Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Disentangling Britain from America

202 replies

Samdelila · 20/01/2026 20:20

I know we are reliant on the USA for security and they are a major trading partner, but I would like to know what, if anything, could be done to disentangle us from the USA in the future. Does anybody have any ideas?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 13:28

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 22/01/2026 13:09

Ah, you are correct. My apologies. Biden was indeed diagnosed with prostate cancer. There was a lot of rumour in the right-wing press that he was suspected to have dementia or that he was in some kind of cognitive decline, which to be fair, couldn't all have been wild speculation considering his many on-screen gaffes with the teleprompter!

I believe the prostate cancer Biden was diagnosed with was the same cancer Scott Adams recently died from.

Just goes to show no matter your views on anything in life, there's no winning at anything, so just enjoy life.

"....don't you think they would do the same with Trump?" I honestly have no idea.

He did have cognitive decline? The last debate showed that, it ended his run after the press and Democrats couldn’t hide it anymore.

RedTagAlan · 22/01/2026 13:30

EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 13:27

Well the pp has been clear in response so maybe don’t keep going with your take.

I have no take. I was just factchecking claims made, and commenting on where such types of claims are also made.

That's all.

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 22/01/2026 13:33

EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 13:28

He did have cognitive decline? The last debate showed that, it ended his run after the press and Democrats couldn’t hide it anymore.

Yes, I remember. It does beg the question; why did they install someone known to have declined so much to be the President of one of the largest known western superpowers? And I say 'installed' because if you know someone is, frankly, too sick to hold such a high office (and have access to the nuclear launch codes!), how can anyone trust them to make good and sound decisions?

bemoresloth · 22/01/2026 13:34

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 22/01/2026 13:33

Yes, I remember. It does beg the question; why did they install someone known to have declined so much to be the President of one of the largest known western superpowers? And I say 'installed' because if you know someone is, frankly, too sick to hold such a high office (and have access to the nuclear launch codes!), how can anyone trust them to make good and sound decisions?

Are you talking about Biden or Trump? Both fit the description.

EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 13:38

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 22/01/2026 13:33

Yes, I remember. It does beg the question; why did they install someone known to have declined so much to be the President of one of the largest known western superpowers? And I say 'installed' because if you know someone is, frankly, too sick to hold such a high office (and have access to the nuclear launch codes!), how can anyone trust them to make good and sound decisions?

I think they realised after he was in and made a big mistake with trying to paper over it.

They knew all that funding had to go to Harris and they were locked in with her as a candidate.

They made the mistake to pretend all was fine and then paid with the election really.

ElizaMulvil · 22/01/2026 13:51

TalulaHalulah · 20/01/2026 21:29

I think it is difficult to untangle because the First and Second World Wars would not have been won by the Allied side without the USA; and the Atlantic Charter (1941?) set the grounds for post-war co-operation, albeit with the USA politically and economically more powerful. All of this led to greater integration in terms of defence, intelligence and technology, but again with the USA more powerful for economic and demographic and geographical resource size reasons. In case of any war of such a scale again, Britain would again need the US support, and Britain is also important for the US strategically.

I don’t think it can be disentangled or we can be fully self-sufficient as we did not manage it in the two previous world wars, when the country was comparatively much stronger economically and globally. I think we just need to hope and pray this situation does not arise again.

[edited to add - obviously hope and prayer is not a solid defence strategy, I didn’t mean it that literally]

Edited

The US came late to both wars. And, certainly didn't win WW2 for us. Churchill (who knew something of the progress of the war ) declared it was the Soviet Army that tore the heart out of the German army.

MissConductUS · 22/01/2026 13:57

EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 13:38

I think they realised after he was in and made a big mistake with trying to paper over it.

They knew all that funding had to go to Harris and they were locked in with her as a candidate.

They made the mistake to pretend all was fine and then paid with the election really.

As an American who closely follows US politics, I can say this is spot-on.

Well put, @EasternStandard .

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 22/01/2026 13:58

ElizaMulvil · 22/01/2026 13:51

The US came late to both wars. And, certainly didn't win WW2 for us. Churchill (who knew something of the progress of the war ) declared it was the Soviet Army that tore the heart out of the German army.

Historians argue about all this. But what we know for a fact is that the USSR teamed up with Hitler to invade and kill, before Hitler turned on them. Ask the Poles and the Finns.

MissConductUS · 22/01/2026 14:04

ElizaMulvil · 22/01/2026 13:51

The US came late to both wars. And, certainly didn't win WW2 for us. Churchill (who knew something of the progress of the war ) declared it was the Soviet Army that tore the heart out of the German army.

You have to look at it in a broader context. It's highly unlikely the Allies would have won WWII without the U.S., as American industrial might (especially through Lend-Lease) provided crucial supplies, food, and transport, while its immense military power opened vital second fronts, significantly easing pressure on the exhausted Soviets and British; without U.S. intervention, Germany likely would have forced a negotiated peace after gaining vast territories, or the USSR might have collapsed under immense Axis pressure, leading to a probable Axis victory or a vastly different, Soviet-dominated Europe.

And that's not just my opinion.

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24107

United States forces played a direct role in defeating Germany, but also forced Hitler to keep huge military forces in Western Europe rather than sending them to reinforce his armies fighting against the Soviet Union, where they would likely have been a decisive factor against the Soviets. Instead, the German invasion of Russia failed after the effort that culminated at Stalingrad, and the German forces in Western Europe were eventually pushed back anyway, beginning with the landings at Normandy.

Alternative Outcomes of World War II | TeachingHistory.org

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24107

snowbear22 · 22/01/2026 14:06

bemoresloth · 22/01/2026 13:16

Do you have any medical evidence?

That's why Trump's dementia claims are also alledged.

You have seen his recent performances?

Jake Tapper's book 'The decline of Joe Biden was a good account of it:

Tapper: I would describe it as unable to come up with the names of top advisers or close friends. I would say look, we're all human. We all forget names. We all lose our train of thought. We all witness that in people who are aging.
We're talking about to the point of you not being able to have a conversation. You are not able to come up with data, information, knowledge, names that you should have at the ready.
When he didn't recognize George Clooney. That is somebody who is not only somebody he'd known for more than 15 years, not only somebody that he had had serious conversations about Darfur with, not only somebody that had raised millions of dollars for him and was co-hosting that very fundraiser. He's also one of the most recognizable people in the world. So, I'm talking about that. I'm talking about what we saw at the debate, that non-functioning, I-cannot-articulate-a-sentence Biden.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/19/nx-s1-5309451/biden-health-decline-original-sin
Jake Tapper Origional Sin, Joe Biden's decline, it's cover up and his disasterous choice to run again.

bemoresloth · 22/01/2026 14:36

snowbear22 · 22/01/2026 14:06

Jake Tapper's book 'The decline of Joe Biden was a good account of it:

Tapper: I would describe it as unable to come up with the names of top advisers or close friends. I would say look, we're all human. We all forget names. We all lose our train of thought. We all witness that in people who are aging.
We're talking about to the point of you not being able to have a conversation. You are not able to come up with data, information, knowledge, names that you should have at the ready.
When he didn't recognize George Clooney. That is somebody who is not only somebody he'd known for more than 15 years, not only somebody that he had had serious conversations about Darfur with, not only somebody that had raised millions of dollars for him and was co-hosting that very fundraiser. He's also one of the most recognizable people in the world. So, I'm talking about that. I'm talking about what we saw at the debate, that non-functioning, I-cannot-articulate-a-sentence Biden.

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/19/nx-s1-5309451/biden-health-decline-original-sin
Jake Tapper Origional Sin, Joe Biden's decline, it's cover up and his disasterous choice to run again.

Jake Tapper?

That is your source?

I mean I agree that Biden was not fit for a second term but even he would have been better than what we are seeing in the US now.

Do you know if Tapper is doing a book or research on Trump?

EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 14:48

bemoresloth · 22/01/2026 14:36

Jake Tapper?

That is your source?

I mean I agree that Biden was not fit for a second term but even he would have been better than what we are seeing in the US now.

Do you know if Tapper is doing a book or research on Trump?

Even the Democrats realised he had cognitive decline, it’ll be worse now. It could have been different and it’s bad luck for them but you can’t change his health.

LupaMoonhowl · 22/01/2026 14:51

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 20/01/2026 20:31

Of course we are. Have you seen the size of our military? It's tiny and pathetic. Lots of the defence tech we have is American-made, too. The whole of Europe is heavily reliant on America and NATO for national security.

This.
To ‘disentagle’ (why?) Europe would need to up its defence spending from about 3% (other that Germany that does commit about 12%) to at B last 10% thus not having the luxury choice of excessive welfare spending,

LupaMoonhowl · 22/01/2026 14:52

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 22/01/2026 13:33

Yes, I remember. It does beg the question; why did they install someone known to have declined so much to be the President of one of the largest known western superpowers? And I say 'installed' because if you know someone is, frankly, too sick to hold such a high office (and have access to the nuclear launch codes!), how can anyone trust them to make good and sound decisions?

The ghastly Jill Biden was propping up the poor old chap.

Samdelila · 22/01/2026 15:20

LupaMoonhowl · 22/01/2026 14:51

This.
To ‘disentagle’ (why?) Europe would need to up its defence spending from about 3% (other that Germany that does commit about 12%) to at B last 10% thus not having the luxury choice of excessive welfare spending,

Why? Because it is not safe for us to be so reliant on America. The values of the US are changing and we are no longer completely aligned.

OP posts:
JillyJoy · 22/01/2026 15:34

Samdelila · 20/01/2026 20:51

So the best way for us to begin to reduce our reliance on America is to reduce the welfare state - leaving us more money to spend on defence? Ouch! I can’t see that going down too well.

We might not like it but we will have to face the reality of that choice soon. We need to be able to stand on our own feet and be ready to join Europe in defending ourselves.
We need to increase the size of the military. We make economies at the top by sacking a few Admirals and higher ranks in the other services. That won't save many millions at all but it will show that we are serious.
It will also be necessary to end the Triple Lock for pensions, (sorry Mum) but you will have to rely on just inflation for the next 10 years.
The feckless layabouts of Benefits Street will have to manage on less as well.

EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 15:44

Samdelila · 22/01/2026 15:20

Why? Because it is not safe for us to be so reliant on America. The values of the US are changing and we are no longer completely aligned.

Are you ready to spend what @LupaMoonhowlposts on defence rather than welfare?

Walkaround · 22/01/2026 16:32

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 22/01/2026 13:33

Yes, I remember. It does beg the question; why did they install someone known to have declined so much to be the President of one of the largest known western superpowers? And I say 'installed' because if you know someone is, frankly, too sick to hold such a high office (and have access to the nuclear launch codes!), how can anyone trust them to make good and sound decisions?

You could forgive the Democrats for thinking Americans are quite relaxed about having demented old men as their leaders, given Reagan, Biden and Trump. Maybe it’s only OK to be demented if you’re a Republican. 🤣

Samdelila · 22/01/2026 16:48

EasternStandard · 22/01/2026 15:44

Are you ready to spend what @LupaMoonhowlposts on defence rather than welfare?

No - not ready! Not that I’m in receipt of any welfare myself. Just not too happy with the idea of children going hungry, pensioners freezing etc. Which is not to say that I don’t understand that we need to increase spending on defence - and that welfare needs to be reduced. Savings have to be found, but I don’t pretend to know where from.

OP posts:
YorkshireGoldDrinker · 22/01/2026 16:52

Walkaround · 22/01/2026 16:32

You could forgive the Democrats for thinking Americans are quite relaxed about having demented old men as their leaders, given Reagan, Biden and Trump. Maybe it’s only OK to be demented if you’re a Republican. 🤣

I steer well clear of politics these days. Both Democrats and Republicans are insane in their own ways imo. I feel the same way about our own politics, ie Labour, Tories, LibDems, Greens. I have no feelings either way, really.

To me, Rupert Lowe appears to be about the only one politician in amongst all the dross who makes the most sense these days. Maybe my standards are too high, but I like it when things make sense with as little noise (misdirection and bs) as possible. I don't live in Great Yarmouth, though, so he doesn't represent me, sadly.

Walkaround · 22/01/2026 17:00

GeneralPeter · 22/01/2026 09:28

@Walkaround Your post perfectly illustrates why it's so hard to implement serious pro-growth policies. Lots of objections to any particular action.

Nuclear: there are US and French suppliers who can build at scale, and the new small modular reactor (yay!) contract went to Rolls Royce. China was kicked off Sizewell in 2022. But yes, we do need a much stronger domestic supply chain, which implies committing to a sustained building programme.

Housing deregulation: the main deregulation needed is to planning, which keeps land artificially scare in parts of the country where more housing is desperately needed. No major manufacturer sells jeans that fall apart when new, because no-one would buy them. The scarcity is what allows bad developers to survive.

Infrastructure underinvestment: if you take the family's weekly shop money and blow it all on one Michelin meal, you haven't "underinvested in food", you've just wasted your budget. UK infra is massively more expensive than peer countries. Phase 1 of HS2, for example, which runs over mostly flat land, cost eight times per mile what the Hokkaido Shinkansen did, which runs through tunnels. That's not a cherry-picked example: every other country does almost every type of big infrastructure cheaper than us, often many times cheaper. Much of our spend goes on reports, consultations, reviews, challenges, etc. that don't deliver anything. Phase 2 of HS2 got cancelled. Let's do it cheaper and deliver a full infrastructure programme, not a couple of bits then cancel.

Immigration: EU-pattern migration worked well for us: people would often come here for their prime working years then return home as they aged, contributing to our economy and tax take. The subsequent 'labour shortage' based schemes do the opposite: almost by definition they target underpaid sectors, bringing people who are very unlikely to ever be net tax contributors especially because there is tendency both to stay and to bring dependents who sometimes do not work at all. We need to strengthen our economy, and immigration is a great way to do that, but not that type.

"Britain is full": if your concern is that our infrastructure and services is overburdened then you should support policies that provide more housing, cheaper infrastructure, and a growing economy and tax base to pay for it.

Our non-immigrant total fertility rate is about 1.5 (2 is roughly the replacement rate). TFR of 1.5 means the population halves in two generations, it falls to a third in three. Tto sustain the population we have, never mind grow, we need immigration. But it's really important we have the type of immigration that strengthens our economy not further burdens it, if we want to be both economically and strategically stronger and more independent as a nation.

Edited

Ie democracy combined with incompetence. The fact is, the Tories faffed around negotiating with China over nuclear then chickened out, they didn’t want to spend money on European options. What an idiotic waste of time. Short-termist governments make cowardly choices.

Housing - stop building housing on flood plains in areas that are water stressed without dealing with urgent infrastructure issues causing a lot of the water stress first or at the very least at the same time - why faff around with HS2, then not even carry through with it when you were clearly past the point of no return if you didn’t want to have wasted money for nothing, when you can’t even provide a reliable, safe water supply and deal with sewage for your population? Businesses can barely operate at all without reliable water supplies (nor can nuclear power stations or data centres).Get your bloody priorities right, ffs, instead of indulging in crass, knee jerk reactions for election purposes. Who will want to invest in a country that can’t even get the basics right? What sense is there in building in areas that are already regularly flooding and uninsurable? Maybe stop pretending we just need to build, build, build and worry about the infrastructure required to sustain the building afterwards?

”Britain is full” - well, yes, when it comes to making it a worthwhile country to invest in, it is too full of unreliable infrastructure and unhealthy people. Unless you can come up with a realistic and well-coordinated way of dealing with poor health and unproductivity, you are not going to attract the “right sort of immigrant,” in any event - that sort do not migrate to a country where they can’t even buy an affordable home with 24/7 mains water that isn’t prone to being subjected to regular natural disasters and is actually fit for habitation. Houses currently being built are exacerbating all the problems that make the country look unattractive, they are not fixing them, they are not making homes affordable, the new homes are shoddily built. What’s more, global capitalism is failing to solve the issues anywhere in the world, because you see the same issues arising in, eg, the US and Australia - unaffordable homes, inadequate infrastructure. That’s what’s enabling all these psychopathic opportunists to creep out of the woodwork - nobody wants to face the long term, they want to pretend there are quick fix, single-issue solutions.

Walkaround · 22/01/2026 17:02

GeneralPeter · 22/01/2026 09:28

@Walkaround Your post perfectly illustrates why it's so hard to implement serious pro-growth policies. Lots of objections to any particular action.

Nuclear: there are US and French suppliers who can build at scale, and the new small modular reactor (yay!) contract went to Rolls Royce. China was kicked off Sizewell in 2022. But yes, we do need a much stronger domestic supply chain, which implies committing to a sustained building programme.

Housing deregulation: the main deregulation needed is to planning, which keeps land artificially scare in parts of the country where more housing is desperately needed. No major manufacturer sells jeans that fall apart when new, because no-one would buy them. The scarcity is what allows bad developers to survive.

Infrastructure underinvestment: if you take the family's weekly shop money and blow it all on one Michelin meal, you haven't "underinvested in food", you've just wasted your budget. UK infra is massively more expensive than peer countries. Phase 1 of HS2, for example, which runs over mostly flat land, cost eight times per mile what the Hokkaido Shinkansen did, which runs through tunnels. That's not a cherry-picked example: every other country does almost every type of big infrastructure cheaper than us, often many times cheaper. Much of our spend goes on reports, consultations, reviews, challenges, etc. that don't deliver anything. Phase 2 of HS2 got cancelled. Let's do it cheaper and deliver a full infrastructure programme, not a couple of bits then cancel.

Immigration: EU-pattern migration worked well for us: people would often come here for their prime working years then return home as they aged, contributing to our economy and tax take. The subsequent 'labour shortage' based schemes do the opposite: almost by definition they target underpaid sectors, bringing people who are very unlikely to ever be net tax contributors especially because there is tendency both to stay and to bring dependents who sometimes do not work at all. We need to strengthen our economy, and immigration is a great way to do that, but not that type.

"Britain is full": if your concern is that our infrastructure and services is overburdened then you should support policies that provide more housing, cheaper infrastructure, and a growing economy and tax base to pay for it.

Our non-immigrant total fertility rate is about 1.5 (2 is roughly the replacement rate). TFR of 1.5 means the population halves in two generations, it falls to a third in three. Tto sustain the population we have, never mind grow, we need immigration. But it's really important we have the type of immigration that strengthens our economy not further burdens it, if we want to be both economically and strategically stronger and more independent as a nation.

Edited

Ie democracy combined with incompetence. The fact is, the Tories faffed around negotiating with China over nuclear then chickened out, they didn’t want to spend money on European options. What an idiotic waste of time. Short-termist governments make cowardly choices.

Housing - stop building housing on flood plains in areas that are water stressed without dealing with urgent infrastructure issues causing a lot of the water stress first or at the very least at the same time - why faff around with HS2, then not even carry through with it when you were clearly past the point of no return if you didn’t want to have wasted money for nothing, when you can’t even provide a reliable, safe water supply and deal with sewage for your population? Businesses can barely operate at all without reliable water supplies (nor can nuclear power stations or data centres).Get your bloody priorities right, ffs, instead of indulging in crass, knee jerk reactions for election purposes. Who will want to invest in a country that can’t even get the basics right? What sense is there in building in areas that are already regularly flooding and uninsurable? Maybe stop pretending we just need to build, build, build and worry about the infrastructure required to sustain the building afterwards?

”Britain is full” - well, yes, when it comes to making it a worthwhile country to invest in, it is too full of unreliable infrastructure and unhealthy people. Unless you can come up with a realistic and well-coordinated way of dealing with poor health and unproductivity, you are not going to attract the “right sort of immigrant,” in any event - that sort do not migrate to a country where they can’t even buy an affordable home with 24/7 mains water that isn’t prone to being subjected to regular natural disasters and is actually fit for habitation. Houses currently being built are exacerbating all the problems that make the country look unattractive, they are not fixing them, they are not making homes affordable, the new homes are shoddily built. What’s more, global capitalism is failing to solve the issues anywhere in the world, because you see the same issues arising in, eg, the US and Australia - unaffordable homes, inadequate infrastructure. That’s what’s enabling all these psychopathic opportunists to creep out of the woodwork - nobody wants to face the long term, they want to pretend there are quick fix, single-issue solutions.

RaindropsonNoses · 23/01/2026 14:22

Samdelila · 21/01/2026 13:05

Wow. Has this shortage of body armour ever been reported?

It was all over the news at the time

dwordle · 24/01/2026 10:49

I think we should be scared of what is happening right now. This is imperialism at best and fascism at worst. I think fascism is now on the march but the leader of this march is in control of the worlds most powerful military.

This guy seems to know what's he's talking about. A teacher from Sheffield Uni.

That should terrify us because it will impact everyone and there may be little we can do to stop it.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/DwoIrxZn47I?si=46tdc55dq9fTZZ1D

EasternStandard · 24/01/2026 11:19

I think one main issue is defence. I notice countries are looking to trade more with India and China but they won’t replace the defensive pact which relies on the US.