicago

    1. If the State Department says it’s so, that’s irrefutable proof that it’s not so. In particular, if State says it’s in our interest, it most definitely ISN’T. And that was even BEFORE the Sith crawled out of the sewer.

    2. Rich Rostrom: “Obama” and “sincerely” cannot be used in the same sentence.

    Other than that, you’ve summed up my position nicely.

    UK: Didn’t your mother teach you to run away from the nice man who hands out ham sandwiches to the dear little children?

  • Paul Marks

    The United Kingdom government should allow individuals and private associations to trade with individuals or private associations in any other part of the world.

    As for NAFTA – Kingsley, as Julie and others have pointed out….

    It is later than you think – the efforts of Barack Obama (and so many others) have done and will do much more damage than you seem to (yet) understand.

    If the United States is to have any real future, this regime must go – and I see no practical way to get rid of it.

    Hopeing for change in January 2017 is much (much) too late.

  • Andrew Duffin

    @Anthony: “On the one hand, I have no vote in the matter”

    Neither have we!

    That is one of the problems.


    A UK citizen

  • Rhukatah

    I think that you’d have heard US diplomats say the same thing about Britain in the EU in any presidential administration.

    From a realist perspective, British membership in the EU is in the US’s interest because the more countries there are in the EU, the more likely the whole project will suffer institutional paralysis. Institutional paralysis is good for the US because it precludes the possibility that Europe will ever emerge as a rival for control of the North Atlantic. The primary strategic goal of US foreign policy since 1946 is maintaining unchallenged dominance of all the world’s oceans. American dominance of the oceans means that if there is another global conflagration, all the damage caused by conventional warfare will be done to Eurasia.

    Confining all but a fraction of a percent of the property damage from the 20th century’s wars to Eurasia worked out very well for the United States.

  • Antoine Clarke

    The UK is better off out of the EU.

    It seems to me Texas would be better off outside the USA.

    And in both cases, rational leftists ought to agree.

  • Paul Marks

    I agree with your first two lines Antoine.

    But I am not sure what a “rational leftist” is.

  • Laird

    Paul, I would suggest that it’s an oxymoron.

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    Paul Marks- re. ‘rational leftist’. I think that Stalin was a cold-blooded, rational, leftist. His campaigns were planned carefully- not for him the spiels that Hitler could give to his speeches!
    As for what such a person would think about secession- not for any part of his country, but if you want to become weak states that he can easily conquer later, go right ahead!

  • Paul Marks

    Mr Gray.

    You may be right about Stalin being rational – evil, but rational.

    As for secession.

    I believe that the United States of America has been a great force for good in the world.

    But can it be seriously said that the limited government of the Constitution has not been replaced by something wildly different?

    “Conquered” – the States have already been conquered, by stealth.

    What secession is, is an effort to become unconquered (independent) no longer conquered.

    If you have alternative plan to roll back the Federal government to its Constitutional limits (for example so that the “common defence and general welfare” is the PURPOSE of the SPECIFIC spending powers listed in Article One, Section Eight – not a “catch all” “general welfare spending power”)then please explain it.

    I am not being a smart a…. I actually mean “please explain it”, I WANT TO BE WRONG.

    I want there to be an alternative to secession.

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    Sometimes the mere threat of successful secession can cause bouts of reasonableness. Here in Australia we have a program which talks about the history of mining. At one time WA might not have joined the rest of Australia, except that the goldminers around Kalgoolie (many of them from the Eastern States) threatened to secede and form a new state, splitting WA in two. The government of Western Australia gave Women the right to vote, in an effort to water down the proposal. It worked. Women gained the vote, the state stayed together, and W.A. joined the commonwealth.
    Of course, that’s history now.
    My preferred option is one I call Co-Autonomy. I want shires and counties and cantons to be strong, with people able to choose to be citizens, or not. If you chose to be a citizen, for eleven months of the year, you would do some form of community service in lieu of taxes (militia, fire brigade, road patrols, etc.). For one month of the year, you would be a part of the government of your county, voting on all county matters.
    That would be how you keep government small- by time-sharing it. State and Federal affairs could be by delegates to conferences, chosen by seniority from the citizens. I haven’t worked out all the details, but this would take the pork-barrelling out of politics.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Paraphrasing Pres. Reagan: “My country has left me.”

    Paul–thank you, in the name of my country: “Old America.”

    . . .

    Although there are still many Americans who are citizens thereof — I don’t think we’ll be able to retrieve our country either.

    Still — to give up is to be certain of failure. Whereas if we fight on….

    I do wish, for the sake of MY country, that you British would leave the EU altogether.

  • Laird

    “The US Constitution may not be perfect but it’s better than what we have now.” – Frank Zappa

  • Paul Marks

    Yes – the Consitutional limits on spending and regulation are gone.

    Instead of SPECIFIC spending powers with the “common defence and general welfare” being the PURPOSE of the spending powers (which then follow in Article One, Section Eight) now the govenrment can spend any amount on anything – a so called “general welfare spending power”.

    And on regulations the words “regulate interstate commerce” have been ripped from their context (and from 18th century English) and used to justify TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages of Federal regulations (controlling just about everything).

    As for the financial system……

    The Australian comparison is actually instructive.

    Mr Gray could tell us exactly when Constitutional Amendments were passed allowing the government of Australia to adopt welfare scehmes (it did not have these powers in 1901).

    No American can name the date of the Amendments to the United States Constitution allowing it to spend and regulate the way it does.


    That is the nature of the problem.

    I may not like how the Constitution of Australia has been changed – I do not like it.

    But it was changed by the people after debate and vote. That is NOT the case with the American Consitution – which was not lawfully changed, it was SUBVERTED.

    The United States is basically controlled by a “liberal” elite (centered on the Harvard Law School) who dominate the education system (teacher training and so on), the media, and the law (including Constitutional law).

    This is not true in (for example) Texas – but it is true at the Federal level.

    If secession is not the answer.

    What is the answer?