During the early years of World War II, the Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt actively sought to support the UK even while the US was still officially neutral. Many of FDR’s opponents were isolationist Republicans who cared little for Anglo-American ties. Almost 80 years later and the story could not be more different.

On his recent visit to the UK, President Obama urged the British people to vote to remain in the EU and declared that Brexit would put the UK at the “back of the queue” for a new trade deal with the US. A disparaging comment on its own, when taken within the context of the Obama presidency it makes for even bleaker reading for those who still hold the Special Relationship dear.

On the issue of the Falkland Islands for example, the Obama administration has dispensed with the US’s long-held neutrality on the issue and repeatedly demanded that the UK and Argentina “negotiate” over the islands. This is essentially the Argentine position masquerading as neutrality. When the Deepwater Horizon oil spill crisis hit in 2010, Obama repeatedly referred to BP as “British petroleum”, despite the fact that the company was no longer known by that name at the time. When Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, Obama snubbed him during a 2009 visit to the US.

Obama’s treatment of the UK is arguably the most inhospitable of any US president in living memory. His likely successor, Hillary Clinton, was of course Obama’s Secretary of State during his first four years in office and thus cannot be counted on to pursue warmer relations with the UK as president, particularly if Brexit does indeed become a reality.

It is the much-maligned Republicans who have been far friendlier towards Britain in recent years. Prominent Republicans Ted Cruz and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan have both recently spoken warmly of the Special Relationship and rejected the Obama approach. This is not about the EU referendum per se but rather tone and approach. Even President Bush, widely despised in the UK and often (unfairly) lampooned as stupid, was much friendlier to Britain than his aloof successor.

Of course, one caveat that always needs to be stressed with regards to the Anglo-American relationship is that for the Americans in particular, it is one that is often based on self-interest rather than sentiment. Helping the British fight Germany for example was in the interests of the US in World War II, as was keeping them close during the Cold War. Even in recent years the US has needed the UK as a vital ally in the War on Terror.

However, looking at the Special Relationship through the prism of self-interest does not make the actions of the Obama administration any more excusable. On the contrary, it merely rubs salt into the wound. It is still very much in the interests of the US that Britain remains one of its closest allies. With the Middle East flaring up once more and the continued uncertainty over the Iranian nuclear program, the US needs a loyal ally by its side if it has any designs on sorting things out. The US and the UK also remain ideologically close; other than the UK, few nations share the US’s outlook on trade, democracy and in being a positive, outward-looking force in the world.

It is a crying shame that the party which produced a leader such as FDR could go on to produce posers in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who not only do not care about the proud history of US-UK relations but do not even recognise that it is in the best interests of their nation to maintain this grand old alliance. The Republicans have long been close friends of Britain but increasingly it appears as if they are becoming our only friends in American politics.

Ben Harris is an I’m an international relations postgraduate from the University of Kent. Follow him on Twitter:  @btharris93

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

Few can doubt that this year’s budget was an explosive one. Although most of the headlines concerned the proposals for a cut in disability benefits (which have now since been ring-fenced in the fallout), a new tax was announced which got the whole country talking: the sugar tax.

Although fiercely opposed in certain quarters, the tax appears to have the support of the majority of the public. What is interesting about this support is that much of it appears to be based on little more than the idea that “something must be done”. Indeed, a quick Google search reveals that it is a common justification for the sugar tax, sometimes word for word.

It is curious that when pressed, many advocates of the tax simply respond that we must do something about childhood obesity as if that in itself is justification for a regressive tax that won’t work. This is known as the “politician’s syllogism” – we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.

The sugar tax and its seemingly widespread acceptance by the public is symptomatic of a much bigger issue however: a culture of knee-jerk reactions and virtue signalling whereby being seen to be tackling a problem is more important than actually tackling it. Often, this can lead to poor policy-making outcomes and the sugar tax is a prime example.

Another example is the proposed crackdown on laser pointers in response to incidents where they have been shone into the cockpits of low-flying planes. Like childhood obesity, this is indeed a serious problem but the proposed solution is unlikely to be of much help, particularly when high-powered laser pointers can easily be smuggled in from abroad. New taxes and banning things are easy responses but very rarely are they effective solutions.

Sometimes, this kind of approach can have tragic consequences. Germany’s decision to throw open its borders to migrants last year (before later tightening controls) for example only encouraged more people to make the perilous journey across the Mediterranean which in turn played into the hands of people traffickers. Closer to home, scores of left-wing politicians and celebrities have been loudly proclaiming “refugees welcome” and scolding the government for not taking in enough people yet they are seemingly oblivious to the consequences of open borders. For what it’s worth, the Government’s policy of taking people directly from camps near Syria is a smart, well thought-out policy which discourages people traffickers and allows the flow of refugees to be effectively managed. In an age where being seen to be doing the right thing is often deemed more important than actually doing the right thing, this is a welcome outcome.

The implications of a growing “something must be done” culture are potentially dire. Not only does it lead to ineffective, often harmful policy outcomes but it also gives the government more freedom to act without scrutiny. Ham-fisted solutions become accepted because after all, we must do something. Going forward, it is vitally important that in response to crises and problems it is level heads that prevail, although this is easier said than done. It is unfortunately a part of human nature to grasp the easy solution at the first opportunity but rarely are the easy solutions the correct ones.

Ben Harris is an I’m an international relations postgraduate from the University of Kent. Follow him on Twitter:  @btharris93

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

For – Ben Harris

Since the mid 1990s the UK’s nuclear deterrent has come in the form of Trident, a system of four nuclear-equipped submarines whereby at least one is always on patrol ready to respond to an attack. Now over 20 years old, Trident is due to be replaced (at a cost of upwards of £20bn) and the debate surrounding its merits is once again boiling to the surface.

Opposition to replacing Trident is currently being led by the anti-nuclear SNP, who now represent the vast majority of Scotland’s 59 constituencies. However, the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is also fiercely opposed to the renewal of Trident, as are a number of his shadow ministers. One of their main arguments is cost: whichever way one looks at it, the money that could be saved from not replacing Trident could indeed go a long way to improving other public services, reversing defence cuts or even paying down a large chunk of the deficit.

However, the potential benefits of maintaining our nuclear deterrent are far greater than simple monetary gain. In a world where a number of unfriendly states such as Russia and North Korea also possess nuclear weapons it is vital that we protect our country to the fullest by having our own nuclear weapons ready to respond to any attack. At present, a nuclear war with either of these states appears very unlikely but history is filled with nasty surprises – we simply cannot be certain of what might happen several decades down the line.

Another common argument against replacing Trident is that in the post-Cold War world nuclear weapons are strategically irrelevant. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The Cold War may be over but many of the threats remain the same, especially now that Western relations with Russia are just as dire than at any point in the last 25 years. The fact that Europe is no longer as strategically vital to US as it was during the Cold War is also another reason why maintaining our nuclear program is as important as ever – we cannot rely on the US nuclear umbrella forever and indeed it would be unreasonable to expect the Americans to foot this bill ad infinitum.

The fact remains that our nuclear weapons give us enormous influence on the world stage. It is no coincidence that the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (of which the UK is a member) were also the 5 original nuclear weapons states. Our nuclear weapons afford us a place at the top table of international relations, far more so than the EU for example. Some may argue that we are too “small” to have much of an influence anymore but that is not borne out by the facts. Even in the 21st century we can and should use our position to advance the values we hold dear.

Nuclear disarmament is still a commendable goal but it can only be effective if it is multilateral. It is understandable that many are questioning the value of Trident and its successor programme given its costs but ultimately the safety and security of one’s country is priceless. While replacing Trident won’t be the answer to everything it will at least add another layer of protection in an increasingly insecure world.

Against – Paul Nizinskyj

Mao Zedong once described nuclear weapons as a paper tiger; a weapon which appeared threatening but, being made of pulped trees, offered nothing more menacing than a nasty paper cut. Given that the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been all but wiped off the map only about a year before this statement was made, it seems astounding a man of Mao’s intelligence could so easily brush off such a threat.

Mao’s almost childlike idealism was one of the reasons his tyranny over China from 1949 to his death in 1976 was so devastating, from the famines of the ironically-named Great Leap Forward to the mania of the Cultural Revolution, though he did eventually change his tune on nuclear weapons.

But was he wrong the first time? The conventional justification for developing and maintaining nuclear weapons was they acted as a deterrent; that, by the reasoning of Mutually Assured Destruction (aptly shortened to MAD), no nuclear nation would dare attack another in any capacity for fear of both states being turned into glass (a non-nuclear nation attacking a nuclear one was presumably so unthinkable it didn’t warrant an acronym). This was supposed to have prevented the Cold War from getting hot for more than 40 years – Khrushchev blinked first during the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all, and there was never a US-Soviet armed conflict.

There are a number of problems with this reasoning, however. Firstly, while there was never an official declaration of war between the two superpowers, the Cold War was anything but. It was a 40-year hot proxy war fought in almost every part of the globe by US and Soviet clients, as well as home troops in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan.

Furthermore, the Arab nations chose to invade Israel in 1967 and 1973 when it was widely suspected Israel had developed its own nuclear weapon. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982 when Britain had had the bomb for 30 years. The idea of a ‘nuclear deterrent’, that the possession of nuclear weapons prevents conventional warfare, has been proven false time and time again.

Possessed of one of the most Vulcan-like logical minds of his generation, Enoch Powell saw this clearer than most, arguing the détente between the USA and the Soviet Union would have progressed in much the same way as if nuclear weapons had never been invented – because both nations were already playing ‘The Great Game’ as though they never existed anyway. Addressing the House of Commons in 1987, he said;

The Prime Minister constantly asserts that the nuclear weapon has kept the peace in Europe for the last 40 years…Let us go back to the middle 1950s or to the end of the 1940s, and let us suppose that nuclear power had never been invented…I assert that in those circumstances there would still not have been a Russian invasion of western Europe.

What has prevented that from happening was not the nuclear hypothesis…but the fact that the Soviet Union knew the consequences of such a move, consequences which would have followed whether or not there were 300,000 American troops stationed in Europe.

The Soviet Union knew that such an action on its part would have led to a third world war—a long war, bitterly fought, a war which in the end the Soviet Union would have been likely to lose on the same basis and in the same way as the corresponding war was lost by Napoleon, by the Emperor Wilhelm and by Adolf Hitler.

Trident was already an anachronism when it was brought into operation in 1994, but Polaris before it had been a gold-plated paper tiger in itself, serving no other purpose than to cement the UK’s role as a pawn in the game of American foreign policy. Furthermore, when the greatest threats to this country’s security come in the form of terrorist groups and warlords rather than organised militarised states, nuclear weapons have never been more redundant. Trident is as unnecessary now as it was then but, with a replacement bill of anything between £15bn and £100bn when the Government is supposed to be slashing public expenditure, it has to be the world’s most expensive bluff.

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty