As President Obama touches down in Britain today, he need have no fear that Air Force One will be hit by a stray drone, as happened last Sunday to a British Airways aircraft over London.
In order to ensure the safety of the President, the UK's National Air Traffic Service has placed a restriction on the flying of drones in large parts of the capital from this morning until Sunday evening.
Tens of thousands of people fly into London every day without the National Air Traffic Service imposing a ban on drones. Their lives would appear to be taken less seriously by the authorities than the single life of the President of the United States.
Obama's main mission is to persuade the British people in the most tactful way not to vote to leave the European Union. There will be much talk of 'the special relationship', a phrase only ever trotted out for credulous British ears in order to flatter us.
My suspicion is that although the message will be welcomed by the majority of the political class which wants us to remain part of the EU, it will go down much less well with many British people, who do not like to be told what to do by the leader of a foreign country, even one as historically close to Britain as the United States...
STEPHEN GLOVER: Why is Obama telling us to give up on OUR sovereignty when he'd never surrender a drop of his own?
By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail
21 April 2016
Daily Mail
As President Obama touches down in Britain today, he need have no fear that Air Force One will be hit by a stray drone, as happened last Sunday to a British Airways aircraft over London.
In order to ensure the safety of the President, the UK's National Air Traffic Service has placed a restriction on the flying of drones in large parts of the capital from this morning until Sunday evening.
Tens of thousands of people fly into London every day without the National Air Traffic Service imposing a ban on drones. Their lives would appear to be taken less seriously by the authorities than the single life of the President of the United States.
But then Barack Obama is the head of state of our closest ally, and as such is treated more reverentially by our political class than any other person on the planet. We are grateful to be noticed by any American President, and love to be taken seriously.
Obama's main mission is to persuade the British people in the most tactful way not to vote to leave the European Union. There will be much talk of 'the special relationship', a phrase only ever trotted out for credulous British ears in order to flatter us.
As President Obama (pictured) touches down in Britain today, his main mission will be to persuade the British people in the most tactful way not to vote to leave the European Union. However, it could backfire
He will say we are stronger and richer and more important as members of the EU than we would be standing by ourselves in isolation.
A similar point was made yesterday in a letter signed by eight former U.S. treasury secretaries, which was presumably orchestrated by No. 10.
My suspicion is that although the message will be welcomed by the majority of the political class which wants us to remain part of the EU, it will go down much less well with many British people, who do not like to be told what to do by the leader of a foreign country, even one as historically close to Britain as the United States.
Most people will surely grasp the truth, which is that in urging us to stay in the EU, President Obama and the eight ex-treasury secretaries are thinking not of what will be best for us, but of what is best for the United States.
It suits America to have Britain — which, let's face it, is in many ways a client state — as a kind of bridge into the European Union, which is made up of countries often less malleable and well-disposed towards the United States. France, for example.
We speak English. We share intelligence. The Americans sell us nuclear missiles. We have fought a succession of wars together, with Britain as a progressively junior partner.
Of course, Washington wants us on the inside of this unruly and disputatious club of strange foreigners who may sometimes harbour anti-American feelings. It is obviously in U.S. interests for us to remain members, but it doesn't follow that it is in our interests.
I'm afraid it only shows how much we are taken for granted that an American President can come here and think it seemly to tell us what to do. If the United States ever thought of forming some sort of union with, say, Mexico, no British Prime Minister would dream of uttering a public word of protest or advice.
Obama (left) will say we are stronger and richer and more important as members of the EU than we would be standing by ourselves in isolation
But then it is inconceivable that America would ever think of sharing her sovereignty with any other nation on Earth. This is not primarily, if at all, because it is a vast and powerful country. Even when she was weak, the United States was proudly and defiantly independent.
What was America in 1776, when she broke away from the mighty colonial power that was Britain, but a motley collection of undeveloped and under-populated states occupying a portion of a still largely undiscovered country?
America is grounded in an almost sacred idea of separateness, a belief that she was chosen by God to be unique. Only after 1941, when she entered World War II, did she divest herself of her deep isolationist principles — to the great benefit of civilisation and the free world.
Yet despite having assumed her responsibilities as a world power, America has remained fiercely protective of her sovereignty. It is not impossible to imagine her withdrawing from her role as the world's policeman, but it is inconceivable that she would ever voluntarily cede an ounce of sovereignty.
Boris Johnson recently made the same point, and was attacked by the Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, who claimed the United States has pooled its sovereignty by being part of Nato, whose members undertake to come to one another's aid if attacked. He's wrong.
Forming an alliance with one or more countries is not the same as putting oneself at the mercy of a foreign jurisdiction.
The United States would never accept the rulings of a court based in Vancouver or Bogota as we are required to obey the rulings of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. American lawmakers could not conceive of being obliged to adopt a policy they didn't like, as frequently happens to the United Kingdom when we are outvoted in Brussels.
President Obama (left) and the eight ex-treasury secretaries are thinking not of what will be best for us, but of what is best for the United States
Why is America, which so zealously defends her own sovereignty and independence, so blind to Britain's predicament? Why does she urge us to accept shared arrangements which her own history of rugged self-determination would lead her to reject?
The answer is that the United States is being selfish, and thinking only of what is best for her. This is hardly surprising. It's what countries do. Though America is our closest and most reliable ally, there have been several occasions in the past half-century or so when she has overridden or ignored British interests.
For example, after the Anglo-French invasion of Suez in 1956, President Eisenhower forced British and French troops to withdraw, humiliating Britain and ending her status as a major Middle-Eastern power. Eisenhower later regretted what he had done.
And when American forces invaded Grenada in 1983, much to the dismay of the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Reagan administration couldn't care less that the tiny Caribbean island was a member of the Commonwealth and its head of state the Queen.
Equally, before the 1982 Falklands war, there was strong pressure within the Reagan administration for the British to accept a compromise peace plan, and in some quarters outright opposition to our re-taking the islands from the Argentinians. Admittedly, the United States finally provided valuable strategic support.
It is also the case that during the Northern Irish troubles, successive American administrations declined to clamp down on the funding of the IRA for fear of offending the powerful Irish-American lobby.
None of this is especially discreditable to the United States, which was only acting in accordance with what she believed were her own interests. It is clear, though, that in these instances, American interests were not the same as British ones.
Nor are they now, though craven Tories long accustomed to bending the knee can't see the difference. Our assigned role in the world should not be to act as a bridge for America into the European Union.
We should carefully assess what is best for us, in the knowledge that if we do withdraw from the EU, we will still be seen by the United States as her strongest and most dependable ally in Europe.
For myself, I shan't much mind when President Obama, having told us how wonderful we are, instructs us to stay. Most British people will have the good sense to realise that he only has American interests at heart.
In order to ensure the safety of the President, the UK's National Air Traffic Service has placed a restriction on the flying of drones in large parts of the capital from this morning until Sunday evening.
Tens of thousands of people fly into London every day without the National Air Traffic Service imposing a ban on drones. Their lives would appear to be taken less seriously by the authorities than the single life of the President of the United States.
Obama's main mission is to persuade the British people in the most tactful way not to vote to leave the European Union. There will be much talk of 'the special relationship', a phrase only ever trotted out for credulous British ears in order to flatter us.
My suspicion is that although the message will be welcomed by the majority of the political class which wants us to remain part of the EU, it will go down much less well with many British people, who do not like to be told what to do by the leader of a foreign country, even one as historically close to Britain as the United States...
STEPHEN GLOVER: Why is Obama telling us to give up on OUR sovereignty when he'd never surrender a drop of his own?
By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail
21 April 2016
Daily Mail
As President Obama touches down in Britain today, he need have no fear that Air Force One will be hit by a stray drone, as happened last Sunday to a British Airways aircraft over London.
In order to ensure the safety of the President, the UK's National Air Traffic Service has placed a restriction on the flying of drones in large parts of the capital from this morning until Sunday evening.
Tens of thousands of people fly into London every day without the National Air Traffic Service imposing a ban on drones. Their lives would appear to be taken less seriously by the authorities than the single life of the President of the United States.
But then Barack Obama is the head of state of our closest ally, and as such is treated more reverentially by our political class than any other person on the planet. We are grateful to be noticed by any American President, and love to be taken seriously.
Obama's main mission is to persuade the British people in the most tactful way not to vote to leave the European Union. There will be much talk of 'the special relationship', a phrase only ever trotted out for credulous British ears in order to flatter us.
As President Obama (pictured) touches down in Britain today, his main mission will be to persuade the British people in the most tactful way not to vote to leave the European Union. However, it could backfire
He will say we are stronger and richer and more important as members of the EU than we would be standing by ourselves in isolation.
A similar point was made yesterday in a letter signed by eight former U.S. treasury secretaries, which was presumably orchestrated by No. 10.
My suspicion is that although the message will be welcomed by the majority of the political class which wants us to remain part of the EU, it will go down much less well with many British people, who do not like to be told what to do by the leader of a foreign country, even one as historically close to Britain as the United States.
Most people will surely grasp the truth, which is that in urging us to stay in the EU, President Obama and the eight ex-treasury secretaries are thinking not of what will be best for us, but of what is best for the United States.
It suits America to have Britain — which, let's face it, is in many ways a client state — as a kind of bridge into the European Union, which is made up of countries often less malleable and well-disposed towards the United States. France, for example.
We speak English. We share intelligence. The Americans sell us nuclear missiles. We have fought a succession of wars together, with Britain as a progressively junior partner.
Of course, Washington wants us on the inside of this unruly and disputatious club of strange foreigners who may sometimes harbour anti-American feelings. It is obviously in U.S. interests for us to remain members, but it doesn't follow that it is in our interests.
I'm afraid it only shows how much we are taken for granted that an American President can come here and think it seemly to tell us what to do. If the United States ever thought of forming some sort of union with, say, Mexico, no British Prime Minister would dream of uttering a public word of protest or advice.
Obama (left) will say we are stronger and richer and more important as members of the EU than we would be standing by ourselves in isolation
But then it is inconceivable that America would ever think of sharing her sovereignty with any other nation on Earth. This is not primarily, if at all, because it is a vast and powerful country. Even when she was weak, the United States was proudly and defiantly independent.
What was America in 1776, when she broke away from the mighty colonial power that was Britain, but a motley collection of undeveloped and under-populated states occupying a portion of a still largely undiscovered country?
America is grounded in an almost sacred idea of separateness, a belief that she was chosen by God to be unique. Only after 1941, when she entered World War II, did she divest herself of her deep isolationist principles — to the great benefit of civilisation and the free world.
Yet despite having assumed her responsibilities as a world power, America has remained fiercely protective of her sovereignty. It is not impossible to imagine her withdrawing from her role as the world's policeman, but it is inconceivable that she would ever voluntarily cede an ounce of sovereignty.
Boris Johnson recently made the same point, and was attacked by the Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, who claimed the United States has pooled its sovereignty by being part of Nato, whose members undertake to come to one another's aid if attacked. He's wrong.
Forming an alliance with one or more countries is not the same as putting oneself at the mercy of a foreign jurisdiction.
The United States would never accept the rulings of a court based in Vancouver or Bogota as we are required to obey the rulings of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. American lawmakers could not conceive of being obliged to adopt a policy they didn't like, as frequently happens to the United Kingdom when we are outvoted in Brussels.
President Obama (left) and the eight ex-treasury secretaries are thinking not of what will be best for us, but of what is best for the United States
Why is America, which so zealously defends her own sovereignty and independence, so blind to Britain's predicament? Why does she urge us to accept shared arrangements which her own history of rugged self-determination would lead her to reject?
The answer is that the United States is being selfish, and thinking only of what is best for her. This is hardly surprising. It's what countries do. Though America is our closest and most reliable ally, there have been several occasions in the past half-century or so when she has overridden or ignored British interests.
For example, after the Anglo-French invasion of Suez in 1956, President Eisenhower forced British and French troops to withdraw, humiliating Britain and ending her status as a major Middle-Eastern power. Eisenhower later regretted what he had done.
And when American forces invaded Grenada in 1983, much to the dismay of the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Reagan administration couldn't care less that the tiny Caribbean island was a member of the Commonwealth and its head of state the Queen.
Equally, before the 1982 Falklands war, there was strong pressure within the Reagan administration for the British to accept a compromise peace plan, and in some quarters outright opposition to our re-taking the islands from the Argentinians. Admittedly, the United States finally provided valuable strategic support.
It is also the case that during the Northern Irish troubles, successive American administrations declined to clamp down on the funding of the IRA for fear of offending the powerful Irish-American lobby.
None of this is especially discreditable to the United States, which was only acting in accordance with what she believed were her own interests. It is clear, though, that in these instances, American interests were not the same as British ones.
Nor are they now, though craven Tories long accustomed to bending the knee can't see the difference. Our assigned role in the world should not be to act as a bridge for America into the European Union.
We should carefully assess what is best for us, in the knowledge that if we do withdraw from the EU, we will still be seen by the United States as her strongest and most dependable ally in Europe.
For myself, I shan't much mind when President Obama, having told us how wonderful we are, instructs us to stay. Most British people will have the good sense to realise that he only has American interests at heart.
