Should GB be a world power

Well, we haven't hung onto their "coat-tails" re gun laws and capital punishment, have we?

Nobody's patronising annie. Slightly taking the mick perhaps, but she's a big strong girl.

Actually she could be very small! I don't know her actual size as such.

AB - Referring to English people who disagree with you as Little Englanders, is contentious, there isn't a Welsh equivalent, but I wouldn't use such a word to a Welsh person if there was one, because I'm sure it would be deemed as rude. Incidentally, do you use a small "e" for Englander to belittle us further?

Terribull

We all know it's just one of those terms/words that the left use to try and belittle , usually when feeling aggrieved that the debate /discussion is challenging their view in a more sensible manner. It's similar to the same old, same old tactic when debate/discussion is not going their way Thatcher, Right Wing Press and Colonialism is rattled out.

Your post of 10.41 was very good but obviously that is my opinion and others will not agree.

I will add that I am not sure there is a large number of the public who still believe we live in an 'Emperical Dream World' and see Great Britain as the 'Centre of the Universe'. Most people take a more realistic view of life and simply get on with living for today and consider those terms to be historic. In fact the younger generation would probably look at you blank wondering what you are on about and what does it have to do with this century, what does it mean for them .

The UK has simply evolved as the world , to use a crazy term, got smaller. The OP is a fair question but pointedly is aligning the question with defence spending and are we now a small, insignificant country that should stop seeing ourselves as the worlds police force and should we spend on nuclear weapons. So to answer that point the United Kingdom is a member of NATO, the UK is a member of the United Nations , the UK is a member of the G7, G20 so it naturally follows that the UK is small in land mass but the UK is not an Empire but it certainly is a country that has earnt respect worldwide and that is relevant for the 21st Century.

The British Empire no longer exists
No and it is a good thing that it does not exist as it did in the old days but we still have the Commonwealth. The sad thing is that we have neglected the Commonwealth in our eagerness to become Europeans.
I do have friends who some people may call 'colonials' although they would hate that term, having been brought up in Commonwealth countries.

GB is a small, insignificant county. Well, I can't agree that we are. Small, yes, but many of our institutions are respected worldwide. Our democratic way of life has been envied and copied in many countries around the world and many more countries could do far worse than follow our example.

'little welsher' - how did that term come about as it sounds quite derogatory:
1. To swindle a person by not paying a debt or wager: welsh on a bet.
2. To fail to fulfill an obligation.

Good job that we don't use the term ' little welsher' to each other on here then isn't it?

Let's put that phrase in the bin along with ' little englander' shall we?

Yes, neither phrase/description is exactly courteous, is it?

TeriBull , you are mistaken, I was not speaking of the entire English race , just those who patronise people of other countries because they feel they can and do not accept they are insulting people

To return to the OP......do we really want to be a major player on the world stage when it comes to war and sabre rattling? There are other ways to be a 'world power' some of which have already been mentioned.

^ I was not speaking of the entire English race^
Thank goodness for that. I was just going off to leap over Offa's Dyke (into England!)

But "those who patronise people of other countries because they feel they can and do not accept they are insulting people" are not necessarily English, Anniebach.

The 'old colonials' should read George Orwell's autobiogrphy or Jeremy Paxman's 'Empire'

Well, when I read the heading of this thread I thought it said 'Should GN be a world power?' In which case, yes, I absolutely think Gransnet should!

That's more like it TinyTwo

I thought it was already, Tiny Two

I don't like the idea of us being involved with bombings, however we are part of NATO. Also along with France, Belgium, USA we are in th firing line for terrorism.

If we tried to give up all our arms and loose the military we would be sitting ducks. We may not have an empire but we still have world standing.
Thank goodness the British Empire is a thing the past but it did give us a place in the World......( helped by what we stole of course. )

JBF is correct.

I know maggiemaybe , I was speaking of a minority of English people

Jingle , 5ft 7 inches, seven and half stone

My DH just remembers colonial life in India. My late FIL was posted to India in 1945 as a colonial governor in what is now Pakistan (Karachi) DH was 5, his brother 2, and his sister 6 months. They were there for two years, so DH can remember quite well the big colonial house they had together with all the accompanying servants, including a Sikh bearer for each child who stood behind their chairs for every meal!! For DH it was a very happy period of his life, with picnics on the beach, expeditions on camels, elephants, and only a smattering of school work. The one thing he really remembers is the beautiful flowers in their garden, and coming back to England on a Sunderland flying boat!!

It wasn't just the British who had servants either; I have two friends, one Indian brought up there with servants (a shock when she came over here to get married and had to do her own housework and cooking!) and the other a Ugandan Asian who lived in a large house with servants until they were thrown out by that Idi Amin.

Most important/influential world leader
1.Obama
2. Merkel
3. Cameron

If not Cameron, who?

3rd out of 212 countries or however many, makes GB a world power in my opinion.

Did you come up with this list, soontobe? How was it decided upon?

What about the French, Chinese or Russian leaders? Are you really saying that Cameron is more important that Putin?

Other countries belong to NATO and the UN but don't feel the need to join in with bombing and ground wars like we do. We're like the little kid in the playground who latches onto the bigger boys (in our case America), swaggers along with them and takes their side on everything.

Why would getting rid of our nuclear and first strike weapons make us more vulnerable to terrorists? We're hardly going to nuke them, are we? We're in this mess because we interfered in Iraq. ISIS wouldn't have existed if we'd have stayed out. Saddam Hussein was a bad man but America put him there in the first place and kept him there until it suited them to get rid of him.

I'm sorry I should have been clearer in my OP. I meant a military power not an economic or cultural power.

Think of what the saved money could be spent on. We could have schools that actually have the resources to teach children and in smaller classes, CAMHS could be properly funded and children with mental health issues could be treated near to where they live so they could have regular visits from their families, free school meals and free milk would help to ensure that all children eat a more balanced diet, social services could be properly funded so that children who are at risk don't fall through the net...I'm sure you all have your own ideas of what our children need.

The same improvements could be made to the lives of pensioners, the sick and disabled. Money could be spent on infrastructure and industry which in turn would create more jobs. Unemployment would be reduced. More people earning means more tax payers and less claiming benefits. More tax collected leads to even more money to spend for the benefit of the people.

Leaving out the arguments about immigrants (more of whom actually prefer German and Sweden to the UK) wouldn't you prefer a country that spends it's money on it's people rather than on weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not saying we get rid of our armed forced all together. We still need a defensive force but do we really need an offensive force?

*Did you come up with this list, soontobe? How was it decided upon?

What about the French, Chinese or Russian leaders? Are you really saying that Cameron is more important that Putin?*

I needed to have been clearer. I came up with it.
I will give you Putin. Not the French or Chinese.

So that makes Cameron 4th.

'm sorry I should have been clearer in my OP. I meant a military power not an economic or cultural power.

Ah. That is a bit different. But I think, and could be wrong, that they are all linked really.

Why would getting rid of our nuclear and first strike weapons make us more vulnerable to terrorists?

Not going to answer that easy question.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29074514

We could, of course, just hunker down, shut our ears and eyes to what is going on in the world - and what is going on in our own country.
We're like the little kid in the playground who latches onto the bigger boys (in our case America), swaggers along with them and takes their side on everything.

No we are not. That is a ridiculous thing to say. I am not necessarily saying that we should join in with bombing in Syria, but if we did we would be joining in with all the other countries listed in the link above who feel it is right that ISIL should be stopped. If we do not then we should be prepared to help in any other way we can. We cannot shut ourselves away from the world.