Tuesday , October 17 2017
Home / Comment / Weekly Globe Episode 5

Weekly Globe Episode 5

This is the fifth in a series of weekly podcasts featuring Ted Yarbrough and Isaac Anderson. The podcast summarised the previous week’s announcement of the UK general election, the political situation in Europe, shaping a post-Brexit foreign policy and previewed the Commonwealth campaign to begin next week. We hope readers enjoy the Weekly Globe podcasts. You can listen to it here:

Times where articles are discussed:

0:00- Introduction

0:40 – UK General Election 2017

29:00- Guy Verhostadt and the state of European Politics- including the French Election.

43:46- A Post-Brexit Foreign Policy for Britain

57:40- Preview of the Commonwealth and Realm Campaign

Edit

About Ted Yarbrough

Profile photo of Ted Yarbrough
Ted is an attorney in Dallas, Texas, USA. He is a long-time blogger on British politics and has written a thesis on Thatcherism.

Check Also

How to Leave the EU

Leaving the EU is as complicated as the UK wishes to make it. The simplest …

2 comments

  1. Peter D Gardner

    Just read Ted Yarborough’s piece on Brexit Central: http://brexitcentral.com/brexit-brings-us-closer-making-churchills-world-vision-reality.

    Churchill’s majestic circles is an excellent idea that should be developed further. However, I think you rather unjustly condemn nationalism, because doing so is taken to mean ‘no borders’ and disposing of the self-governing nation state, exactly the philosophy of the EU, much of the United Nations and many of the globalists, such as George Soros and Peter Sutherland – whose ideas and ambitions are extremely dangerous. My contention is that it was not nationalism that led to the two world wars but national socialism, which embodies extreme racism plus socialism plus philosophical ideas eg., supermensch and so on. The nation state was merely the vehicle and is equally capable of benign competition and co-operation.

    I was also unclear what you meant by ‘close borders’. Did you mean closed, tightly controlled? If so, they were not the cause of conflict, only its symptom when regimes wish to isolate their territory from the outside world. In many cases borders are a key mechanism for settling disputes and maintaining peace, which is why they are central to the current world order today. Closed borders can also be a very necessary means of protection. Again, like nation states, they are neutral mechanisms. Making them anything else plays into the hands of those who wish to suppress or destroy the nation state, such as the EU.

    • Profile photo of Ted Yarbrough

      Hi Peter,

      Thank you so much for reading my piece. Below is my response to your points raised.

      1. I think you are absolutely right that the Nazi regime was a by product of both racism and socialism- as well as nationalism. Of course, I have no desire to dispose of nationalism entirely- patriotism is usually a good thing. (Especially of the British vareity as defined here: https://capx.co/what-are-the-british-institutions-that-matter-most/). Indeed, preserving the independence of nation states is key to building the Commonwealth majestic circle- you can read about it further here: http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/02/ted-yarborough-the-commonwealth-offers-a-clear-route-to-building-a-global-britain.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

      With that being said, I think it is fair to say Peter that extreme nationalism did have much to do with the two world wars. The Kaiser’s Germany was not particularly racist or socialist yet it plunged Europe into war for the fatherland. Same goes for the Bosnian nationalist who shot Franz Ferdinand. Russia declared war over links to Serbs etc. Imperial Japan was also extremely nationalistic. I think it might be better to draw a line between “nationalist” and “patriotic” if that is more helpful. Nationalism is largely antagonistic (or neutral) to other nations whereas patriotism is loyal to its own country but not particularly hostile to other nations unless they threaten the country they are patriotically loyalty to.

      2. Sorry for the confusion on “close borders.” I did not mean “closed” borders but rather meant close in proximity. I agree with your points that control of borders is very important.

      Finally, I did not submit this to Brexit Central because it is too long, but I explain my views on foreign policy further here: http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/realpolitick-syria-trade-deals/

      I would be interested for your further thoughts.

      Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar