The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Anglophile clashes with Europhile
The following is an exchange I had with a Guardian columnist (Larry Elliott), following my response to his contention that Canada and Italy have no business being in the G8. The debate about Canada's position in the G8 serves usefully as a proxy to a much larger issue, one that boils down to a clash of two competing visions, one Anglo, the other Euro.
Dear Monarchist:
Well, there are two responses really. The first is that a blog's a blog: you write things that are deliberately provocative hoping someone will take the bait. They're not fully formed arguments, but merely meant to start a debate.
At another level, though, I probably would still have come to the same conclusion had I devoted one of my longer columns to the same subject. The reality is that neither Italy nor Canada plays a major role at the G8 summit. You can tell how influential countries are by how many journalists from other nations turn up to the press conference given by their prime minister/president. And for Italy and Canada, it's not very many.
Personally, I think an optimal line-up for the summit would be the US, Japan, Brazil, India, Britain, France and Germany. Alternatively, the three European nations could amalgamate under an EU hat to form a gathering of the G5. I wouldn't have Russia or China because I don't consider them to be properly democratic; I would have India and Brazil as representatives of the developing world, and I wouldn't have Italy or Canada (despite its tar sands).
Best wishes
Larry
------
Larry, thanks for taking the bait.
Agreed on the fully formed argument part, but a certain provocation was in order to discover what you were basing your argument on, apart from the fact that Stephen Harper is not as entertaining to you as, say, Jacques Chirac. I have to admit that I'd never heard a country's influence was determined by a press conference or how many media are in the room, but I suppose every profession is guilty of believing in the absolute forefront of their own indispensability.
I would argue that a country's influence has more to do with the contribution it is making in world affairs. Brazil doesn't have thousands of troops deployed in Afghanistan, like Canada, Britain and the U.S., fighting for security in the region. It provides little in the way of direct aid and its economic output is small compared to its population. Nor is the world so dependent on its resources and trade, so I don't really see it for Brazil right now, other than it being the most populous country of South America. I'm not sure how many journalists attend their President's press conferences, but whatever it is, I'm certain it's not as many as Bono gets. By your measure, Bono would be more powerful than Britain.
Larry, I'm disappointed that you would contemplate the UK, Germany and France folding their cards under a single EU hat. Although they could combine their journalists under the roof of a single press conference, Great Britain would be held hostage by the pretensions of French glory and the Continental's dislike for the Anglo-Saxon economic model of flexible labour markets and minimally-regulated free enterprise.
So here's a better idea for the future. Given that countries no longer have to be geographically proximate to be usefully associated, why not have Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, all of whom speak the same language and share the same history and values and economic success, combine their efforts at the G8 to increase their influence? Why not at the UN Security Council too? If as you believe, the future is for the big continental powers: China, India, U.S., Russia, Europe...then it seems to me, the rest of us, including the UK, should look to leverage their situation. Turning your country into a province of Europe does not do that, Larry. Surrendering your sovereignty does not leverage your relatively declining situation.
I hope you will give it some thought.
Fraternally,
The Monarchist
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:34 a.m. | LINKS |
The following is an exchange I had with a Guardian columnist (Larry Elliott), following my response to his contention that Canada and Italy have no business being in the G8. The debate about Canada's position in the G8 serves usefully as a proxy to a much larger issue, one that boils down to a clash of two competing visions, one Anglo, the other Euro.
Dear Monarchist:
Well, there are two responses really. The first is that a blog's a blog: you write things that are deliberately provocative hoping someone will take the bait. They're not fully formed arguments, but merely meant to start a debate.
At another level, though, I probably would still have come to the same conclusion had I devoted one of my longer columns to the same subject. The reality is that neither Italy nor Canada plays a major role at the G8 summit. You can tell how influential countries are by how many journalists from other nations turn up to the press conference given by their prime minister/president. And for Italy and Canada, it's not very many.
Personally, I think an optimal line-up for the summit would be the US, Japan, Brazil, India, Britain, France and Germany. Alternatively, the three European nations could amalgamate under an EU hat to form a gathering of the G5. I wouldn't have Russia or China because I don't consider them to be properly democratic; I would have India and Brazil as representatives of the developing world, and I wouldn't have Italy or Canada (despite its tar sands).
Best wishes
Larry
------
Larry, thanks for taking the bait.
Agreed on the fully formed argument part, but a certain provocation was in order to discover what you were basing your argument on, apart from the fact that Stephen Harper is not as entertaining to you as, say, Jacques Chirac. I have to admit that I'd never heard a country's influence was determined by a press conference or how many media are in the room, but I suppose every profession is guilty of believing in the absolute forefront of their own indispensability.
I would argue that a country's influence has more to do with the contribution it is making in world affairs. Brazil doesn't have thousands of troops deployed in Afghanistan, like Canada, Britain and the U.S., fighting for security in the region. It provides little in the way of direct aid and its economic output is small compared to its population. Nor is the world so dependent on its resources and trade, so I don't really see it for Brazil right now, other than it being the most populous country of South America. I'm not sure how many journalists attend their President's press conferences, but whatever it is, I'm certain it's not as many as Bono gets. By your measure, Bono would be more powerful than Britain.
Larry, I'm disappointed that you would contemplate the UK, Germany and France folding their cards under a single EU hat. Although they could combine their journalists under the roof of a single press conference, Great Britain would be held hostage by the pretensions of French glory and the Continental's dislike for the Anglo-Saxon economic model of flexible labour markets and minimally-regulated free enterprise.
So here's a better idea for the future. Given that countries no longer have to be geographically proximate to be usefully associated, why not have Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, all of whom speak the same language and share the same history and values and economic success, combine their efforts at the G8 to increase their influence? Why not at the UN Security Council too? If as you believe, the future is for the big continental powers: China, India, U.S., Russia, Europe...then it seems to me, the rest of us, including the UK, should look to leverage their situation. Turning your country into a province of Europe does not do that, Larry. Surrendering your sovereignty does not leverage your relatively declining situation.
I hope you will give it some thought.
Fraternally,
The Monarchist
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:34 a.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
