New Rules?

[Grumpy]

The perma-patsy home secretary, James Cleverly, “liked Stewart Lee a lot better when he was funny” and continues to feign conviction while defending the indefensible. But on Monday, Cleverly revealed that British citizens will now need to earn £38,700 a year before the foreign person they have married can live in the UK. This figure represents a 20 grand rise from the current threshold of £18,600 imposed on anyone unlucky enough to fall in love with a foreigner. The policy is the latest manifestation of the anti-immigration culture wars that are the death throes of this gasping dry wank of a government, malignantly salting the earth for its cursed successors.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/10/james-cleverly-anti-immigration-policy-foreign-wife-tories-stewart-lee

[Trenchcoat]

The perma-patsy home secretary, James Cleverly, “liked Stewart Lee a lot better when he was funny” and continues to feign conviction while defending the indefensible. But on Monday, Cleverly revealed that British citizens will now need to earn £38,700 a year before the foreign person they have married can live in the UK. This figure represents a 20 grand rise from the current threshold of £18,600 imposed on anyone unlucky enough to fall in love with a foreigner. The policy is the latest manifestation of the anti-immigration culture wars that are the death throes of this gasping dry wank of a government, malignantly salting the earth for its cursed successors.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/10/james-cleverly-anti-immigration-policy-foreign-wife-tories-stewart-lee

Which may be all cleverly avoided if you are canny enough like yours truely to be committed to being with a Ukrainian girl

With a Ukrainian girl you can get her in, sponsor her in on a refugee visa if she is not already. On a refugee visa she has the same 5 year wait as on a spouse visa before being able to obtain Indefinite Leave to Remain/Citizenship, but with less costs involved and you aren't at risk of the girl being deported should you not have the required income over the next 5 years. Importantly the Spouse visa needs to be renewed ever 2 years so 3 applications for a spouse visa within a 5 year period, at the start, after 2 years and after 4 years in. To keep your income up in the preceding year of each application for many will not be certain so a big risk of her getting kicked out of the country.

The refugee visa on the other hand is given for three years initially, but will likely be extended if the war is ongoing still at the three year point as you can't really take people in to be safe from war just to reject them back into the war. Even if the government didn't stump up first off on this the courts would probably block such deportations, on the point I have just made, etc.

So if you were to meet a girl who had come to the UK around the start of the war she would be already 2 years into the 5 year qualifying period. She would be entitled for certain to be here another year so that makes 3 years. She then needs just two more years. Not a lot and possibly if the war ended in Ukraine (so thereby ending the refugee visa) you might be able to get a spouse vusa for the remaining two years so less distance to carry it, assuming the refugee & spouse years can be added together.

The other thing to bear in mind is that this hits hardest now as the £18.6k did when it was introduced. Back then people were complaining the same as they are now about it. The thing is that I didn't notice anywhere it being mentioned that it would go up with inflation. So over time the hurdle would get less, it's just worse for those now and in the next few years. Here the minimum wage usually goes up each year, so in a few years time it will make it less severe.

For the time being though yes it is steep and shows that most people in this country don't earn a lot. I could theoretically reach this income, but if there is a better easier way around it in terms of the refugee visa, why not.

I think in addition if the girl gets married to a UK guy but moreso if they have children in this country then immigration will be less inclined to want to boot her out and especially if they have children more inclined to try and find a solution.

[Trenchcoat]

Here is some more info from the official UK GOV site on when someone can apply for British Citizenship in the UK when married to a British citizen:


"If you’re married to or in a civil partnership with a British citizen
To apply as the spouse or civil partner of a British citizen you must have lived in the UK for the last 3 years.

You’ll also need to have either:

indefinite leave to remain (ILR)
settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme
If you do, you’ll be eligible to apply for citizenship immediately.

If you have indefinite leave to remain (ILR)
You can usually apply for ILR after you’ve lived in the UK for 5 years.

To apply for citizenship with ILR you must usually have lived in the UK for 12 months after getting it."

[Trenchcoat]

Another way at present instead of meeting yearly income earnings is to show instead savings in a bank account. The assumption may be that this route will continue after Spring 2024 but is likely to increase also. One unofficial source states:


"Savings: A certain amount of savings can offset the current income requirement, currently the amount is £62,500. However, applying the same calculation to the updated income requirement could mean that this may go up to £112,750 sometime in 2024.
http://spousevisalawyers.co.uk › uk..."


I am guessing that they used done formula to reach this figure possibly the same one that was used to meet the previous figure. However, as far as I am aware no official news yet on whether the savings alternative will still be possible or officially how much it may be. It could be an even higher sum or possibly no longer available since as far as I am aware there was no news of it in the announcement. Possibly though the government might release news later on this, possibly early next year as concern over recently high yearly immigration figures diminish.


This is a source on what savings you need at present. As it states that of course you need more savings if they're are children present - since they are regarded as requiring financial support also:

http://freemovement.org.uk/appendix-fm-financial-requirements/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20applying%20for,during%20the%206%2Dmonth%20period.

I would assume that it's solely the Partner's children that this covers, rather than joint children who already hold British citizenship.

To be honest my view is that these requirement tend to go beyond the money actually needing to support a partner or spouse and more towards blocking citizenship to keep immigration numbers down. I understand the need to keep immigration numbers down but I think that the UK government recently let in a load of Hong Kongers (even though we left Hong Kong over twenty years ago now ) and then took in loads of Afghans, I am sure way more than necessary as unhelpful and would have been better of avoiding as we could have rightly done so.

That is one thing I am not happy with Boris Johnson about.

The other is all the boat people coming across to present date.

It seems to me that they are targeting the wrong group to cut down on immigration failing elsewhere of their own making.

That we seemed to allow so many East Europeans to stay in after Brexit while most EU nations seemed not so easy going to Brits I think is another issue.

However, we are where we are now and anyone wanting to get with a foreign woman here (aside from those that have already done so) will have to think carefully about the mechanics of it all I think.

[ML]

The money needed should be based on a sliding scale depending on how good the gal looks.

Or better yet, her IQ and overall health.

Or at a minimum, use the Canadian scoring system.

[Trenchcoat]

Good point ML, keep all the mingers out

We'll have a country full of hotties as a result.

Well a more recent story on it all here:
http://www.euronews.com/2023/12/11/anguish-grows-over-effective-ban-on-most-uk-citizens-marrying-foreign-nationals

People aren't happy, not those who have planned for a life in the UK with this now falling into disarray as a result of this change.

Looks like there is the possibility of some legal challenges being mounted, so possibly they might either win or the Government backs down.

Saving 10,000 off the migration figure a year is not huge and really a drop in the ocean from where the government is today. I think that it's an area that is kind of being used as a scapegoat to answer for the big immigration numbers issue as the government is struggling to effectively hit those problem areas so is going for what it sees as the easy target for PR purposes instead of the one(s) that is causing all of the problems.

[John Gaunt]

Hey TC.
All those years wasted posting nonsense on the forums instead of getting out there and meeting the girls. On the old income requirements it was going to be a tough nut for you to crack.
Now, it’s practically impossible for you to import a bride on your minimum wage income.
How are you going to square that hole?

I do actually have some sympathy for people in this predicament because I don’t think the numbers involved make any difference to overall net immigration. The govt is gaslighting us. Reduce the numbers of students, their dependents, care workers and low income workers plus dependents doing nonessential jobs indigenous brits are too lazy to do, stop issuing visas like sweeties or a complete moratorium on immigration for a generation and we might just stave of the inevitable take over.

[Bee Farmer]

I do actually have some sympathy for people in this predicament because I don’t think the numbers involved make any difference to overall net immigration. The govt is gaslighting us. Reduce the numbers of students, their dependents, care workers and low income workers plus dependents doing nonessential jobs indigenous brits are too lazy to do, stop issuing visas like sweeties or a complete moratorium on immigration for a generation and we might just stave of the inevitable take over.

But if you don't significantly increase immigration, you will suffer demographic collapse, because the Baby Boomers didn't have very many kids.  The immigration and immigrant birth rate is the only thing keeping you afloat right now.

The biggest segment of the population is now heading into retirement, with a smaller number of younger people to support them.  There's going to be big job growth for nursing home workers.  There's a better paying career for Trench - he can wipe grandparents butts at the old folks home.

http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year%2012/Population/Case%20studies/UK.htm

[Trenchcoat]

But if you don't significantly increase immigration, you will suffer demographic collapse, because the Baby Boomers didn't have very many kids.  The immigration and immigrant birth rate is the only thing keeping you afloat right now.

The biggest segment of the population is now heading into retirement, with a smaller number of younger people to support them.  There's going to be big job growth for nursing home workers.  There's a better paying career for Trench - he can wipe grandparents butts at the old folks home.

http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-level/AQA/Year%2012/Population/Case%20studies/UK.htm

The problem is that immigrants are just replacing the native population from having children, i.e making it harder for the existing native population to have children. At the end of the day you need housing & jobs to support having a family. The housing and jobs that go to immigrants make it possible for them to have children while makes it potentially impossible for those of the native population that lose out on that front to have children. Most women pass over on guys that don't have housing/job behind them unless they have something else going for them or are desperate or are social housing types, but they can be dodgy in terms of long term relationships holding up. None of that is necessarily an anti-immigration argument but more a point of how it goes down in reality.

I agree with Gaunty that the immigration from Marriages is fairly small, only about 10,000 immigrants to the UK roughly each year come from Marriages. So it's unfairly targeting those where a big issue is being made out of it that isn't really an issue that is present. All I would say in that is other family members, dependants shouldn't in my view be automatically entitled to come in of the back of one member of the family getting citizenship. I would say that should only be the case if it is proven that they are entirely dependant for care on that citizen and there is no other practical way it can be worked.

In terms of the production if kids it's not that long a cycle in reality, it's not long before those in their twenties having kids grow up become old and need replacing. So one big boom doesn't necessarily last all that long in the great scheme of things.

I am thinking that to support our butt wiping needs that desperate, lonely American Incels can be brought in that will at that stage only be able to pull an old granny and will be grateful for the opportunity to get an easy in

[Trenchcoat]

Hey TC.
All those years wasted posting nonsense on the forums instead of getting out there and meeting the girls. On the old income requirements it was going to be a tough nut for you to crack.
Now, it’s practically impossible for you to import a bride on your minimum wage income.
How are you going to square that hole?

I do actually have some sympathy for people in this predicament because I don’t think the numbers involved make any difference to overall net immigration. The govt is gaslighting us. Reduce the numbers of students, their dependents, care workers and low income workers plus dependents doing nonessential jobs indigenous brits are too lazy to do, stop issuing visas like sweeties or a complete moratorium on immigration for a generation and we might just stave of the inevitable take over.

Getting out there and meeting the girls is probably the number 1 thing to do I agree. However, I only had so much time and money to hand over the years so learning up here on the ins and outs I think has been invaluable. Bill is correct that finding a girl that is a good girl is most important and makes all the rest easy/easier. That said knowing the scene isn't such a bad thing and I have probably avoided potentially making things harder for myself by knowing that stuff and have it come into use without me really realising that it's only stuff I learnt over time and valuing it as I should.

Well Gaunty my old chum I believe you have failed to understand the genius of going with a Ukrainian girl With a Ukrainian girl you just let the Refugee Visa take the strain

I'll let your noggin see if it can work it out, it needs the mental exercise to avoid those old age degenerative problems I can imagine

[Bee Farmer]

The problem is that immigrants are just replacing the native population from having children, i.e making it harder for the existing native population to have children.

No, they're not.  The government allowing increased immigration is a response to the native population not having kids.

But that's what happens when you urbanize.  When you live on a farm, you have lots of kids.  When you move to a city, you don't have as many kids because they are expensive and a burden.

At the end of the day you need housing & jobs to support having a family. The housing and jobs that go to immigrants make it possible for them to have children while makes it potentially impossible for those of the native population that lose out on that front to have children.

BS. Jobs and housing are not a finite resource.  You can start your own business or build a house. 

The immigrants all keep to themselves anyway.  They live in their own neighborhoods.  The immigrants aren't moving into any vacant house in a different cultural neighborhood.  And they aren't preventing you from a house, because God knows you aren't going to move into a neighborhood full of immigrants.

Most women pass over on guys that don't have housing/job behind them unless they have something else going for them or are desperate or are social housing types, but they can be dodgy in terms of long term relationships holding up. None of that is necessarily an anti-immigration argument but more a point of how it goes down in reality.

Yep.  Because women are always thinking about not just themselves, but their future unborn children.  If a guy is in a low-paying job and has no ambition, she knows he will never be able to offer her or her future unborn children much of a life.

So a poor low-status guy can only dream of finding a desperate girl.

In terms of the production if kids it's not that long a cycle in reality, it's not long before those in their twenties having kids grow up become old and need replacing. So one big boom doesn't necessarily last all that long in the great scheme of things.

In a normal, healthy demographic profile, there are more young people than old people.  The population is growing.

The problem is that when you have a big group of a certain age people, but they don't have many kids...they can't replace them.  Just look at China.  They had the one child policy at the same time they were urbanizing and everyone moved to the cities and stopped having kids for economic reasons.  They finally realized their folly, and did away with the one child policy.

But now, almost everyone is age 50-80.  How do you get 50-80 year olds to have kids?

The price of labor in China has went up something like 16 times in the past 20 years.  Labor costs went up because they don't have enough workers.  They don't have enough 20-40 year old workers because they stopped having kids 40 years ago.

I am thinking that to support our butt wiping needs that desperate, lonely American Incels can be brought in that will at that stage only be able to pull an old granny and will be grateful for the opportunity to get an easy in

Why would any American want to go to Britain?  Britain stopped being a desirable place over 100 years ago. 

The US is still the place to be, and in the next 10 years, it's going to be the ONLY place people want to be.  (Ok, France, Sweden, Turkey, and Argentina won't be too bad.  But the rest of the world will be miserable.)

[Trenchcoat]

No, they're not.  The government allowing increased immigration is a response to the native population not having kids.

But that's what happens when you urbanize.  When you live on a farm, you have lots of kids.  When you move to a city, you don't have as many kids because they are expensive and a burden.

BS. Jobs and housing are not a finite resource.  You can start your own business or build a house. 

The immigrants all keep to themselves anyway.  They live in their own neighborhoods.  The immigrants aren't moving into any vacant house in a different cultural neighborhood.  And they aren't preventing you from a house, because God knows you aren't going to move into a neighborhood full of immigrants.

Yep.  Because women are always thinking about not just themselves, but their future unborn children.  If a guy is in a low-paying job and has no ambition, she knows he will never be able to offer her or her future unborn children much of a life.

So a poor low-status guy can only dream of finding a desperate girl.

In a normal, healthy demographic profile, there are more young people than old people.  The population is growing.

The problem is that when you have a big group of a certain age people, but they don't have many kids...they can't replace them.  Just look at China.  They had the one child policy at the same time they were urbanizing and everyone moved to the cities and stopped having kids for economic reasons.  They finally realized their folly, and did away with the one child policy.

But now, almost everyone is age 50-80.  How do you get 50-80 year olds to have kids?

The price of labor in China has went up something like 16 times in the past 20 years.  Labor costs went up because they don't have enough workers.  They don't have enough 20-40 year old workers because they stopped having kids 40 years ago.

Why would any American want to go to Britain?  Britain stopped being a desirable place over 100 years ago. 

The US is still the place to be, and in the next 10 years, it's going to be the ONLY place people want to be.  (Ok, France, Sweden, Turkey, and Argentina won't be too bad.  But the rest of the world will be miserable.)

It's a vicious cycle once you get the ball rolling on immigration Beefarmer. It starts of with an initial large inflow that displaces the native population, those displaced don't have kids so the government see it more immigrants being needed. The graphs start showing the native population having less children and the immigrant families having more thereby backing up their belief that more immigrant are needed.

We never did need immigrants to fill jobs that 'British people didn't want to do' as British people did do those jobs. What do you do when you have children and the commitment of a Mortgage you do whatever job you have to going to pay your way on those of course. You have to stop looking at the end result, the tail that is wagging the dog and consider that there is a lot more to it all. I am not against some immigrants totally or the jobs they do, some do wonderful work but I think we are the author of our own doom if we accept the quick fix all the time thinking that it does not come at a price.

Houses take a long time to build in the West and take up a lot of resources. The level of build up of materials has increased a lot from what they were several decades ago, particularly in the UK and other cold climate areas. In hot climate areas like India a tin shack can be hastily assembled as the weather is warm and insulation and condensation are not an issue. In the UK we can't do that people would die of hyperthermia, etc. A house doesn't get built overnight but flight arrivals do. So people are coming here faster than accommodation that can be built to house everyone plus the bet inflow of people, that's a problem. In the UK now people are starting to fill the streets homeless, we're now out of housing, Brexit helped stave this off by a few years but we are now at that point of difficulty.

The problem is with the native population those that dint have kids that would otherwise likely do so if the immigration issue and western feminist values aren't f*cking it up is that those people miss out on having children and they can't go back and have children once they get so old. But the immigrant children that have had children sons leave the country, many potentially once they have built up enough money to live well at home, in their home country. That leaves western countries in the sh*t, they have happily turned their noses up at their own population for short term gain of a low paid workforce that businesses love to build the economy but sacrificed some of their native population and hence linf term future.

You're forgetting Beefarmer that the UK has a higher value currency than the US, just think of all that money you could get in the UK that would exchange for more US dollars

If we can get a good trade deal with the US then Britain is on its way back to being a Superpower once again, English hating old Irish man Biden doesn't like that thought hence why no trade deal as yet. In the future we shall see.

[Steven1971]

It's a vicious cycle once you get the ball rolling on immigration Beefarmer. It starts of with an initial large inflow that displaces the native population, those displaced don't have kids so the government see it more immigrants being needed. The graphs start showing the native population having less children and the immigrant families having more thereby backing up their belief that more immigrant are needed.

We never did need immigrants to fill jobs that 'British people didn't want to do' as British people did do those jobs. What do you do when you have children and the commitment of a Mortgage you do whatever job you have to going to pay your way on those of course. You have to stop looking at the end result, the tail that is wagging the dog and consider that there is a lot more to it all. I am not against some immigrants totally or the jobs they do, some do wonderful work but I think we are the author of our own doom if we accept the quick fix all the time thinking that it does not come at a price.

Houses take a long time to build in the West and take up a lot of resources. The level of build up of materials has increased a lot from what they were several decades ago, particularly in the UK and other cold climate areas. In hot climate areas like India a tin shack can be hastily assembled as the weather is warm and insulation and condensation are not an issue. In the UK we can't do that people would die of hyperthermia, etc. A house doesn't get built overnight but flight arrivals do. So people are coming here faster than accommodation that can be built to house everyone plus the bet inflow of people, that's a problem. In the UK now people are starting to fill the streets homeless, we're now out of housing, Brexit helped stave this off by a few years but we are now at that point of difficulty.

The problem is with the native population those that dint have kids that would otherwise likely do so if the immigration issue and western feminist values aren't f*cking it up is that those people miss out on having children and they can't go back and have children once they get so old. But the immigrant children that have had children sons leave the country, many potentially once they have built up enough money to live well at home, in their home country. That leaves western countries in the sh*t, they have happily turned their noses up at their own population for short term gain of a low paid workforce that businesses love to build the economy but sacrificed some of their native population and hence linf term future.

You're forgetting Beefarmer that the UK has a higher value currency than the US, just think of all that money you could get in the UK that would exchange for more US dollars

If we can get a good trade deal with the US then Britain is on its way back to being a Superpower once again, English hating old Irish man Biden doesn't like that thought hence why no trade deal as yet. In the future we shall see.

We can't even get Canada to do a deal on cheese, so good luck with a trade deal with America that doesn't involve the UK screwing it's own farmers by letting in beef full of antibiotics reared on mega farms. There is no trade deal in existence with America that wouldn't involve them having our pants down. You don't get to be too dog by playing nice.

[Bee Farmer]

It's a vicious cycle once you get the ball rolling on immigration Beefarmer. It starts of with an initial large inflow that displaces the native population, those displaced don't have kids so the government see it more immigrants being needed.

Immigration doesn't affect how many kids the native population has.  Urbanization does.  When folks live on the farm, kids are free labor and you have lots of them.  When you move to the city and take factory jobs, kids are a costly burden and you don't have as many.

We never did need immigrants to fill jobs that 'British people didn't want to do' as British people did do those jobs.

But you do need immigrants to do jobs that you don't have enough people to do.  When you have 3 people retiring, but you only have 1 or 2 entering the workforce...you either have to find more workers, or you go without the work getting done.  This is why there is a labor shortage in so many western countries.  More people are retiring than entering the workforce.

Houses take a long time to build in the West and take up a lot of resources.

I've seen nice houses built in cold areas in a couple months.  How long do you think it takes Canadians to build a house?

It's just your house that takes forever to complete.

China has enough houses built to hold twice their population.  But they are in a labor shortage, because they don't have enough young workers entering the workforce to replace all the folks that are retiring.

The problem is with the native population those that dint have kids that would otherwise likely do so if the immigration issue and western feminist values aren't f*cking it up is that those people miss out on having children and they can't go back and have children once they get so old.

Quit blaming feminism and immigrants for your native population not having kids.  Those factors have NOTHING to do with folks not having kids.  Urbanization and city living is what keeps folks from having more kids, because of the cost of the kids.

If you get out in the countryside, you will still find the native population having more kids.

You're forgetting Beefarmer that the UK has a higher value currency than the US, just think of all that money you could get in the UK that would exchange for more US dollars

The UK does not have a higher value currency than the US dollar.  It may have a higher exchange rate, but not a higher value.  The British pound stopped being the highest value currency over a hundred years ago.  The US dollar is the highest value currency, and it is the international currency of choice.

If we can get a good trade deal with the US then Britain is on its way back to being a Superpower once again, English hating old Irish man Biden doesn't like that thought hence why no trade deal as yet. In the future we shall see.

The UK isn't going to get a good trade deal with the US.  As Peter Zeihan points out in this video, when the US and the UK had the lend lease deal in WWII, the UK got 40 work out, mothballed destroyer ships from the US...and the UK gave the US every military installation they had in the western world.  In other videos, Zeihan has gone as far as to say that he thinks the UK may appeal to the US to be allowed to become the 51 state in the US.  That is the level of deal the UK may have to make.  As Steven1971 points out, any trade deal with the US will involve the UK dropping their pants and bending over...and no, the US isn't going to use any lube, and we aren't going to have the decency to give you a reacharound.

[Trenchcoat]

We can't even get Canada to do a deal on cheese, so good luck with a trade deal with America that doesn't involve the UK screwing it's own farmers by letting in beef full of antibiotics reared on mega farms. There is no trade deal in existence with America that wouldn't involve them having our pants down. You don't get to be too dog by playing nice.

It's why we're not rushing a trade deal with the US, we can survive well enough without one, but getting the right one can make us a global superpower once again. Think of the old Atlantic trade route with the American colonies it will be like that back in action, a modern day version of it.

It's why old man Biden doesn't want a trade deal with us he can see the old British Empire re-establishing itself and he doesn't like it he's anti-Englishness kicks in. Trump seems to be a different kettle of fish, he knows that like the old British Empire, the US can't maintain it's presence throughout the world it's just getting too great an economic burden. Cue AUKUS and the new Anglo-Saxon World Order It's in it's infancy but what it spells is an axis of three great Anglo Saxon nations evenly spaced out holding predominance across the globe. It has the capacity to be huge and long enduring.

The EU is a spent force, it's debt ladened and is giving Ukraine false hope. It used to say Ukraine wasn't economically strong enough to join without being too great an economic burden for the EU but now it is fine to do so with it's economy wrecked by war??? What Ukraine would be joining is a EU that is debt ridden and soon going to have to face up to its debts and economic woes. The EU is kicking the can down the road and putting on a show for as long as possible but the chickens are going to come home to roost, there is only so long until they are forced to face up to it's creditors and tell the world it is skint and tell the East Europeans that there is no more money for them, the money it's getting in from Germany, France & Italy is just going to have to be spent on servicing it's debt. At that point Eastern Europe is not going to be to pleased along with the member states left paying the EU debt. So expect another EU calamity on the horizon. I just hope we are not back part of it. For now though the EU are happy to hoodwink Ukraine into its Union that it knows isn't really what it used to be and before long that will all show with Ukraine probably feeling duped that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes as Ukraine startes dictating how they will have their society in exchange for precious little.

[Bee Farmer]

It's why we're not rushing a trade deal with the US, we can survive well enough without one, but getting the right one can make us a global superpower once again. Think of the old Atlantic trade route with the American colonies it will be like that back in action, a modern day version of it.

A trade agreement with the US won't make the UK a superpower again. 

The UK was once a superpower because it had colonies all over the world that provided economic benefit to England.  London was the financial center of the world.  The UK had a powerful navy to protect their interests.  Now, New York is the financial center of the world.  The Royal Navy is gutted.  It can't even send its carrier out without US escorts as part of the battle group.  The former colonies modernized, and now have guns - it's no longer a case of bringing knives to a gunfight as it was before.

Trump seems to be a different kettle of fish, he knows that like the old British Empire, the US can't maintain it's presence throughout the world it's just getting too great an economic burden.

It's not about the economic cost.

After WWII, the US was worried about having to face Stalin army in another war.  So we made a strategic security arrangement.  We had the only navy, and we promised the world freedom of the seas.  Anyone could trade with anyone.  This enabled other countries to develop and get rich.  In exchange, the US got to write those countries security policies.  If the Soviets ever went to war against the US, the other countries got to be the cannon fodder before we had to fight them.

But the Soviet Union collapsed 30 years ago.  Every American President since Herbert Walker Bush we have had is more nationalistic.  With the shale oil revolution, we don't need any Middle Eastern oil.  The US is a food and energy exporter.  We don't need the rest of the world anymore.  In order to patrol the seas, we need about 800 destroyer ships.  We have 60 or 70 total.  We really don't care about the rest of the world.  We are withdrawing more and more, and letting other countries figure out their own pecking order in the new world.

You're going to see the world go back more to what it was like pre-WWI.  Countries will only be able to trade in their locales, if they can provide armed navy escorts.  Most developed countries are dependent upon global trade, and that's going away.
Globalization allowed these countries to develop, and as a result, they stopped having kids when they urbanized.  They left the farm, and took jobs in the cities.  70 years later, you have demographic collapse.
A lot of modern agriculture is dependent on fertilizers.  The number one source of nitrogen fertilizer in Europe was the Nordstream pipeline.  That's gone.  Russia and Belarus was the number one supplier of fertilizer for the world.  That's gone.
The Middle East is a mess.  The Saudis and Iranians are at each other's throats.  It's only a matter of time before that blows up without the US being there to make everyone behave, and we don't really care much anymore since we don't need those energy supplies.
The Suez Canal provides about 1/4 of Egypt's budget.  Egypt stopped growing wheat years ago (and if they converted all ag acres back to wheat, still couldn't feed all their people.) and started growing cotton and citrus.  They buy their food from other countries (like Ukraine and Russia).  But how are they going to buy food without the revenues from the Suez Canal because of disruptions caused by the Houthis?
China imports 95% of their food and food imports, and over 80% of their energy.  If there is a disruption in global shipping, China starves to death within a year and all industry vanishes.

The UK is close enough they can get energy from Norway.  They will still have the ability to be a regional power, but will probably be lesser than France.  The UK simply doesn't have a navy capable of making them a global superpower.

[Trenchcoat]

A trade agreement with the US won't make the UK a superpower again. 

The UK was once a superpower because it had colonies all over the world that provided economic benefit to England.  London was the financial center of the world.  The UK had a powerful navy to protect their interests.  Now, New York is the financial center of the world.  The Royal Navy is gutted.  It can't even send its carrier out without US escorts as part of the battle group.  The former colonies modernized, and now have guns - it's no longer a case of bringing knives to a gunfight as it was before.

It's not about the economic cost.

After WWII, the US was worried about having to face Stalin army in another war.  So we made a strategic security arrangement.  We had the only navy, and we promised the world freedom of the seas.  Anyone could trade with anyone.  This enabled other countries to develop and get rich.  In exchange, the US got to write those countries security policies.  If the Soviets ever went to war against the US, the other countries got to be the cannon fodder before we had to fight them.

But the Soviet Union collapsed 30 years ago.  Every American President since Herbert Walker Bush we have had is more nationalistic.  With the shale oil revolution, we don't need any Middle Eastern oil.  The US is a food and energy exporter.  We don't need the rest of the world anymore.  In order to patrol the seas, we need about 800 destroyer ships.  We have 60 or 70 total.  We really don't care about the rest of the world.  We are withdrawing more and more, and letting other countries figure out their own pecking order in the new world.

You're going to see the world go back more to what it was like pre-WWI.  Countries will only be able to trade in their locales, if they can provide armed navy escorts.  Most developed countries are dependent upon global trade, and that's going away.
Globalization allowed these countries to develop, and as a result, they stopped having kids when they urbanized.  They left the farm, and took jobs in the cities.  70 years later, you have demographic collapse.
A lot of modern agriculture is dependent on fertilizers.  The number one source of nitrogen fertilizer in Europe was the Nordstream pipeline.  That's gone.  Russia and Belarus was the number one supplier of fertilizer for the world.  That's gone.
The Middle East is a mess.  The Saudis and Iranians are at each other's throats.  It's only a matter of time before that blows up without the US being there to make everyone behave, and we don't really care much anymore since we don't need those energy supplies.
The Suez Canal provides about 1/4 of Egypt's budget.  Egypt stopped growing wheat years ago (and if they converted all ag acres back to wheat, still couldn't feed all their people.) and started growing cotton and citrus.  They buy their food from other countries (like Ukraine and Russia).  But how are they going to buy food without the revenues from the Suez Canal because of disruptions caused by the Houthis?
China imports 95% of their food and food imports, and over 80% of their energy.  If there is a disruption in global shipping, China starves to death within a year and all industry vanishes.

The UK is close enough they can get energy from Norway.  They will still have the ability to be a regional power, but will probably be lesser than France.  The UK simply doesn't have a navy capable of making them a global superpower.

You're still not getting it my Beefarmuh, once a country has Nukes it doesn't need an Army so much, possibly for effecting regime change or supporting a regime but that's about it.

The UK has Nukes meaning it is a power in the running to be a superpower. You really need Nukes and/or Neutron bombs to be in the running to be a Superpower or protection of a country that does like France in the EU.

Beyond that it's all Economy, who can get to be an economically great power, China, Germany, the US. Russia had a shot at it but has blown it.

The UK though is manoeuvring itself, it can be at the golden intersection between the trade if the EU and the trade of the US. The US still needs to trade for it's companies to prosper and spread its global influence & power. The UK now holds an important lynchpin through which the US can develop more into Europe/the EU. That's good for the US and good for the UK. For the UK the trade of two powers is like a weightlifter lifting twice the weight of before and consuming more protein. We're going to get big & beefy IF we don't lose our confidence and end up back in the EU.

A country tha positions itself as well as we can do as described above then gets hooked up into the lifeblood if many viebs of trade. It becomes a very important major regional power as a result and before long a Superpower. Think of the old silk road trade route of the Mongols, China, etc. It's all about floating your country into the right place economically. Not many countries can do this and it depends on time & situation. Britain is now in an enviable situation to do this for the first time since the fall of its Empire. If we accomplish this then Britain can become the first rate nation in Europe overtaking Germany and be very dominant here. The US will have the America, Australia the Far East, - AUKUS.

[Bee Farmer]

once a country has Nukes it doesn't need an Army so much, possibly for effecting regime change or supporting a regime but that's about it.

North Korea has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.
Pakistan has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.
India has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.
Israel has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.

Russia has nukes.  And you say they don't need an army?  They would be screwed without an army.

Without an army, nukes are your only option.  Which means that in any dispute, you and the other party will get nuked.

Beyond that it's all Economy, who can get to be an economically great power, China, Germany, the US. Russia had a shot at it but has blown it.

China has no chance of being an economically great power.  Nobody wants the yuan.  They don't even want the yuan.  When Russia was sanctioned, they did a currency swap with China.  Then they tried to buy Chinese stuff with the yuan they had...but China didn't want their money back.

Germany is dead economically.  Their entire economic model was based on natural gas to support their manufacturing and petrochemical industry.  The Nordstream getting blown up killed Germany.  BASF is trying to move their entire business to Louisiana to take advantage of all the natural gas we have in America, but it won't be able to happen fast enough to save the Germany economy.
Add to that, look at German demographics.  They are aging into mass retirement.  They don't have any young people left.
They are dead.  Everyone just hasn't realized it yet.

The US is the only superpower.  Our naval power is bigger than the rest of the world combined, several times over.
We have an energy surplus.  We don't need to import oil.
We have a food surplus.  The Midwest is the world's largest productive agricultural region with good soil that gets regular rainfall.
The US has more miles of navigable rivers than the rest of the world combined.
The US has more port capacity than the rest of the world.
We have ocean moats on our East and West, and good relations with the countries on the Northern and Southern border.  So we have great security.

The UK now holds an important lynchpin through which the US can develop more into Europe/the EU. That's good for the US and good for the UK. For the UK the trade of two powers is like a weightlifter lifting twice the weight of before and consuming more protein. We're going to get big & beefy IF we don't lose our confidence and end up back in the EU.

Almost all of Europe is aging into mass retirement.  What trade are you talking about?  You don't have anything to trade when all your workers are retiring and you don't have a replacement generation.
You forget that the US dollar is the currency of trade.  Everyone needs us, just to be able to trade with each other.
What makes you think the EU would want the UK back, if the UK decided they wanted back in?

A country tha positions itself as well as we can do as described above then gets hooked up into the lifeblood if many viebs of trade. It becomes a very important major regional power as a result and before long a Superpower.

Just because a country can become a major regional power doesn't mean it has any hope of ever being a superpower.  France will likely be a major regional power in Europe, but it won't be a superpower.  Turkey will be a major regional power, but it won't be a superpower.  India will be a major regional power, but it won't be a superpower.

Not many countries can do this and it depends on time & situation. Britain is now in an enviable situation to do this for the first time since the fall of its Empire. If we accomplish this then Britain can become the first rate nation in Europe overtaking Germany and be very dominant here.

You don't have a big enough navy to project power and protect your interests.
You don't have enough food or energy to support yourself.
You don't have the demographics to support this.

Get ready for France to be the regional economic power in Europe.  Sweden will become a bigger player too.  Spain might gain some power, depending how they play their cards.

IF the UK can make a deal with the US, they will probably be ok, but they won't become a superpower like you are hoping.  But if they make a deal, plan on it being very humiliating for the UK.  Imagine putting all the UK farmers out of business so you can buy food from the US.  Or no longer being a part of Airbus...you're in the Boeing family now.

[ML]

China has no chance of being an economically great power.  Nobody wants the yuan. 

I disagree.  China is already an economic power and they will surpass the USA at some point.  The fact of Yuan being their national currency has no bearing on their economic power.

[Steven1971]

The EU, our nearest trading partner, accounted for 44.3% of total UK trade in 2022, almost three times of that with the USA at 16.6%. We have a significant trade defect in manufacturing. We had and have a surplus in services. Our new trading 'opportunities' involve countries several time zones ahead and behind us, often many thousands of miles away. The only advantage we have is the English, the language of the world.

With the European Union we now have new non tariff barriers which hurt small businesses in particular. Nobody wants to do their country down, but the supreme optimism of Trench is a mixture of rose tinted nostalgia and Boris Johnson boosterism on steroids. If we are lucky we will manage our decline like a sports team living on past glories while other teams overtake them.

[Steven1971]

I disagree.  China is already an economic power and they will surpass the USA at some point.  The fact of Yuan being their national currency has no bearing on their economic power.

In terms of GDP overall, but not per capita. The achiles heel of China is the lack of state provision for the elderly. The government tacitly encouraged a property bubble which would create wealth for people to have their version of a 401k, but all it has done has created many houses with no inhabitants.

I wonder when western companies will join the dots and decide to upsticks to Africa for cheaper labour and  not be at the mercy of the CCP.

[Trenchcoat]

In terms of GDP overall, but not per capita. The achiles heel of China is the lack of state provision for the elderly. The government tacitly encouraged a property bubble which would create wealth for people to have their version of a 401k, but all it has done has created many houses with no inhabitants.

I wonder when western companies will join the dots and decide to upsticks to Africa for cheaper labour and  not be at the mercy of the CCP.

Africans don't work hard enough for the cheap cost of their labour. The only time they ever have done was when they had a  behind their rears.

Chinese people are very diligent hard workers and are very cheap. China will continue to do well as a result. However, AUKUS has been designed to check their power. China is not as big a problem as Russia so long as we carefully check their power in the region. Left unchecked they will take advantage wherever they can assess a good opportunity too. The Chinese are more tactful than the Russians and aren't eager to rush into action but rather make their moves more cunningly.

They aren't a big problem to the west and we aren't necessarily a big problem to them. We need their economy their economy needs us. So long as we don't let them have a free hand or get too reliant on them we can conceivable get on ok with them. A weak Russia may potentially be useful to them so they will sit and study what is going on with Russia/Ukraine with interest. They are a studious lot the Chinese.

[Trenchcoat]

The EU, our nearest trading partner, accounted for 44.3% of total UK trade in 2022, almost three times of that with the USA at 16.6%. We have a significant trade defect in manufacturing. We had and have a surplus in services. Our new trading 'opportunities' involve countries several time zones ahead and behind us, often many thousands of miles away. The only advantage we have is the English, the language of the world.

With the European Union we now have new non tariff barriers which hurt small businesses in particular. Nobody wants to do their country down, but the supreme optimism of Trench is a mixture of rose tinted nostalgia and Boris Johnson boosterism on steroids. If we are lucky we will manage our decline like a sports team living on past glories while other teams overtake them.

Exactly! We have currently so much less trade with the US, that could be so much more! You are catching in well now Steven

Imagine that trade with the US doubling or more, that would boost our economy massively, raise our GDP up massively. That can all be achieved with a good trade deal with the US. It's been a much overlooked massive market just right across the pond from us. Sure not as near as the EU but near enough and importantly a big English speaking market, we get them (mostly) and they get us. It's way easier to strike up trade arrangements when you speak the same lingo (near enough) and have similar enough culture and ways. Businesses can do business with each other easier and can link up easier. Massive new opportunities for UK and US businesses could be created. The US has vast amounts of money investment with which to invest in the UK under a trade deal that would be a massive boost for are economy. They're is just one old man in the the way

[Trenchcoat]

North Korea has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.
Pakistan has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.
India has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.
Israel has nukes.  They aren't a superpower.

Russia has nukes.  And you say they don't need an army?  They would be screwed without an army.

Without an army, nukes are your only option.  Which means that in any dispute, you and the other party will get nuked.

China has no chance of being an economically great power.  Nobody wants the yuan.  They don't even want the yuan.  When Russia was sanctioned, they did a currency swap with China.  Then they tried to buy Chinese stuff with the yuan they had...but China didn't want their money back.

Germany is dead economically.  Their entire economic model was based on natural gas to support their manufacturing and petrochemical industry.  The Nordstream getting blown up killed Germany.  BASF is trying to move their entire business to Louisiana to take advantage of all the natural gas we have in America, but it won't be able to happen fast enough to save the Germany economy.
Add to that, look at German demographics.  They are aging into mass retirement.  They don't have any young people left.
They are dead.  Everyone just hasn't realized it yet.

The US is the only superpower.  Our naval power is bigger than the rest of the world combined, several times over.
We have an energy surplus.  We don't need to import oil.
We have a food surplus.  The Midwest is the world's largest productive agricultural region with good soil that gets regular rainfall.
The US has more miles of navigable rivers than the rest of the world combined.
The US has more port capacity than the rest of the world.
We have ocean moats on our East and West, and good relations with the countries on the Northern and Southern border.  So we have great security.

Almost all of Europe is aging into mass retirement.  What trade are you talking about?  You don't have anything to trade when all your workers are retiring and you don't have a replacement generation.
You forget that the US dollar is the currency of trade.  Everyone needs us, just to be able to trade with each other.
What makes you think the EU would want the UK back, if the UK decided they wanted back in?

Just because a country can become a major regional power doesn't mean it has any hope of ever being a superpower.  France will likely be a major regional power in Europe, but it won't be a superpower.  Turkey will be a major regional power, but it won't be a superpower.  India will be a major regional power, but it won't be a superpower.

You don't have a big enough navy to project power and protect your interests.
You don't have enough food or energy to support yourself.
You don't have the demographics to support this.

Get ready for France to be the regional economic power in Europe.  Sweden will become a bigger player too.  Spain might gain some power, depending how they play their cards.

IF the UK can make a deal with the US, they will probably be ok, but they won't become a superpower like you are hoping.  But if they make a deal, plan on it being very humiliating for the UK.  Imagine putting all the UK farmers out of business so you can buy food from the US.  Or no longer being a part of Airbus...you're in the Boeing family now.

Germany is at the top in Europe for GDP by quite some way, the UK is ahead if France in GDP. Italy has too much debt and potentially is in dire straights from it.

France doesn't have anything going for it that would raise their GDP more, their economy is going nowhere. Germany's economy is faltering under the weight of propping up the EU and it's poorer members and troubled by losing its cheap oil from Russia. It's still the biggest economic force currently in Europe and is usually very resilient but the UK has the opportunity to do better if it can strike up a good trade deal with the US.

Look at how the UK trumped France with AUKUS, we made fools out of them. We pinched their submarine deal with Australia so thereby boosting our economy my millions of pounds plus jobs and taking away fron theirs. More than that in the future Australia is likely to be coming to us & the US for it's armaments rather than France. France have been cut out and Macron was left fillings up his panties over it

It's a cumulative arrangement the more we three countries do together under AUKUS the more the economic effect grows cumulatively.

You are pent up on the idea of a big Navy Beefarmer, but the days of having a big Navy as a useful entity went many years ago. Now it would just be a big pointless economic burden. Though that does depend on part on the country and the use it may have for a big navy or not so. Many decades ago Britain had the biggest navy in the world, it is what we specialised in. But now with Empire gone we just don't need the economic burden of a big navy. The US is a bit different as it has bithe the Atlantic and the Pacific on either side of it, so a big navy is much more useful to it.

The main thing is that a Superpower needs to be underpinned with a big economy. The UK economy gets big again as it used to be when it had its Empire and so we can thereby gain a lot more clout and if necessary grow a big military of the back of it.

[Bee Farmer]

I disagree.  China is already an economic power and they will surpass the USA at some point.  The fact of Yuan being their national currency has no bearing on their economic power.

How can China surpass the US?  They don't have very many people under age 40.  They already peaked and now are in a demographic collapse.