Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Is the UK really a 'money-laundering center'? Does anyone have a reference to back this up? akaDruid 14:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are major Point of View issues here. The comments about the EU taking precedence does not seem like an objective statement.

I'm not sure that the colloquilism in the Germany section is appropriate, even if it is mildly amusing. Ewan 13:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher and Kohl hated each onr another! 70.23.108.53 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pushing it somewhat to say that the UK is one of the "few" countries not to have the euro in the EU - many of the newly joined countries do not have the euro, even if they are working towards it. I am going to delete it, it can always be changed as the numbers change again.--Doctormonkey 11:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe labelling the UK's past actions in Africa as "evil" is appropriate for an encyclopedia (even if I do disagree with colonialism)

We need an intermediate page between special relationship and Foreign relations of the United States, discussing the historical nature of the relationship. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Chile added

[edit]

I've added a bit about Chile since the two nations have had rather an interesting diplomatic history. Paraguay is on the page and I haven't heard of the UK as having much in the way of relations with them since the 20th century whilst Chile has engaged with Britain diplomatically on a number of occasions, the most recent being with the Chilean presidential visit to Britain. I'm not sure how to add references yet but most of what is written can be backed up by the Chile-UK relations page linked there and pages on the Falklands, Beagle channel conflicts and British Chilean articles.


Kentynet (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illicit Drugs Section Deleted

[edit]

There are no references or citations here. It's one hell of an accusation to lay at a nation's feet. I have deleted this section. It should only be considered for return if major sources can be provided to back up the allegations made. --Corinthian 12:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Major POV issue is the European Union section

[edit]

Seriously, was this bit written by a Euroskeptic think tank? What evidence is there that Britain will turn away from the European Union in the future? Was this written by an American? There are no citations to back this section up, and it needs vast improvement. - User:213.48.73.89

I'm a Eurosceptic, just looked over it and inclined to agree. - JVG 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a small amount of very minority parties of the UK (e.g. UKIP) are eurosceptic as the major three are not this indecates that the majority of the UK is not Eurosceptic. --Lemonade100 (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly disagree. The general tone of UK politics is mildly anti-europe ( at least compared to other EU members ) with only the Lib-Dems ( stuck in third place ) being openly pro-Europe. EG The Tories oppose the Lisbon treaty and intend not to sign it IF it is not in place before the next election. It depends upon how you define "Euro-Sceptic", but if you take it to mean sceptic rather than anti I would say a slight majourity in the UK. 86.33.176.32 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article

[edit]
  • "The UK has had good relations with the rest of Europe since the Second World War" - "good" in a simplistic and very general way!
  • "Although the UK is not a Euro member, it still plays a leading role in the day to day workings of the EU." - Membership of the Euro has zero to do with the workings of the European Union.
  • "The UK has clashed with other Member States of the European Union, particularly with France (and their president Nicolas Sarkozy )" - Sarkozy is just in the job; what specific arguments have they had so far??
  • "The UK faces a critical juncture in its relations with the rest of the EU over the ratification of the new treaty establishing a constitution for Europe (which has already been rejected in France and the Netherlands)." POV - critical juncture? The UK isn't unique in its oppostion to the constitution.
  • "The United Kingdom's relationship with both the EU and the US are often strained, due to conflicting interests. The EU and the US do not see eye to eye on many issues. Some believe that the United Kingdom will increasingly turn away from the EU,[citation needed] as it did with the Commonwealth, this is because popularity of the EU is still quite low among the British public, and the UK remains one of the EU countries not to adopt the Euro. While remaining part of Europe, it is quite likely that Britain will retain closer relations with the US than do other European countries." POV, possible original research and def. unreferenced.
  • "The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth and is head of 16 of its 53 member states." - Clumbsy sentence.
  • "Since World War II the UK enjoyed excellent relations with West Germany, as well as the reunited Germany" - again oversimplfied.
  • "As with Germany the political position of both countries can be seen as very good" - Again oversimplified. "the British population engage in a lively and highly tongue-in-cheek relationship and mostly friendly rivalry with France"??? POV. "There have been continual clashes publicly and through national newspapers over such issues as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) where France is seen as a major net recipient and in the opinion of the public, perhaps unduly so." - "seen as" (this should be a statistic, not an opnion) and "perhaps unduly so" are not encyclopedic. Mark83 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Diplomatic Service

[edit]

A few articles have links to British Diplomatic Service. Could this be a redirect to the present article? --Edcolins 09:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article so amazingly vague?

[edit]

When I was reading it I was so shocked when I had reached the end. Why? Because I was wandering where the rest of the article was! The 'European Union' section is just far too short. The fact that this article attempts to summarise the UK's relations with the entire continent of Africa in three lines is simply laughable considering the links the UK has with Africa. Also, huge vital chunks are missing form this article. For example, it fails to talk about the UK's relations with Asia or South America. In fact all this article really does is give a watered-down, summarised and basically rubbish outline of what is one of the most far-reaching and influential foreign relations system in the world! (unsigned comment)

Articles only get written if people write them. If you think it needs improving, improve it. Unconstructive criticism isn't going to help make it a better article. Aridd (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

[edit]

Surely the abduction of British troops by Iran is worth a mention, or the strained relations in general? Jimjom (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The French section in this article is pretty obviously biased, making unverified claims of "tongue-and-cheek" relationships and stating an opinion on CAP as fact. The rest of the article has problems too, but lesser, so I've only marked this for now. 216.227.119.196 (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Reads like a red-top fluff piece. Not at all in keeping with the tone of the rest of the article. (edit, forgot to sign) VonBlade (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed WikiProject - Bilateral relations

[edit]

There is now a upstart WikiProject to establish a concensus about WP's International bilateral relations articles, including "X-Y (country) relations" articles, at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Interested parties should add their names at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force if they wish to play a part in the discussions or have an Interest in this going forward. Thank you for your attention. CaribDigita (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging two articles

[edit]

Heres the link to the article being discuss - United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars BritishWatcher (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments related to merging GB during Yugoslav wars and Foreign relations of the United Kingdom: Kamiondžija (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality?

[edit]

What would be the problem? The article is based on the book Unfinest Hour: Britain and destruction of Bosnia [1][2] [3]by Brendan Simms-Brittish historian+ reports by Brittish press+Brittish official gazette (Hansard)--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

[edit]

a recent vandalism by FenderMag (talk · contribs).

Please do not repeat this! I will keep translating article from hr.wiki.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um

[edit]

I have doubts about this article. For example this purports to be a quote from a UK sergeant: Before education (briefing) I had sympathies towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I was explained there that on that are people kill each other since the beginning of time.It is like clinical insanity , in genes but the grammar is so fractured that it cannot be a quote William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I have read it Croatian. MY re-translation into English might ot be perfect especially because I was typing fast.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be redirected, and as it is suggested, I will do it, and include new information into Foreign relations of UK, if it's OK with everyone. Then Aredic could supply missing info. Kamiondžija (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that should be merged into this article, although "Great Britain" should have been United Kingdom anyway, but as its just going to be a redirect it wont be a problem BritishWatcher (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again instead of including the article written by me... you (Kamiondžija) simply erased it without mentioning any sentence from it . That is pure vandalism. and I will return it back --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His actions were not vandalism. Far better to put the information in this article than have an entire article on it. Also the name of the article is incorrect. Great Britain is an island. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he simply deleted an article. He put no information about it! Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why, most of the contents on that page are troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose Actually looking at it, there is no reason to add details about one small war to this article on overall UK foreign relations. It can be mentioned in the table next to relevant countries, but there should not be an entire section here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Siam/Thailand

[edit]

Foreign relations of Thailand has no mention of the United Kingdom or England, while this article has no mention of Siam or Thailand. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EU precedence over Commonwealth

[edit]

I've just removed the assertion that EU relations take precedence over those with other Commonwealth countries. It strikes me as an attempt to extrapolate a single, fairly minor incident of thirty years ago into a general foreign policy principle that doesn't exist. That incident probably had far more to do with France's associate membership of NATO. Foreign policy is actually far more nuanced than this and there is no hierarchy of alliances as is suggested here. There is one obvious counter-example too: Gibraltar has separate Commonwealth membership and until recently was not part of the EU. Its assertion of independence from Spain is supported by Britain in spite of Spanish opposition. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, here is the edit [4]. The nature of that edit makes me even more sceptical of the authenticity of the information. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs history before 1945

[edit]

The foreign relations of Britain before 1945 comprise a major topic but there seems to be no article on it. Nothing comparable to History of U.S. foreign policy or Timeline of United States diplomatic history. I propose to begin a Timeline of British diplomatic history. Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

..

[edit]

whats wrong with WIki... first u dont let a guy write good stuff ..then u let him write nonsense... what is the matter with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.249.72 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your revisions due to you breaking the table after Middle East resulting in Latin America, Asia & International Organisations appearing within the Middle East table. Also several of your additions were extorting personal opinion and POV. Micropot (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

spinoff history section to new article

[edit]

The history section is getting much too large, so I propose to spin it off to a new article on History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American War of Independence - Spain

[edit]

A quick point reference the section early on that mentions the alliance that Great Britain faced during the war of independence. The article states that Spain indirectly supported the conflict. This isn’t true and should be amended. They launched an assault on the southern most American colonies of East and West Florida culminating in the siege of the British Garrison at Pensacola in 1781. When the colonies surrendered the Spanish kept them and didn’t hand them over to their American allies. I suggest the statement ‘indirectly’ is therefore removed. Drakons (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a draft

[edit]

I am forming a page on the foreign relations of Wales, see Draft:Foreign relations of Wales. This seems like a more appropriate option than adding a heading here for Wales for example. Because of further attention given to the topic in popular media as well as availability of sources, now seems like an appropriate time to form the page. Titus Gold (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vietnam–United Kingdom relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1251481787"