Britain/US split?

["Michael Keaney" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

Mark Jones writes:

It was always (in less neurotic times) the
American consensus that Britain should be well inside the Euro gates,
like
any proper Trojan horse ought. Pulling the British satrapy out of Europe

seems an awesome change of strategic direction, one with momentous
implications.

=====

MK: Trying to keep up with developments stateside is difficult enough
without the difficulty being compounded by the clearly confused signals
emanating from the Bush administration itself. Between Paul O'Neill's
contradictory statements re dollar valuation, the IMF and world summitry
and Donald Rumsfeld's equally cross-eyed pronouncements re US military
retrenchment and the dangers of European military autonomy, my guess is
that Bush's people are trying to reconcile ideology with reality. The
loony tunes at the Weekly Standard (William Kristol et al) can lambast
Bush for betraying this or that cause, but the obvious desire to enact
one set of policies is countered by the reality that demands state
intervention, whether it be energy or "bailing out" "emerging markets"
(or should that be flushing out?). The problem with the Bushies is their
Cold War mentalities are being superimposed upon post-Cold War
circumstances, so that the new enemies are China and European
aspirations to equal status (aggravated by trade disputes). Real or
imagined, they present sufficient justification for the utterly crass
policies and pronouncements that have already come to characterise this
malAdministration.

=====

I see that Foreign Sec Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon or 'Buff' Hoon as the
Defence Sec is known in the corridors of power, are starting to talk-up
Star Wars 2. I'd like to see you unravel the twisted entrails of *that*
sub-plot.

=====

MK: Thanks very much. You're just as capable, you know. Howzabout... New
Labour covering its flanks domestically (with the pro-US wing of the
state and polity) and internationally (with the US itself). There's also
the potential contracts to be won by defence contractors once Rumsfeld's
baby is born, if it gets that far. Supporting US unilateralism may also
give added impetus to the UK/French initiative driving the formation of
the European rapid reaction force and thus greater military autonomy for
the European members of NATO. David Hart is somewhere inside this murky
business still, which brings me to your next point...

=====

I'm sure you/the Eye is also right about the deliberate unhorsing of
Michael Portillo. The Guardian was active in this, which may or may not
confirm the thesis that the editors reside on the South Bank and not in
Clerkenwell.

=====

MK: Strangely Private Eye has not touched the Portillo story at all.
It's been humorously suggested somewhere that he might become the new
chairman of the BBC Board of Governors since he has so much time on his
hands now (Private Eye is keeping tabs on another candidate for this
job, Margaret Jay). In fact it's quite likely that, like Chris Patten
and John Wakeham, he will join Blair's big tent as a consolation prize
for being trashed so thoroughly, his reputation within the Conservative
Party effectively in shreds. The Guardian's role in the destruction of
the Conservative Party is quite singular, and was achieved in part
thanks to the enthusiasm of sincere journalist critics of Conservative
Party hegemony getting their chance at long last to unravel a lot of
dirty linen. Of course this was done while some discreet manoeuvering
took place behind the scenes, as with John Wakeham's reinvention as a
general Lord Fixit, whether as "architect" of the botched compromise
that was House of Lords reform, or as chair of the Press Complaints
Commission.

Michael K.