British Neoconservatives Publish Manifesto

The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) is a British organisation that wants to spread “liberal democracy” across the world through an interventionist policy. It posits that the United States and the European Union – under British leadership – must “shape the world more actively” and, to this end, “[maintain] a strong military with global expeditionary reach.” The HJS Principles are supported by eminent British journalists, intellectuals, politicians and military men, such as Gerard Baker, assistant editor of The Times, Prof. Vernon Bogdanor of Oxford University, Colonel Tim Collins, the commander of the First Battalion Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq in 2003, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6, Jamie Shea, NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for External Relations, Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble, Michael Gove MP, the Shadow Minister for Housing, David Willetts MP, the Shadow Education Secretary, and others.

www.brusselsjournal.com...

I have to purchase this. I think its going to be an interesting read. A few months ago, I read an article on the internet about the rebirth of British imperialism. I'm not saying we are planning to regain our Empire, but I think we will see Britain become a military force again.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by infinite]

Britain never stopped being a "military force" infinite, as a glance at a comparative table of military expenditure from the end of WW2 until now shows only too clearly.

I agree this one will be interesting to watch but somehow I doubt that the tory party (I genuinely can't see any other remotely plausible 'home' for this stuff) is yearning to move even further to the right and embrace even more right-wing dingbats and their out-dated dogma as the answer to their electoral problems.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Its about time Britain took charge of something. Despite being a small country, Britain is a figure head in the world. Geographically, we are slap bang in the centre, we once had an Empire that spanned the globe, and since removing into our own borders we have stood for what is right.

I think its time that the US, the UK and the EU all banded together and form one huge government... at the very least to please the NWO forum!

Does anyone know if they'll be in the running in the next election?

[edit on 25/2/07 by JackofBlades]

"Geographically, we are slap bang in the centre"

That's remarkable, I always thought Earth was a sphere and that all points on the surface were equidistant from the centre.

Now this is interesting. A return to the Empire. This I would vote for this.

I have always wanted to return the Empire back to the Monarch, in fact, not just return, but grow the empire.

Originally posted by Spuggy
"Geographically, we are slap bang in the centre"

That's remarkable, I always thought Earth was a sphere and that all points on the surface were equidistant from the centre.

You know what I mean, you little devil you! On regular 2d maps we're right in the middle.

I have always wanted to return the Empire back to the Monarch, in fact, not just return, but grow the empire.

I don't know about expanding it, sounds kinda like you're up for an Imperial war. I think if countries decided to join it would be cool though.
And it is time we handed the country to the monarchy. I'm a firm believer in having royalty actually do something, instead of just being a waving hand.
That's why I'm quite proud Harry is going to be fighting. In the days of the Monarchy, knights and princes would lead the men they had ordered into a battle so that they would share the same fate and consequences of the decision.

Jack,

While I was too young to vote when we joined the EU, I have always felt we have have gone in to Europe with the view of making the Queen, head of Europe.

A single head of Europe (The Queen) could have created a real superpower to rival both the US and USSR, and today, China.

We can still do this but Europe would have to be led by a powerful nation, used to empire. France, The Netherlands, Spain and Portugal have all had major empires but typically lost out to the British Empire.

Just imagine, Europe as a the global superpower with the Queen as its head.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Now this is interesting. A return to the Empire. This I would vote for this.

I have always wanted to return the Empire back to the Monarch, in fact, not just return, but grow the empire.

The reason we got rid of the Empire in the first place was because it was costing so much to keep - it was simply not possible to maintain a military large enough to police it. Not only would it be very hard to get the funding today (you know what people are like with defence...), but we'd need significantly more personnel and equipment in the armed forces which would cost a huge amount of money. It wouldn't do our economy any good at all. Besides which, I doubt the Commonwealth nations (or any others) would welcome Britain as overlords again. We do currently enjoy a good position in the world (tarnished in recent times by Iraq) - why spoil it further by going on an imperialistic conquest and ruining everything we've worked for over the past century?

A waste of time, money and lives in my opinion. Our best option is to remain as a sort of éminence grise through our influence in Europe, the Commonwealth and with the United States.

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Now this is interesting. A return to the Empire. This I would vote for this.

I have always wanted to return the Empire back to the Monarch, in fact, not just return, but grow the empire.

The reason we got rid of the Empire in the first place was because it was costing so much to keep

We got rid of the empire because of weak Government and not being prepared to defend what our fore fathers have fought and died for. If we had be prepared to face down those seeking independance, how difference things might have been. And yes I know we can walk down this street for ever and a day.

Those in Government after WWII gave our empire away. What would Churchill have done?

Coupled with the state of the economy (inevitable considering it had basically been geared towards winning the war - economies take time to adjust), huge debts incurred after fighting a war spanning the globe, the massive loss of life meaning the appetite for fighting any more was basically at zero, the dominant position of the United States (which wasn't all that keen on empires - see Suez) and the contribution that the colonies had made to the British war effort it was very hard for the post-war governments not to grant independence to a lot of colonies. It wasn't through choice, but through necessity.

As for what Churchill would do... well, as brilliant as he was at leading during war time (arguably the best war leader the modern world has ever seen, and almost certainly the best war leader Britain has seen in recent times), he wasn't so good at peace time leadership (as we can see in his premiership between 1951-55). He too believed that Britain should retain as much of its empire as possible, and look at the results - British involvement in Kenya over the Mau Mau rebellion led to civil war, the Malayan Emergency leading to the defeat of the communist guerillas but the independence of Malaysia, not to mention further expenses and deaths. Kenya was granted independence within a decade of the rebellion ending. So in the end, was it worth it to keep these nations forcibly as part of the Empire when they had no wish to be in it? When Britain would simply have to keep large military detachments on call to prevent further rebellion? With greater costs in lives and capital? Remember, they had been conquered as opposed to invited to join the Empire voluntarily.

Britain has done far more good by giving up its Empire than it ever would have by retaining it (though that's not to say the Empire itself yielded benefits to Britain especially but also to the people they ruled). One of the major achievements it can be proud of is that it had a central role in creating the largest democracy in the world - India (with a population exceeding one billion - proof to China that democracy can work with large numbers of people *hint hint President Hu Jintao* ). There were (and still are) problems felt in decolonised nations, and I will not deny that (Iraq, Palestine/Israel, the dispute between India and Pakistan, the situation in Cyprus, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on are all potential problems today which the British have had a hand in creating) but things could have been far worse if Britain hadn't laid down control over its colonies relatively peacefully and quickly.

I don't think any of the post-war leaders were particularly weak (Britain is a democracy and the people chose their leader... if the leaders are weak, does that mean the people are too? No. The war had a profound impact on how Britain saw itself and wanted to be governed. It had changed society for good, and the Labour Government under Attlee elected in a landslide in 1945 demonstrated this)... they simply had to act in the best interests of both the UK and its empire, and decolonisation whilst spreading democracy and retaining links via the Commonwealth seemed the sensible way forward.

[edit on 26/2/07 by Ste2652]

Even if somehow Britain had managed to maintain an Empire after WW2 that was strong and resilient, it would now be coming under siege from another power, most likely America.
And America would win. An international empire is a great way at reducing wars etc etc, but only on a large scale. At a smaller scale there would be economic problems, problems with civil wars and terrorist attacks.

The main reason Britain was a successful Empire was because we were technologically superior to those countries we ruled, and those on par with us we traded with.