Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 13

Is the British Empire truly gone—or just evolved? Jerm, Mike and Charles unpack how colonial legacies still shape today’s diplomacy, infrastructure, and visa politics, and why grassroots conversations might just shift the global balance.More Jerm Warfare: https://www.ukcolumn.org/series/jerm-warfare

Episode Transcript

(00:38):
Charles, before we started recording, you were just telling
me the differences now between consulate what High Commission
and embassy. That's really interesting.
Just quickly go through None. that.

(01:06):
The distinct, the, the fundamental distinction is that
a Commonwealth country will havewhat we call a High Commission,
a British High Commission and therefore a High Commissioner.
Whereas a non Commonwealth country will have a an embassy.
And then a consulate will be a sort of smaller enterprise that
doesn't have a diplomatic or at least a, not a sort of, I

(01:27):
suppose, Tier 1 diplomatic capability.
And therefore would be a, would be a, a processing place for
visas and passports and, and that kind of thing.
And I think for me, I, you know,what we were talking about just
before we started recording was that I haven't, I've, I spent
some time, Naomi, working on what was called ironically,
defence diplomacy. I mean, it's, that's sort of not

(01:48):
as funny as it sounds because that it is absolutely a thing.
And this is part of what's, you know, what gets described as
soft power. And there are so many ways in
which soft power plays out and and sort of is deployed.
But I think my OK, I wasn't there.
But my feeling on it is that in fact, as time has passed since

(02:16):
countries became independent from the British Empire, and I
will just pause here to say thatI'm not advocating for the
continuation of an empire as it was.
What I am trying to set out is acase by which from the outside
or or at least partially from the inside, in the time that I

(02:37):
was there, it seems that the British have really lost lost a
grip on how to relate to other countries that that you know.
And of course we can go through all the terrible wrongs of the
past and all that nonsense that gets exploited now for all sorts
of gain on on both sides. But I think what I really mean

(02:58):
is that the, even the Commonwealth, I, I think that
the United Kingdom doesn't behave in a, in a properly
interested fashion towards thosesorts of countries.
And I, and I think that's a, that's a massive mistake.
And say the defence diplomacy thing, which I basically means
that in some way there's a relationship between the Foreign

(03:21):
Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of
Defence. In order that there's a British
military presence in a particular country, there always
is via the defence attache or military attache or whatever,
whatever he or she is is called.But in addition to that, there
might be a team that that's loosely attached to a High
Commission, usually because thisis less so in countries where

(03:44):
where there isn't a Commonwealthconnection, but, but that
involves liaison with the host nation armed forces and
therefore the projection of whatis described as soft power via
training or, you know, sharing of information and, and this,
that and the other. And it's, you know, you can see

(04:06):
how this comes into play. I mean, my experience of it was
in mostly Eastern, but a little bit Southern Africa.
And it's, it's evolved absolutely for sure.
But I think also even in that arena, they've, they've lost,
lost grip and, and also it's a very competitive space.
And I saw this, you know, I'm going back nearly 20 years now,

(04:27):
but I saw this, the, the competition between particularly
the United States and in fact, funnily enough, the Nordic
countries in terms of presentingthe greatest offerings to these
nations in order that you would secure particular concessions to

(04:51):
be able to do whatever it is. And then, and then if you do
then go and look at, as I say, in my experience, Eastern
Africa, what happened, particularly in Djibouti was
very interesting, which was the Americans first sort of foot on
the ground was the camp that they put in Djibouti.
And then you look at how all the, the port infrastructure

(05:11):
has, has sort of developed in, in that region around the Horn
of Africa and all the rest of it.
So it's, it's a big topic, but it, but it goes back to this,
the idea that in some way, you know, the Commonwealth is
special. And of course, the, you know,
the one anomaly, the significantanomaly, it's not the only
anomaly, but the, but the one very significant anomaly, of
course, is that Rwanda became part of the Commonwealth, having

(05:34):
not previously been part of, youknow, what one might describe as
the Empire. So anyway, we could go on.
But but yeah, it's just, it's just an interesting, an
interesting point. And I think like so many things,
it's easy just to gloss over thewhat seemed like not terribly
significant distinctions, but I think I think they are

(05:56):
significant, but perhaps not so much in the way that they that
they necessarily should be. But you, you were just talking
about, you know, South Africa's relationship with the United
Kingdom on that front. And sort of, you know, how well
actually I'd, I'd be really interested to know now,
particularly given South Africa's stance on Israel, how
do you think relations are between South Africa and the

(06:20):
United Kingdom? No, they're not as good as they
used to be, but our relations with most Western countries
appears to be deteriorating. I, I, I would like to just jump
in here German for May and say Ineed to just challenge a couple
of things that that Charles saidthere.
My first question is, did the British Empire end?

(06:43):
And I would argue that it didn't, that it just changed
into something different. And I mean, one analogy or one
comparison we might use. This is the Roman Empire, for
example, which was very much a military operation until it
morphed into the Roman Catholic Church and suddenly it became a
soft power operation instead. And I, I would draw some

(07:05):
parallels there. But the other thing that I would
just say is that that I don't think we should ignore the, the
wrongs in inverted commas of theBritish Empire.
I think we should look actually a lot closer at those than
perhaps we're willing to. And that is because the, the
actual modus operandi of that ofthe empire, as it was

(07:29):
particularly in the late 1930 twenties, well, in the 19th
century, let's say mid to late 19th century, we see the same
types of, of act of activities, the same types of manipulations
being used then as we see today.And actually to get an
understanding of, I would argue to get an understanding of, of

(07:51):
the types of things, activities that we see from the so called
deep state, which is an expression of empire, that, that
we need to be actually looking very closely at what the, the
British Empire did and how it maintained it's influence in, in
certain countries. If we look at Palestine, if we

(08:12):
look at India or we look at Ireland, for example, just to
give 3 examples, we see the sametypes of behaviours in each of
those theatres and, and we see the same types of behaviours
from certain factions today. And, and I think that would help
us actually understand what's happening to us now because we

(08:34):
are actually on the receiving end of that.
I'm talking about the British people, Europeans, United
States. I don't know so much about South
Africa, but certainly we are on the receiving, receiving end of
the same type of manipulations. And I think there's value in, in
being a bit more a bit objectivefor trying to separate ourselves

(08:56):
from, from what we might see as as not quite sure how to put
this, but some, some kind of of loyalty to, to Britain as it was
at that time. I'd be interested in Charles's
rebuttal of that. Yeah, well, I mean good
challenge and I think it is veryimportant to to have challenge

(09:21):
and and to thrash this stuff out.
I think yes, of course I I do agree with what you're saying on
both points. I mean, insofar as the empire
having ended. I think what I mean by that.

(09:41):
OK, sorry. Or rather, would I be right in
thinking that what you mean by that is that is that in actual
fact, the influence that pervades the countries that
constituted the empire is, to all intents and purposes still
there, it just manifests in a different way.
Is that? Is that what you mean?

(10:02):
Well, that's part of it, yes, absolutely.
You know, the Commonwealth is, is a soft power operation and
you know, notionally the, the, the Crown is still head of the
Commonwealth, but it is certainly from a, a deep state
point of view, it, it is certainly one of the, the
channels that, that we influencethe, the same countries that we

(10:25):
were actually physically occupying at a certain point.
And, and my, I would, I would question the degree of
independence that many of these countries or any of these
countries have because, because we still accept and, and those
those countries still look up to, in a certain sense, Britain.

(10:46):
Yeah, OK. No, no, with that I would
totally agree. It depends.
Yeah, I know. I suppose it depends on how many
layers one wants to consider. There might be in terms of
motivation and benefits, perceived benefits on either
side. If if one's to imagine that the

(11:12):
empire was supposedly benefitingthe ruling classes and indeed
the state of the United Kingdom during its pomp, then I I don't
know that one can suggest that the same could be said for the

(11:35):
sort of legacy framework now. And I'm, I'm really only talking
about the sort of the, the ruling class is part in the,
the, the way I see it is that the, the communications and the
dealings with countries that were formerly part of the empire

(11:56):
and do have terrific resources and capabilities that could
still be tapped into. I don't, I just don't see that
that's being done effectively it.
I think that depends on what your definition is because you
know, I would argue that the British Empire was not about the
ruling classes. The British Empire was about the

(12:17):
City of London, the British EastIndia Company.
It was, it was a financial corporate empire that, that made
use of the resources of the state and the, and the cover of
it being the British State Empire as to cover the
activities, the corporate financial activities that were
going on. And, and, and in fact, the deep

(12:39):
state was, was tied into that. If we look at what's going on
today, I would argue and we're seeing, you know, the, the, the,
the coming out of the shadows once again of the merger between
state and corporation and the merger between state and
financial institution, that, that it's, it's again changing
into something that maybe resembles a bit more of what was

(12:59):
going on in, in the late 1800s. But but you know, if, if that's
your definition of what the empire was, then I think what
we're seeing today is it looks alot more like that than than
than the idea that it was, you know, pumping up the the so
called oligarchy or aristocracy,whatever you want to call it.

(13:20):
Yeah, OK. I think actually in in either
situation there, what what I would say is, is very stark.
And funnily enough, we've talkedabout this before, but the one
that, you know, as far as the British were concerned, and, and
I think we do have to be quite specific because when you
consider how other Western nations colonised that the, the,
the modus upper and was different in each respect.

(13:41):
But the, what characterised British, the, the British sort
of colonial approach, or at least one of the defining things
that enabled so much of what youdescribe was the development of
infrastructure in order that a lot of the things that had to
happen, which did have a bearingon all the the finance and

(14:01):
banking things was, was deliverable.
And what is very, very stark, I would say pretty much without
exception, is that post independence, that
infrastructure has completely and utterly crumbled.
And that therefore has frustrated what one might regard

(14:22):
as efforts to continue to benefit the City of London and
the bankers. Because you, you know, you do
still require things to actuallywork.
And that's the bit that's been lost control of.
And that and you know, and then,then, well, I don't want to sort
of confuse the conversation, butthen it's interesting to look

(14:43):
now at how the European Union has sort of inveigled itself in
lots of parts of these world, lots of these parts of the
world. And also China again and the
influence that China's brought to bear.
UAE. There are, you know, lots of
other countries have had the chance to, I would say, come in
and to a great extent displace what the British might otherwise

(15:09):
still be doing. So I would push back a little
bit on that as well because of course the infrastructure has
crumbled in these countries, butinfrastructure has crumbled in
Britain and in the United Statesand the in the EU as well.
Because of course we're in the transitionary economic period
where we've abandoned the productive capability that we

(15:31):
have and therefore we don't needthat infrastructure that we are
turning ourselves into a digitalservices economy.
And alongside that comes the totalitarian digital grid that
we are all familiar with. And, and the in fact, the

(15:52):
restrictions on travel, the restrictions on freedoms that
are coming with that don't need that infrastructure either.
So. So I would suggest that that
it's maybe not as simple as as as that.
OK, yeah, I mean, I I agree withyou that that's exactly how it's

(16:13):
being put forward. But I think, you know, just
considering what Patrick Wood was talking to John by the other
day, you know, we're to an extent talking about technocracy
and the the idea that that's howthe situation can run.
Of course, it's still unproven. And let's just think about
something we've we were coveringon.

(16:33):
Well, not, not you or me, but but that was dealt with on
Wednesday's news programme this week was lithium, for example,
is constant bang on a bit. You know, whether it's rare
earth minerals or this, that andthe other all of this stuff,
despite the fact, yes, it is digital and therefore it's
apparently not tangible, of course it is there.

(16:53):
There is a massive amount of infrastructure and resource
requirement for this. And I think that that is totally
overlooked. You know, the, the idea that
this stuff can just build and build and build without there
needing to be an improvement. If they if this is is to

(17:15):
actually play out without there being an improvement in the way
in which that happens. Because at the moment, for
example, the, the United Kingdom's plan for digital
everything is, is, has got holesa mile wide in it because they
don't have the materials to be able to do what it is.
And that's why I, you know, I dogo by and it's to sound sort of

(17:37):
mundanely pragmatic, but I, but I do think that that one cannot
ignore the requirement for an infrastructure that does deliver
whatever it is, however conceptual.
The final point actually is there are still people and
things that need to be in place for that to happen.
And that's the bit that I see ashaving changed so radically from

(17:59):
the days of empire. And when we, it doesn't matter
whether we're talking about the East India Company or whatever
it was, but the, the system underneath which the, the
banking operation sat was a welloiled machine.
And I don't see that that that is the case now.
So I, I, I totally agree, but that's absolutely where, where
we seem to be going as a country.
So this is not exclusive to, youknow, the empire as it was or

(18:22):
is, but but I think it's it, youknow, the the idea of a collapse
is, you know, something that people really do have to
consider, but in but in every regard.
I mean, I would completely agreewith that bit than you said
there, Charles. I would argue that the empire
that that that was and I as I say that I would argue still is

(18:45):
is in a state of collapse and and you know, an expression of
that. Of course, you know, the, the
empire can only be built on people and, and what we have
seen of course in the last 100 years is a collapse in standards
right across the board. So inevitably the expression of
empire that we see is in a stateof collapse.

(19:07):
They make bad decisions, they make wrong decisions.
They, they don't recognise the need for, as you say, the, the,
the, the fact that they do stillrequire infrastructure if
they're going to develop this digital control grid.
At every level of society, we see this, this collapse in, in
intellect and, and ability. And so inevitably, whatever the

(19:32):
expression of empire that we have is going to come up in the
same type of, we're going to seethe same type of collapse.
I would I would suggest. Yeah, OK.
I'd say. Yeah.
I mean, I in a sense, it seems to me like we're we're sort of
talking about the same thing, but from perhaps slightly
different angles in that we're both talking about collapse.

(19:53):
And I suppose, yes, to be fair, what I'm describing by collapse
means that my perspective is that that's a failure.
Is that, that that therefore suggests that actually Britain
has lost, you know, the United Kingdom has lost it, the grip it
once had. But but I mean, that's a, it's,
you know, in a way, a slightly more semantic point on the issue
of, of recriminations. And you know, how awful all this

(20:17):
was. I, I, I really was only talking
about the way in which that relates to to the very dull sort
of. Sometimes overt political
discourse and and the egging on of countries to to call for
reparations in the church getting involved that it just
just the type of thing that is just so, so utterly pointless,

(20:40):
frankly. And and it it doesn't in any way
address any of the things that you're actually talking about.
So this is so it's, it's totallysuperficial and you know, it's a
directory. Yeah, yeah, it's totally, an
utterly, totally an utterly. And and you know, you think of
how you know that then pushing on to something like slavery and

(21:01):
like the National Gallery or theNational Portrait Gallery.
I think now, well, if just for anumber of years, it's certainly
on the website. I can't remember if it's beside
their paintings. You know, every single portrait
or painting has has a, a sort of, it was like a Fact Check of
whether or not the artist or thesubject of the painting or

(21:22):
whoever commissioned or paid forit had any links to slavery.
OK, if all the things, you know,what, is there anything else
you'd like to write about it? No, no, no, we'll just, we'll
just concentrate on that one thing.
And of course, by slavery, they only meant the slavery of.
Well, I always describe sort of African people.
I mean, it's so it's just so unbelievably superficial and

(21:50):
narrow and and inflammatory, butyeah, so that I think that's
really what I meant. But no, I mean, otherwise, yeah.
Gosh, I I would totally agree. And, you know, we talked, I
think it was last week. I absolutely we're talking about
the the Roman Empire and all of it.
I mean, it's it's endlessly fascinating.
And in fact, Jim, again, this came up to a certain extent with

(22:11):
EM Burlingame on the the idea of, of civilizations and and
that kind of thing and and how how this idea of sort of power
and influence persists, but through the people.
And I thought, I thought, I thought that was very
interesting. Well, Mike, do you not think
that there is a case to be made,as difficult as it might be for

(22:36):
Empire? No, I don't.
I don't think that that because what's the cost for that?
And, you know, I, I, I really find that a hard argument to to
agree with. You know, it comes back to the
the famous scene in in the Life of Brian where they're talking
about what did the Romans ever did for us and of course the

(22:57):
aqueducts and all this kind of stuff.
Well, yeah, OK. But one, one of the things we
got to remember is that the, youknow, the reason that
infrastructure was built was to make the trading and effectively
the rape of the countries possible.

(23:18):
You know, at the, at the, the, the, the idea of the modern
nation state is based on the principle.
It comes from the Treaty of Westphalia.
It's based on the principle. If you look at the first clause
of that treaty, it talks about each nation operating for the
benefit of the other. And through that comes peace.
And this is the basis of the modern nation state.

(23:42):
Now that is totally anti empire because if you, if you're
recognising that peaceful coexistence comes from the fact
that you can benefit as, as a nation from helping your fellow
nation benefit. That is a very different
approach to going into a country, colonising it,

(24:02):
installing infrastructure, installing a legal system that
suits you and withdrawing without giving any decent
compensation, withdrawing the raw materials from that company
so that you can profit and buildyour productive capacity.
Right. There's, there's 22 very
different approaches there. And I think that that, you know,

(24:24):
for all its faults, and I'm not denying there are many, many
faults with, with bricks. Bricks seems to be more aligned
with the Westphalian principle than other forms of of about.
I don't even want to call it empire because I'm not sure that
it is. But you know, if we believe in
the idea of peoples and nations having sovereignty, then they

(24:46):
have to be allowed to develop independently and how we can
assist with that development as long as it is a bilateral
assistance and not a unilateral assistance.
And that that that would be thatwould be my answer to that.
This is a long conversation, butI think that that, you know,
there is strength in people who come from a common background

(25:09):
and have common outlook working as a nation.
I mean this is the whole principle of of a nation.
That's that's a lot of that's where a lot of the strength that
we have comes from having a common basis for what we're
doing, whether that's that is a family level or a community
level or a nation level. But I think that's where the, I

(25:34):
think that's where the the conflict starts arising is at
what point? No.
In what sense? Well, for example, China has 1
1/2 billion people. I mean, that's not even a
nation. That is not just an entire
civilization. But then you could compare that
to say, I don't know, Liechtenstein, which has what,

(25:56):
40,000 people? But, but that, but that's based
on the implication that that people have to be managed.
And, and you know, with that, that, that gets in the whole
conversation about, about what our form of governance should
be. But, you know, I, I think that,
I think that the, the, the principle that we're talking

(26:18):
about here is, is 1 where we, nomatter what size of, of
organisational unit that we have, that we're looking at our
neighbours and, and, and we're looking at them as friends, not,
not in, in competition. That we've got to Blatter them
over the head with a big gun and, and make sure that they're,
they keep low while we rise to the top.

(26:40):
That we could the, you know, that we can, we can actually
cooperate and function and recognise that, that, that other
groupings, no matter what size they are, might have something
to bring to the party. And, and that we can work
together to, you know, and this,this, this comes back to this

(27:00):
issue of whether we can actuallyoutgrow the whole issue or, or
concept of geopolitics and, and think more in terms of, of a
genuine recognition of and a genuine respect for the
differences that we have. And that those differences might
actually bring solutions. But that only works if we are

(27:21):
prepared to consider people fromother countries or other
groupings as as friends rather than people that are just trying
to steal our lunch. Well, I was just going back to
I, I don't mean to be too much of a parent, but but might use
the word assist And I, I just, Iwas going to ask what you're

(27:48):
talking about relationships between countries and, and the
notion of assistance. I was just wondering what what
you meant by that and how you sort of see that.
I can't remember what I said. No what?
What? OK, annoyingly I can't remember
exactly what you said either, sowe have to listen back on on no.
What's my what Mike was saying is that instead of going into

(28:13):
those regions, colonising and imposing your politics and your
beliefs etcetera, you rather allow them to grow and if yours
is more advanced than theirs, then you assist.
And so you're asking what I meanby assist?
Yeah, yes. Well, I mean, OK, cooperate,
whatever, whatever, whatever term we want to use.

(28:34):
But but you know, The thing is that we're not going in with
guns and saying right, this is the way it's going to be that
that actually we do have to respect the approach that.
So, you know, if, if, if, if a country that we consider to be,
you know, a bunch of uncivilisedheathens, if we view them that

(28:56):
way and, and therefore we have no respect for, for their wish
to live in a particular way witha particular lifestyle.
You know, then we may have a tendency to go into that country
and, and say, no, this is the way you've got to do it.
And if you don't want to do it that way, tough luck because
we've got the guns and you don't.
This isn't the right, this isn'tthe right approach.

(29:18):
That's not cooperation. You know, it begins with
respect, respect for, for the, the culture that that exists in
another part of the world. And if, if the answer from them
is no, then the answer is no. And and we should not be
weighing in with our boots just because they have a particular
rare earth under the ground. OK, Yeah, good.

(29:42):
Yeah, I, I, no, I mean, the, thereason I ask is because again,
slightly going back to where we started the conversation with
regard to all the various projects that in particular the
United Kingdom has running in countries all over the world
under the apparent heading of assistance.
And having having been in a position where I've supposedly

(30:06):
been providing that sort of assistance.
My question, not just now, but even at the time was always, was
always to consider putting the boot on the other first and, and
imagining why it would be that people, wherever they may be,
would consider that they actually want assistance and

(30:26):
what the what the purpose of such a thing might be.
And, and I would say, of course,I totally agree with you.
I mean, the the idea of just sort of tipping up somewhere and
saying, right, we'll have that and we've got guns.
So, you know, just keep quiet or, or indeed, you know, die,
make die makes an offer, whatever it is.

(30:47):
I think honesty frankly, and it should be, it should be no
different from a transaction between an individual.
If if somebody has got sort of, you know, lovely carrots or
marrows in their garden and you want them and you say right,
well I'd be interested in, you know, in some of those, what
would you like for them? You know, why should we regard

(31:08):
that just because we are supposedly, and I absolutely say
supposedly more more developed, more civilised, more powerful,
whatever whatever qualification that that somehow gives us the
right to first of all, consider that we can get what we want.
But but also that we that we sort of have any kind of a right

(31:30):
to do anything other than simplydeclare honestly to whichever
doesn't, not even a country, youknow, region, whoever's, whoever
is controlling a particular resource that we're interested
in. Why?
And I appreciate this sounds hopelessly naive, but, but, but

(31:50):
really to consider that anythingother than saying we really like
your XY and Z, would you like toenter into some sort of mutually
beneficial agreement? And I think this is this goes
back to to what I've observed with the with the post empire

(32:10):
countries. Is that that bit And OK, we of
course, if one considers that all of it's to an extent
intentional, then fine, that explains it away.
But but I don't think that is the case for absolutely
everybody, certainly not on the corporate spectrum where
actually maximising profits is what matters.
But the the cat handed way in which people try to negotiate

(32:34):
and make arrangements in order that they can try to satisfy
both parties, It's just woeful. But it's so, it's so flipping
obvious. You know, you're quite right.
You don't have the guns, you don't have the inherent
suggestion that somehow you're better.
But but, but nonetheless, the, the without corruption, without

(32:56):
the pouring of significant amounts of money into the
pockets of people that shouldn'tbe taking control of it, very
little of this would be possiblebecause the, the absolute lack
of respect for the simple process of coming to an
arrangement that satisfies both parties.
And and that is exactly where weshould be with it.

(33:17):
So, so going back to your question, Germ, as to whether,
you know, whether empire can be good.
I mean, I, I, I don't, I, I, I don't see how.
I mean, it's, I, I said earlier that the British Empire was
characterised OK by a lot of things.
But one of the, one of the greatlegacies has been the road rail

(33:38):
shipping networks, which, which given the time at which they've
done in the terrain and all the rest of it are absolutely
extraordinary. Of course, almost all now
totally redundant and and broken, but unless those were
going to be of significant benefit for the people that were
living in those places, then then frankly, none of that
should have happened. You know, what use, what use

(34:01):
does somebody living in, well, let's say Eastern Africa sort of
in the interior have for a railway, unless it is simply to
to dig stuff out the ground, take it back out and what are
they going to get out of it? You know, supposedly our
education voting, but of course that's tax and control.
So yes, I mean, I, I'm afraid tosay I don't see that.

(34:24):
I don't think there's such a thing as a sort of benevolent
empire. And we go back to the, the idea
of the, the, you know, the MontyPython, you know, what did, what
did the Romans ever do for us? Well, I mean, I think it's quite
clear, although we wouldn't be having this conversation, They,
they, they laid the template, they set out the means by which
all of these things can be done and, you know, further carried

(34:47):
out by others along the way. I mean, you know, to an extent
the Normans and, and that the baton was simply picked up in
the, well, sort of early or pre Victorian period and and rolled
out again. So the the the only, the only.
Well, in fact, Charles, you knowyou can, if you let's pick a

(35:09):
time in history where we start. If we look at the, the original
Silk Road, the original Silk Road trading empire was as far
from the European side was, was based in Venice and, and the
Lombard area. This created a banking system
which was known as the Lombard banking system.

(35:31):
You go to the City of London nowyou see Lombard St you see and,
and you see all these referencesback to that original Venetian
empire. And, and so you can follow,
actually, you can actually follow that as it, as it moved
westwards from, from Venice and,and through the, the Dutch and

(35:52):
the Netherlands and the Dutch East India Company into the City
of London and so on. So, you know, this is a, it's a
continuous process rather than sort of an empire collapsing
and, and reforming somewhere else.
It has moved, moved across the world.
So it's ended up in London and now it's sort of headed, you
know, in more recent year, decades headed West so that you

(36:12):
can't ignore the, the Wall Street part of that as well.
But nonetheless, it it's, it's still there as it was.
Yeah, I know. I mean, I I would totally agree.
I I mean, I'm simply talking about sort of rehashing the same
template. I'm not, I'm not specifically
saying that's that's British, but I mean, no, it's, it's
fascinating. I think when one examines it in
those terms, it's it's everywhere.
Just it's exactly, it keeps keeps rolling.

(36:35):
Yeah, but but I just, you know, I don't see that that one can
ever say there are perceived benefits for the the whatever
they're called. You know, there's the sort of
the victims or the the nations that end up having this
superimposed on top of them. And I mean, but I but I mean do
you do you have? Just before you ask Jeremy this,

(36:58):
I'd just like to make one other point and that's this whole
issue of British, because a lot of people, of course, are or get
very sensitive about once you start accusing, because then
maybe we're British ourselves. We sometimes get upset about it
being attached to the word British.
And I was just, I just want to, before we move on, make the
point. There's quite an astute

(37:18):
observation by David Scott and that was that we have an
occupying power in this country and we we should perceive it as
being parasitic in nature. So it's not British, it's not an
expression of the British people.
It is something that has been imposed on this country at this
point in time and maybe if we recognise that we can begin to

(37:42):
to think about ways that we might want to deal with it.
Sorry, what? Was your question, Charles?
Oh, just whether with your question about empire and and
there being any benefit from it.So I was just wondering whether
you had a sort of counter, you know, whether you could see a
way in which it can work. No, I largely do.

(38:05):
No, I largely do agree with withyour comments.
I was obviously asking for the sake of of devil's advocate.
Yeah. However, and this is obviously
perhaps a more personal tug of war, but I am a result of
effectively the British Empire'sexpansion, my parents too, and

(38:26):
my grandparents and in fact the entire Afrikaner nation if you
think about it. And so if they are no perceived
benefits, then it kind of negates quite a lot of stuff
that that matters to us now. Things are what they are
obviously, and you can't reverseanything.
So then I guess the conversationcomes around, well, comes around

(38:48):
to what happens next. So South Africa, for example, is
no longer part of the Commonwealth, but I think Canada
and Australia still are. Should they in essence,
disconnect from the Crown? I think that's, that's not a,
that's not a, a question that wecan answer.
That is something which is absolutely for the people of

(39:10):
those countries. But I mean on, on the, you know,
I'm also a product of that expansion in a sense, because,
you know, I come from Northern Ireland, Presbyterian family.
We were sent there as part of various settlements, settlement
operations in the in fact, I can't even remember exactly when

(39:32):
our family ended up in that country.
But but the point is you're, you're asking where does that,
where does that leave you? And I think this is, this is a
tricky thing. I think it becomes what we're
seeing in terms of of this sort of pressure for reparations or
the pressure for the pressure onthe Afrikaans nation within

(39:57):
South Africa and so on. Is it and just a continuing
expression of the same types of divide and conquer tactics that
we've seen from empires in the past.
And you know, the fact of the matter is you are there and
you've been there for whatever number of years that that.

(40:18):
It, it would be incorrect in my opinion to that then say well,
you've no right to be there anymore, so get out this, this
would not be the right thing to do.
I think we've got to, we've got to start recognising that black
white in South Africa or Protestant Catholic in Ireland
or whatever it happens to be, wehave been on the receiving end

(40:38):
of manipulations of a different type of people.
And that actually we are all thevictims of that in the sense.
And we shouldn't be actually even thinking about it in terms
of victimhood anymore, in my opinion.
But we should be recognising that we are friends and the
enemy is something different andwe should be coming together on

(41:01):
that basis and not, not resorting to to falling into the
same old trap which is imposed on us by them to believe that
somehow we are enemies. And so, you know, I, I think we
got to, we got to start recognising what has happened in

(41:21):
a, in a slightly different way over the last few 100 years and
recognising who the the, the instigators of that have have
been and who's actually has beenon the receiving end of those
activities. And maybe we recognise who the
real enemy is at that point. Yeah.
Well, what about Israel, for example?

(41:42):
I mean, we know that there are many commentators who we
personally know who will argue against the existence of Israel.
But people who are born our age now in Israel, it's not their
fault what happened in 19 in the1940s.
No, but they have to they, they,they currently do not they,

(42:02):
they're currently the people that are pulling the triggers
charm. And so, so you know, they have
to begin by recognising what it is that they're pulling the
trigger on behalf of. And they've got to, in my
opinion, they've got to stop doing that and they've got to
stop doing it yesterday. And they've got to actually
recognise that the people that they're pulling the triggers on

(42:25):
have rights. So that's, that's where that
conversation begins. But, but I, I'm I'm afraid I
agree that that state that that that state of Israel actually
does have no right to exist as it's currently constituted.
Now what you do with the people that live there, that's a
different question. But the entity itself does not
have a right to exist. Is it would be my personal

(42:47):
opinion because it is the creation of of the of British
manipulation. Are there other examples do you
think? I mean, obviously they are.
Sorry, let me rephrase that. What other examples are similar
to to Israel? I think South Africa is quite
different. Because we are talking about

(43:11):
Empire and the expansion. No, I mean, you could look,
look, Jeremy, you could argue that every border in Africa was
a creation of empire and that it's all fake.
And, you know, and I think, I think that I think that there is
very much an argument for sayingto people, well, you know, this
border was drawn in order to inflamed tensions between

(43:35):
people's tribal groups, whateverit happens to be in Africa.
If we're taking Africa as an example.
And, and we need to say to people, you know, what, what's
your view of this? Do you feel that you're part of
the Zulu nation or some other? I mean, I, I don't know the
names of, of many of the, the, the, the nations in, in Africa.
But the question is, do do thoseborders get redrawn or do people

(43:57):
now have some kind of feeling of, of connection to the entity
that, that that there happened to be surrounded by?
But that happens through conversation rather than
conquest at this point. It would would be how I would
argue for it. US also.
Well, the United States, you know, you know, no matter how

(44:20):
you look at it, the United States has a lot of things to be
proud of. It's got a lot of things to be
absolutely ashamed of. And, and the effective genocide
of of the native peoples is and the continuing suppression of
those peoples is something that has to be addressed.
It's I think there's no questionabout that.
The question is what, what you do about it?

(44:43):
That starts with a conversation.And it's not about sort of, you
know, the, the, the, the types of, of reparations that we're
talking about. It's, it's how to look into the
future and what, what, what happens in the future.
It's, I think what's happened has happened.
And, and you don't solve that problem by just necessarily just

(45:04):
by throwing money at the issue. Because if you just if you throw
money at the issue but don't resolve the fundamental problems
that exist, then then you're notactually solving anything.
But this goes back to something that you have said a number of
times, Mike, that we need to take responsibility firstly at

(45:25):
our, at our individual level andthen in our family level and
then our community level. Because when we have those
conversations on, on the ground level, that is where we have
influence. We we don't really have
influence over what's happening at the top.
We don't have direct influence. But if you know, I've said, I've

(45:49):
said many times that that the top, whatever that is, has no
direct capability to control world affairs.
It has to use layers, various layers of middle management, no?
I'm sorry, what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is that the the

(46:09):
expansion of various empires hasnever come from people on the
ground, has come from the top using the people on the ground.
That's right. So, so yeah, so we've got to
have a we've got to recognise that and and make a decision
about whether we want to whetherwe want to be involved in that
or not. And the same goes for whether we
want to go to fight in a war. For example, the, the, the

(46:31):
government of the day says, well, we're going to have a war
with country X. And so you've all got to join up
and you've all got to get involved and whatnot.
Well, you know, if we look at the the first and Second World
wars, there were a few people that were not prepared to, to do
that. And they, they found various
ways of some of them in the First World War didn't survive

(46:52):
as a result, because that was something that was viewed very
dimly by the state. The Second World War still
viewed pretty dimly, but at least they weren't shooting
anybody as far as I'm aware. Correct me if I'm wrong,
Charles, but you know, countriescan only prosecute wars abroad
if at this point in time if, if people are willing to go and

(47:15):
take part in those. Of course, we're seeing that
change in the next decade or twobecause more and more autonomous
and and remotely controlled computer controlled AI
controlled capability is being developed.
And I think that is a step that we definitely don't want to be
going in. We don't, but I, I'm, I'm, I

(47:38):
think we should reserve judgement as to how that would
actually play out. I think, I think there's,
there's such a ridiculous sort of hyperbole surrounding all
that kind of thing. And the, the notion that just
because in well, what's become sort of conventional warfare,

(47:59):
you know, if you, if you have control of the air and then you
can begin to assert dominance over particular pieces of
ground, whole ground, you know, and how you, you shape the, the
battlespace. As a result.
The idea that this can be done remotely or, and, or
autonomously and that there can be an enduring effect, I think

(48:20):
is, I think is a complete misreading of the situation.
I think you can, you can create devastating sort of human
casualty with these sorts of things.
And I think, you know, we're specific, well, specifically
talking about, let's say drones for the time being, because
they're, they're in relative terms, sort of cheap and easy.
But, but in terms of enduring effects, I, I would be, I'd be

(48:41):
very, very doubtful about that. And I, I, OK, everywhere is
different. Of course I would cite say
Afghanistan over the period, youknow, 2001 onwards and how, how
utterly failed any effort was atwhat was called ground holding.

(49:03):
The, the, the whole, the operations there that were
described as being to, let's say, liberate and then take
control of and, and and re redevelop a particular area
where I think without exception,utterly hopeless it is.

(49:28):
I think people have a massive tendency to underestimate how
difficult this sort of thing is and what it really means.
So I, I don't know whether beyond the the initial horror
of, of casualties, I don't know whether any of these, whether
any of these effects will be felt in a sustained context.
I, I'm afraid I, I'd rather doubt it actually.

(49:51):
But yeah, sorry, Jim, just go back.
And just to qualify, I mean, not, not, I'm not suggesting I,
I struck a, a personal nerve, but I, but I do think it's very
important to make a distinction.No, no, no, no, but I, but I,
but I, it's, it's, it's a point very, very much worth making
because first of all, it brings out the sort of nebulous
question of, well, I mean, you know, how far do we go back with

(50:14):
all of this? And that's a perennial problem
to a certain extent. SO11 wants to try to be
consistent. And I think you're very, you
know, he's very opposite to bring in Israel, for example.
I think I think that that absolutely is a totally
different situation, which we probably haven't got time to
quite go into. But I'm sure that people have
who've certainly followed UK column and and listened to this

(50:36):
podcast for a period of time andunderstand exactly what I mean
by that. And I think there is, there is
absolutely a distinction to be drawn between the banking and
corporate influences and then the state, state activities in
terms of, you know, sort of colonial subsuming of, of

(51:02):
countries into an empire. And then the, the settler
communities who go there to, I would say, do, do the, the part
that I was talking about earlier, which, which relies on
mutual benefit, you know, you can't, you can't simply, I mean,
by and large in, well, actually all, let's say all of the parts

(51:27):
of Africa that were settled in by Europeans, agriculture was
the, the, the absolutely the main practise of that.
And you, you can't make that work without there being a, a
benefit for the people who are, who are there, you know, nearby.

(51:48):
So no, I, I do, and I don't meanto sound inconsistent, but I do
absolutely make a distinction for that.
And OK, yes, to an extent. I'm motivated to say that by my
own, well, personal experiences in so far as how I've seen it
play out. And, and from having spent,
admittedly not in recent years, but having spent some time in
South Africa in, you know, a fewparts of the country and seen

(52:10):
the relationship between the, the progeny of those settler
communities, you know, effectively the, the
relationship between white and black people with which I have
absolutely no issue. I mean, the, we're always going
to be able to find exceptions tothat.
But but the way in which those people rather alongside each
other is, is, you know, it is, it is fantastic.

(52:32):
I mean, it's, it's sort of it's heartwarming.
And I don't mean that in a patronising sense.
I mean, I'd be equally tonightedif people, if, if white people
in the United Kingdom behave like that towards one another.
But there's such a, there's sucha level of sort of mutual love
and respect. And I've seen that all over, you
know, sort of southern and Eastern Africa where there are
these still white, you know, the, the today's iteration of

(52:54):
white settler communities. And they would not have been
able to survive had they not been acting in such fashion.
That meant that their operationswere were working and perceived
to be working in the eyes of of people who, let's say, had been
there first. But as I say, they'll be falling
into the world. How far back do you go thing?
Because ultimately we've all come from somewhere else.

(53:18):
So I think that's, I think that's worth saying.
And also we have to, we do have to be quite specific about these
things. Because if funnily enough,
actually a conversation I was having yesterday was about just
kind of interesting distinction between say the way that that
manifested in Africa as opposed to in India.
There is, there is a popular in terms of people, there is a

(53:41):
legacy in say India, but it's but it's completely different.
You know, the Anglo Indian community is not in any way
comparable to what has remained in Africa.
And that that is, that is a, youknow, a sort of talking point.
It's, it's an interesting thing.So I don't think 1 can be
generic or universal about any of these things.
So to be very specific about South Africa, no, I mean, I, you

(54:06):
know, you can point to isolated incidents, but no, I mean,
essentially I see no issue with,with the, the, the settler
practise and, and mentality. And I'm sure there will be
people who, who will react against that and that and that's
completely fine. But that is the way I see it.
Just quickly as we come in for alanding, nice way to circle back

(54:30):
to the start of the conversation.
We're chatting about embassies and consulates, etcetera.
Charles, do you think that that countries should have visa
applications? Hong Kong for example, doesn't
require a visa for most countries, but like coming to
the UKII require, I have to apply for a visa, which means

(54:52):
that I can be rejected. Yeah, I mean that that that's a
really good question. And it's something in which or
at least examining that gives gives a really good insight into
the terrific small minded, smallmindedness and pettiness of
ministers in the British government and indeed the sorts

(55:17):
of corporate leanings on them. Because it is, it's a little bit
like the sort of Trump tariffs. I mean, it's it's a kind of it's
a tit for tat. And this been this has been
going on forever. You know, a, a particular
country will make a, make a new policy on the visa requirement
or the entry charge for a British national to go to that

(55:39):
country. And then the next thing you know
that the, you know, the situation is being flipped the
other way. So I think the whole thing is,
is, is absurd. No, I, I personally, I don't
think they should. I don't think there should be
any requirement. I mean, I think we know now
without biometric gulf, it is perfectly possible to keep, keep

(56:01):
a record of somebody that goes into a country when they go
across the border. And to, to, to put you through
the process of, you know, all that investment of of sort of
time and effort to say that, yes, you know, we, we think that
it's appropriate that you come here and obviously, no, I mean,
I think, I think that's completely wrong.
And that, and that in a way thatgoes back to the heart of, of

(56:24):
what we're talking about, which is this element of there being
mutual respect between countries.
And, and what really what, what does that say?
What does it say if you're saying to 1 country icon, you
know, and you come, we're not going to check anything, do what
you like. And then to another, you're
saying, no, we, we, we're going to do our level best to, to keep
you out, but we still want to have, have access to all the

(56:46):
good bits in your country. I mean, that's, that's a, that's
a ridiculous message to be sending.
I'm sure you agree, Mike. Absolutely.
Good, there we go. Well with that in mind I still
have to apply for a visa, but with some with some good fortune
I won't be arrested and I'll seeyou chance in a couple of months
time. Well, what I would say is good

(57:06):
luck, good luck wherever you're coming into, whether it be
Heathrow, well, whichever airport, good, good luck.
I mean, this is it, you know, goback to the how all these things
have collapsed. I mean, I, I, I know this sort
of sounds silly in a way, but I am so embarrassed by the state
of the larger, well, English airports and the way in which

(57:28):
they treat people. It, it is appalling.
And, and yet we have the temerity to, to, you know, in,
in going back to the word that that Mike used to, to say that
we can assist other countries with, with matters that they
might not be able to manage themselves.

(57:49):
We can't run a flipping airport.Obviously, you know, it is a
joke. I think we've talked about this
before. We probably have and sorry to
Chuck that in now, but, but, butyou know, really, if you're
going to be put, put through allthat to get a visa, you should
be impressed by what you see. You should, you should feel that
that's that, that you'll sort ofrecompensed in kind.

(58:09):
And, and, and I'm afraid that's just, you know, that's not how
it is anyway, obviously to be enjoyed.
Make sure you're you're overwhelmingly cheerful and see
how many responses, appropriate responses you get from anyone in
in the airports you go through in this country, I would say.
My Controls Thank you for joining me in the Weekly.