What do you think?
Rate this book
孤獨英國：從大英帝國到大英國協，加入歐洲共同體到脫歐，英國將走向何方？
19世紀的日不落國，為何選擇走向孤立？
2016年英國脫歐公投，蘇格蘭等倡議脫英獨立，
2022年伊莉莎白女王逝世，大英國協內興起脫英風潮。
這個曾經的世界霸主，最終將走向何方？
◎英國新聞獎年度政治記者、政治研究協會年度政治記者獎得主最新力作
「打贏了」二戰，卻失去了帝國
大英帝國曾統治全世界1/4土地，在打贏二戰後，因殖民地紛紛獨立而失去大片領土。且戰爭中投入過多人力物力，而造成戰後經濟困頓、英鎊貶值。1956年，蘇伊士運河危機爆發，英國與法國、以色列出兵埃及，此一舉動被譴責為殖民主義再現，且受到美國與大英國協成員國反對，最終還以撤兵收場。此事件讓英國在國際、政治、經濟等層面大受打擊，當時有人說英國從此成為二流國家。世界霸主地位拱手讓予美國，全球秩序也從此走向美蘇對抗時代。
在美國和歐洲的夾縫之間
光是處於大英國協的中心不足以讓英國維持強國地位，必須與他國聯手。英國在美國和歐洲之間，先選擇了美國。英國將自身與美國的合作比擬為希臘與羅馬，英國負責提供頭腦，美國則揮舞著武器。當時英國國內仍對歐洲亟欲打造超國家組織抱持戒心，於是拒絕在一九五〇年代加入歐洲各類共同體的英國，也失去成為新歐洲領導者的機會。等到一九七三年英國終於加入時，她已成為歐洲共同體中最窮的成員國。
從世界帝國到歐洲強國
今日英國依舊是全球前10名的經濟體，也經常被要求干預國際事務。有人說他們正背負著不符合自身能力的責任。其實早於一九六〇年代，英國就無法負擔海外駐軍的費用，也經常必須向美國低頭，尋求軍事和經濟上的援助。但因為英國曾經是世界領袖，是二戰劃分世界秩序的三巨頭之一，因而無法割捨其地位象徵。為此，數十年來，他們擁有自身經濟所無法負擔的核武、死命維持英鎊匯率、逼自己參加波灣戰爭、為了美國介入中東戰局。
失去了一個帝國，但還沒有找到新的角色
本書作者為英國資深政治記者，以數十年來對重要政治人物與外交官員的採訪紀錄，解碼蘇伊士運河至今英國的政治決策與重要轉折。同時也在描繪一個驕傲的國家如何承認自己不再強大。他認為，不論是過去或是未來，英國要往哪裡去都和他們如何定義自身有關。近年的脫歐，也可以看成英國試圖再次以「伊莉莎白一世的黃金時代」，讓勇於冒險犯難的「全球性英國」在世界每個角落留下印記。問題是，現實中，繼2016年脫歐之後，蘇格蘭要獨立，2022年伊莉莎白女王離世後，又面臨大英國協內的脫英風潮。是否，英國的努力終將讓自身成為孤島？
◎專業推薦
林美香（國立政治大學歷史系特聘教授）
羅至美（臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系教授／歐盟莫內講座教授）
2016年英國脫歐公投，蘇格蘭等倡議脫英獨立，
2022年伊莉莎白女王逝世，大英國協內興起脫英風潮。
這個曾經的世界霸主，最終將走向何方？
◎英國新聞獎年度政治記者、政治研究協會年度政治記者獎得主最新力作
「打贏了」二戰，卻失去了帝國
大英帝國曾統治全世界1/4土地，在打贏二戰後，因殖民地紛紛獨立而失去大片領土。且戰爭中投入過多人力物力，而造成戰後經濟困頓、英鎊貶值。1956年，蘇伊士運河危機爆發，英國與法國、以色列出兵埃及，此一舉動被譴責為殖民主義再現，且受到美國與大英國協成員國反對，最終還以撤兵收場。此事件讓英國在國際、政治、經濟等層面大受打擊，當時有人說英國從此成為二流國家。世界霸主地位拱手讓予美國，全球秩序也從此走向美蘇對抗時代。
在美國和歐洲的夾縫之間
光是處於大英國協的中心不足以讓英國維持強國地位，必須與他國聯手。英國在美國和歐洲之間，先選擇了美國。英國將自身與美國的合作比擬為希臘與羅馬，英國負責提供頭腦，美國則揮舞著武器。當時英國國內仍對歐洲亟欲打造超國家組織抱持戒心，於是拒絕在一九五〇年代加入歐洲各類共同體的英國，也失去成為新歐洲領導者的機會。等到一九七三年英國終於加入時，她已成為歐洲共同體中最窮的成員國。
從世界帝國到歐洲強國
今日英國依舊是全球前10名的經濟體，也經常被要求干預國際事務。有人說他們正背負著不符合自身能力的責任。其實早於一九六〇年代，英國就無法負擔海外駐軍的費用，也經常必須向美國低頭，尋求軍事和經濟上的援助。但因為英國曾經是世界領袖，是二戰劃分世界秩序的三巨頭之一，因而無法割捨其地位象徵。為此，數十年來，他們擁有自身經濟所無法負擔的核武、死命維持英鎊匯率、逼自己參加波灣戰爭、為了美國介入中東戰局。
失去了一個帝國，但還沒有找到新的角色
本書作者為英國資深政治記者，以數十年來對重要政治人物與外交官員的採訪紀錄，解碼蘇伊士運河至今英國的政治決策與重要轉折。同時也在描繪一個驕傲的國家如何承認自己不再強大。他認為，不論是過去或是未來，英國要往哪裡去都和他們如何定義自身有關。近年的脫歐，也可以看成英國試圖再次以「伊莉莎白一世的黃金時代」，讓勇於冒險犯難的「全球性英國」在世界每個角落留下印記。問題是，現實中，繼2016年脫歐之後，蘇格蘭要獨立，2022年伊莉莎白女王離世後，又面臨大英國協內的脫英風潮。是否，英國的努力終將讓自身成為孤島？
◎專業推薦
林美香（國立政治大學歷史系特聘教授）
羅至美（臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系教授／歐盟莫內講座教授）
468 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 10, 2022
65 people are currently reading
660 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
November 25, 2020
This book is an indispensable modern history of Britain and its "inflated ambition and diminished circumstances." Author Philip Stephens, historian and political commentator, provides an overview of Britain's post-imperial international role from the failed Suez expedition in 1956 to Brexit. The final chapters take us through the Brexit referendum and up to the start of the 2020 pandemic.
Britain Alone has several threads running through it. First, is Britain's self image as an independent maritime nation with an exceptional place in the world as a "pocket power." Britain's geography, its institutions, democracy, superior habits, parliamentary traditions, great empire and victory in WWII shaped a national consciousness that could not "surrender its mindset" in the face of reality.
Although not a full history of colonialism, this book provides a useful overview of Britain's relationship with former colonies, the Commonwealth and with Ireland. Its relationship with the EU is often at odds with prioritising its relationship with the Commonwealth. I believe in the lead up to Brexit I remember the relationship as being described as having been thrown under the bus for Brussels. The Commonwealth had its own system of trading preferences and although trade rights have the potential to be a tedious read, it was a good look at how Eurosceptics can consider themselves to be globally minded without EU membership. As de Gaulle observed "England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries."
The second is the UK's vacillating relationship with the United States. Should it be America's best friend and prioritise their 'special relationship?' Or should Britain serve as an intermediary between the United States and continental Europe? Britain still sees itself as part of the big three, seated at negotiating table with the United States and the Soviet Union. Throughout the book, the United States looks to its national interests first, while Britain trades its dignity for attention, financial aid and assistance with its hugely expensive nuclear programme. The United States admittedly agonised over supporting Britain as a colonial power in hopes or providing international stability, or supporting independence for countries ("anti-imperialist moralism") that might then celebrate this newly found freedom by choosing Soviet authoritarianism. Aside from its special relationship with the United States, Britain also sees itself as separate from continental Europe through its relationships with the Anglosphere. Phillips here describes the "Five Eyes" intelligence-sharing pact between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US and the UK.
Depending on the Prime Minister at the time, Britain was either Atlanticist or European. With each government afraid to make a decision, cracks were described as showing in "the majestic ramparts of British self-confidence." When discussing sending a delegation to the 1955 Messina, Sicily conference in a lead up to further European integration, the UK replied that it was "a devilish awkward place to expect a minister to get to." The superiority! They would pay for opting out later.
The third theme, and most unexpected, was an overview of Britain's nuclear weapons programme which is "central to British illusions." So much of Britain's international prestige and self-image is wrapped up continuing the Trident programme, even to the detriment of the rest of the armed forces, especially the Navy. In the meanwhile, successive cabinets neglected cybersecurity and had little clear policy direction over China and North Korea. The book's information on Britain's history and relationship with Hong Kong would be especially timely to read now.
Studious viewers of The Crown might enjoy reading through the history of the post-war decades and the intimate, almost fly on the wall, stories of the leading figures of each decade. I knew almost nothing about the Heath Government and my knowledge of Britain in the 1970s was only based on opinions I had heard of the later Thatcher years. It's painful to read about the bills of empire, the cost of supporting overseas armed forces, the NHS and public sector pay while Britain's economic power and STEM fields were falling behind France and Germany.
I could not easily detect the author's political leanings. After reading this book I liked some politicians less than before and some politicians more than before. Few paragraphs are dedicated to the immigration debate and that is a relief. So much has been said on the Brexit outcome in terms of immigration that an outsider might think that was the only cause. There are historical factors such as Britain's view of itself as an independent island nation, and also the more recent causes such as stagnant wages, austerity after the GFC, the rise of casual work and uneven economic development. Phillips does summarise cultural identities, domestic economic security, UKIP and the backlash to rising immigration. Today, all political tribes recognise that immigration rates from former communist countries greatly exceeded expectations but the debate rests in culture clashes and who deserves access to the welfare state. The final chapters show how nobody before the vote "had grasped the seismic scale of the decision to quit the European Union." Examining the impact of that decision on England's relationship with the rest of the UK leads to questions over whether this is actually "England alone." I do wonder if the English who voted to leave might argue that it was partly the result of long term, unfettered "London alone" policy.
Britain Alone should be required reading for anyone wishing to understand Britain's modern history and the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. I would recommend reading it after the excellent Churchill, Walking with Destiny biography by Andrew Roberts .
This book was provided by the publisher for review.
Britain Alone has several threads running through it. First, is Britain's self image as an independent maritime nation with an exceptional place in the world as a "pocket power." Britain's geography, its institutions, democracy, superior habits, parliamentary traditions, great empire and victory in WWII shaped a national consciousness that could not "surrender its mindset" in the face of reality.
Although not a full history of colonialism, this book provides a useful overview of Britain's relationship with former colonies, the Commonwealth and with Ireland. Its relationship with the EU is often at odds with prioritising its relationship with the Commonwealth. I believe in the lead up to Brexit I remember the relationship as being described as having been thrown under the bus for Brussels. The Commonwealth had its own system of trading preferences and although trade rights have the potential to be a tedious read, it was a good look at how Eurosceptics can consider themselves to be globally minded without EU membership. As de Gaulle observed "England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries."
The second is the UK's vacillating relationship with the United States. Should it be America's best friend and prioritise their 'special relationship?' Or should Britain serve as an intermediary between the United States and continental Europe? Britain still sees itself as part of the big three, seated at negotiating table with the United States and the Soviet Union. Throughout the book, the United States looks to its national interests first, while Britain trades its dignity for attention, financial aid and assistance with its hugely expensive nuclear programme. The United States admittedly agonised over supporting Britain as a colonial power in hopes or providing international stability, or supporting independence for countries ("anti-imperialist moralism") that might then celebrate this newly found freedom by choosing Soviet authoritarianism. Aside from its special relationship with the United States, Britain also sees itself as separate from continental Europe through its relationships with the Anglosphere. Phillips here describes the "Five Eyes" intelligence-sharing pact between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US and the UK.
Depending on the Prime Minister at the time, Britain was either Atlanticist or European. With each government afraid to make a decision, cracks were described as showing in "the majestic ramparts of British self-confidence." When discussing sending a delegation to the 1955 Messina, Sicily conference in a lead up to further European integration, the UK replied that it was "a devilish awkward place to expect a minister to get to." The superiority! They would pay for opting out later.
The third theme, and most unexpected, was an overview of Britain's nuclear weapons programme which is "central to British illusions." So much of Britain's international prestige and self-image is wrapped up continuing the Trident programme, even to the detriment of the rest of the armed forces, especially the Navy. In the meanwhile, successive cabinets neglected cybersecurity and had little clear policy direction over China and North Korea. The book's information on Britain's history and relationship with Hong Kong would be especially timely to read now.
Studious viewers of The Crown might enjoy reading through the history of the post-war decades and the intimate, almost fly on the wall, stories of the leading figures of each decade. I knew almost nothing about the Heath Government and my knowledge of Britain in the 1970s was only based on opinions I had heard of the later Thatcher years. It's painful to read about the bills of empire, the cost of supporting overseas armed forces, the NHS and public sector pay while Britain's economic power and STEM fields were falling behind France and Germany.
I could not easily detect the author's political leanings. After reading this book I liked some politicians less than before and some politicians more than before. Few paragraphs are dedicated to the immigration debate and that is a relief. So much has been said on the Brexit outcome in terms of immigration that an outsider might think that was the only cause. There are historical factors such as Britain's view of itself as an independent island nation, and also the more recent causes such as stagnant wages, austerity after the GFC, the rise of casual work and uneven economic development. Phillips does summarise cultural identities, domestic economic security, UKIP and the backlash to rising immigration. Today, all political tribes recognise that immigration rates from former communist countries greatly exceeded expectations but the debate rests in culture clashes and who deserves access to the welfare state. The final chapters show how nobody before the vote "had grasped the seismic scale of the decision to quit the European Union." Examining the impact of that decision on England's relationship with the rest of the UK leads to questions over whether this is actually "England alone." I do wonder if the English who voted to leave might argue that it was partly the result of long term, unfettered "London alone" policy.
Britain Alone should be required reading for anyone wishing to understand Britain's modern history and the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. I would recommend reading it after the excellent Churchill, Walking with Destiny biography by Andrew Roberts .
This book was provided by the publisher for review.
November 26, 2020
thanks to netgalley and the publishers for a free copy in return for an open and honest review
This book looks at Britain in a post colonial viewpoint after WW2 and the lost of empire with different conflict of alliances whether to be closer to America or join forces with Europe and how this conflict of interests and Britain living in the past of Empire and not re adjusting to the new realities of the world.
This conflict had effects on foreign policy economics as Britain delayed initially joining what became the EU (EEC) and relying on American heavily for a nuclear weapons as Britain lagged behind post WW2.
This book looks at Britain in a post colonial viewpoint after WW2 and the lost of empire with different conflict of alliances whether to be closer to America or join forces with Europe and how this conflict of interests and Britain living in the past of Empire and not re adjusting to the new realities of the world.
This conflict had effects on foreign policy economics as Britain delayed initially joining what became the EU (EEC) and relying on American heavily for a nuclear weapons as Britain lagged behind post WW2.
May 27, 2021
Such a good overview of the history and downfall of Britain - I share the same frustrations esp re: brexit; nice to see it shared
December 11, 2020
This review also appears on my blog with many others at: https://livemanylives.wordpress.com/
It is fascinating to look back, in the light of Britain’s referendum vote to leave the European Union, at the decades of self-delusion that framed the country’s initial relationship with the continent and ultimately led it to its current isolation. This is what Philip Stephens does in Britain Alone, drawing upon his own experience as a journalist and the many international politicians and diplomats that he has met as a result.
Ultimately it is a story of decline, as the Empire of old disintegrated after the Second World War and the country’s politicians caught in their nostalgia failed to see both the threats and opportunities of the new world. It was defined by “…the unwillingness of the ruling classes fully to own up to the central fact of Britain’s post-war place in the world – that it was a European rather than a global power”. “Britain had been trapped by its history” and alas it continues to be.
The parallels between the last 75 years of British foreign policy history and the current situation as the country leaves the EU are both striking and demoralising. The return to empty rhetoric of Britain taking its place as a global nation, which fails entirely to recognise that the world has moved on. Once again we fail to take ownership of our reality, preferring to wallow in the ruins of Empire and British exceptionalism, and rile against common sense and reason as “talking Britain down”.
Despite the inevitable frustration for anyone reading the book who has a European outlook, it remains a fascinating insight into the struggles of the country post-war. Stephens has a remarkable knowledge of the politics surrounding Britain’s place in the world and its interactions with the US and Europe. He is able to draw upon the accounts of those “in the room” as history was negotiated and terms were determined and provides a comprehensive understanding of a country striving for a bold new identity but unable to grasp it.
Stephens improved my knowledge of the personalities and motivations of the different leaders, their relationships to each other and global events. Some, like MacMillan, I had known very little about. One or two were shrouded in legend, such as JFK, whilst others were shaped by their satirical Spitting Image puppet caricatures that I had grown up with, like Thatcher, Reagan and Gorbachev. All were humanised by the deep analysis and commentary of their diaries, advisors and officials. Even Blair’s move to war in Iraq felt better understood, if no more palatable.
Of course, the path towards Brexit was set right at the start. By joining the party late too many of the terms had already been fixed without us, and this position was only firmed up by the subsequent leaders, their uncertainty about the country’s role and changing political imperatives at home and abroad. The balancing act between domestic policy and politics and engagement with the wider world, whatever the party of power, provided depth to my understanding of individual actions and the subsequent ripples that shaped the approach of both the Conservatives and Labour in the last four years.
Ultimately, whatever side of the Brexit debate we sat on, we have to move at some stage to what happens next. The screech of the zealot that would “rather eat grass than give up sovereignty”, whilst a fallacy on both counts as the first is clearly untenable and the second is impractical in a world where interaction with not just countries but also powerful global corporations and oligarchs is unavoidable, at least contains an acceptance that Brexit means a diminution of Britain.
So, the question becomes what does a post-Brexit Britain look like? Are there niche areas in which it can succeed? What level of reduction in living standards is genuinely acceptable to its inhabitants? Can that be achieved without access to the European Single Market, or do we need to start a whole load of other work on how we regain access? Does Britain even survive in its current form?
The tendency at the moment is to batten down the hatches in existing highly charged camps and it is hard to see how that can end in any way but badly for us all, but the zealots currently have the reins of power so hope is in short supply. At some point we are going to have to go against 75 years of history and have a grown up conversation about what this country really stands for, but it’s hard to do that when democratic pillars are being dismantled and the country’s assets distributed amongst cronies. What will be left when we finally wake up from our decades of delusion with no choice but to face the real world and our place in it?
*
I recommend this book to absolutely anyone with any interest in understanding the path that led us to Brexit. It doesn’t mater what your views on our current situation are, it is important to understand the past so that we can also successfully chart a course for the future, a challenge that we will meet more successfully if we understand how we got here.
It is fascinating to look back, in the light of Britain’s referendum vote to leave the European Union, at the decades of self-delusion that framed the country’s initial relationship with the continent and ultimately led it to its current isolation. This is what Philip Stephens does in Britain Alone, drawing upon his own experience as a journalist and the many international politicians and diplomats that he has met as a result.
Ultimately it is a story of decline, as the Empire of old disintegrated after the Second World War and the country’s politicians caught in their nostalgia failed to see both the threats and opportunities of the new world. It was defined by “…the unwillingness of the ruling classes fully to own up to the central fact of Britain’s post-war place in the world – that it was a European rather than a global power”. “Britain had been trapped by its history” and alas it continues to be.
The parallels between the last 75 years of British foreign policy history and the current situation as the country leaves the EU are both striking and demoralising. The return to empty rhetoric of Britain taking its place as a global nation, which fails entirely to recognise that the world has moved on. Once again we fail to take ownership of our reality, preferring to wallow in the ruins of Empire and British exceptionalism, and rile against common sense and reason as “talking Britain down”.
Despite the inevitable frustration for anyone reading the book who has a European outlook, it remains a fascinating insight into the struggles of the country post-war. Stephens has a remarkable knowledge of the politics surrounding Britain’s place in the world and its interactions with the US and Europe. He is able to draw upon the accounts of those “in the room” as history was negotiated and terms were determined and provides a comprehensive understanding of a country striving for a bold new identity but unable to grasp it.
Stephens improved my knowledge of the personalities and motivations of the different leaders, their relationships to each other and global events. Some, like MacMillan, I had known very little about. One or two were shrouded in legend, such as JFK, whilst others were shaped by their satirical Spitting Image puppet caricatures that I had grown up with, like Thatcher, Reagan and Gorbachev. All were humanised by the deep analysis and commentary of their diaries, advisors and officials. Even Blair’s move to war in Iraq felt better understood, if no more palatable.
Of course, the path towards Brexit was set right at the start. By joining the party late too many of the terms had already been fixed without us, and this position was only firmed up by the subsequent leaders, their uncertainty about the country’s role and changing political imperatives at home and abroad. The balancing act between domestic policy and politics and engagement with the wider world, whatever the party of power, provided depth to my understanding of individual actions and the subsequent ripples that shaped the approach of both the Conservatives and Labour in the last four years.
Ultimately, whatever side of the Brexit debate we sat on, we have to move at some stage to what happens next. The screech of the zealot that would “rather eat grass than give up sovereignty”, whilst a fallacy on both counts as the first is clearly untenable and the second is impractical in a world where interaction with not just countries but also powerful global corporations and oligarchs is unavoidable, at least contains an acceptance that Brexit means a diminution of Britain.
So, the question becomes what does a post-Brexit Britain look like? Are there niche areas in which it can succeed? What level of reduction in living standards is genuinely acceptable to its inhabitants? Can that be achieved without access to the European Single Market, or do we need to start a whole load of other work on how we regain access? Does Britain even survive in its current form?
The tendency at the moment is to batten down the hatches in existing highly charged camps and it is hard to see how that can end in any way but badly for us all, but the zealots currently have the reins of power so hope is in short supply. At some point we are going to have to go against 75 years of history and have a grown up conversation about what this country really stands for, but it’s hard to do that when democratic pillars are being dismantled and the country’s assets distributed amongst cronies. What will be left when we finally wake up from our decades of delusion with no choice but to face the real world and our place in it?
*
I recommend this book to absolutely anyone with any interest in understanding the path that led us to Brexit. It doesn’t mater what your views on our current situation are, it is important to understand the past so that we can also successfully chart a course for the future, a challenge that we will meet more successfully if we understand how we got here.
March 1, 2021
Excoriating view of the political mythology of Brexit
For those of us who have lived through the events described in this book (admittedly I was schoolboy in 1956 during the Suez crisis), and can recall the news reports, the posturing of the PMs who presided over the governments of this period, it is a fascinating read. There are some shocking revelations of missteps by the political leaders, and confirmation of aspects many of us have long suspected. The description of the relationships between Washington DC and Westminster reminded this reader of the situation between the pretenses of the Western Roman Empire, with the Imperial court in Ravenna, fostering the image of still being at least as influential as Byzantium, by then the far more powerful body.
The book sets out the desperate attempts to secure the UK’s place as a post-Empire power and world leader albeit in the shadow of the US. Joining the EU was seen by MacMillan, Wilson and their successors as essential as it amplified Britain’s standing and brought the benefits of sharing a role in expanding the influence and trade of all of Europe. The tragedy is that this was accompanied by a refusal by successive governments to acknowledge any benefit of membership, instead directing a constant stream of blame for domestic problems, or magnifying the perceived flaws. Similarly there has been a reluctance to accept that the EU rules have been arrived at by arriving at carefully crafted compromises between the national interests of all the members, instead objecting to compromise, or demanding special exemptions.
It is a very informative book, well researched, and well written. A must read for those interested in understanding how we have gone from an leading and influential member of a unique political and mercantile experiment in human history, to ejecting ourselves and now standing on the outside blaming our former fellow members.
For those of us who have lived through the events described in this book (admittedly I was schoolboy in 1956 during the Suez crisis), and can recall the news reports, the posturing of the PMs who presided over the governments of this period, it is a fascinating read. There are some shocking revelations of missteps by the political leaders, and confirmation of aspects many of us have long suspected. The description of the relationships between Washington DC and Westminster reminded this reader of the situation between the pretenses of the Western Roman Empire, with the Imperial court in Ravenna, fostering the image of still being at least as influential as Byzantium, by then the far more powerful body.
The book sets out the desperate attempts to secure the UK’s place as a post-Empire power and world leader albeit in the shadow of the US. Joining the EU was seen by MacMillan, Wilson and their successors as essential as it amplified Britain’s standing and brought the benefits of sharing a role in expanding the influence and trade of all of Europe. The tragedy is that this was accompanied by a refusal by successive governments to acknowledge any benefit of membership, instead directing a constant stream of blame for domestic problems, or magnifying the perceived flaws. Similarly there has been a reluctance to accept that the EU rules have been arrived at by arriving at carefully crafted compromises between the national interests of all the members, instead objecting to compromise, or demanding special exemptions.
It is a very informative book, well researched, and well written. A must read for those interested in understanding how we have gone from an leading and influential member of a unique political and mercantile experiment in human history, to ejecting ourselves and now standing on the outside blaming our former fellow members.
May 28, 2021
Dean Acheson, a wise sage of American foreign policy, wryly remarked in the postwar era that Great Britain had lost an empire, but not yet found another role. Philip Stephens' "Britain Alone" is a brilliant rendition of Britain's play-acting on the world stage from Suez to Brexit, following along with Britain's hemming and hawing with its posture towards the United States, Europe (particularly Germany and France) and the former empire and now Commonwealth.
Stephens deftly traces the foreign policy of each postwar prime minister up to Theresa May and Boris Johnson, including fascinating insights on Edward Heath's pro-European stand, Thatcher's more ambiguous relationship with Europe than her current admirers let on, and the devastating effects of Britain ignoring Europe for the sake of playing the Greeks to American-Romans.
Stephens makes quite the case that Britain indeed finds herself alone in 2021: the legacy of the Iraq War may forever poison relations with America on the ultimate decisions of whether to go to war (and, at the very least, demonstrate America's ho-hum attitude toward British perspectives); and Brexit may similarly sever relations with Europe in a profound way for decades.
Britain considers itself as seeking a Singapore-like role in current events. Well, the analogy falls short except in the wooly minds of Brexiters, but another does come to mind: Austria-Hungary prior to WWI. In following Germany into defeat in the Great War, the rifts of that empire were laid bare, tearing the empire asunder and leaving a fearful void in European affairs. Britain, if it is not careful, may find itself shorn of its luster, and remain a great power only in museums and the minds of the crassest of English voters.
Stephens deftly traces the foreign policy of each postwar prime minister up to Theresa May and Boris Johnson, including fascinating insights on Edward Heath's pro-European stand, Thatcher's more ambiguous relationship with Europe than her current admirers let on, and the devastating effects of Britain ignoring Europe for the sake of playing the Greeks to American-Romans.
Stephens makes quite the case that Britain indeed finds herself alone in 2021: the legacy of the Iraq War may forever poison relations with America on the ultimate decisions of whether to go to war (and, at the very least, demonstrate America's ho-hum attitude toward British perspectives); and Brexit may similarly sever relations with Europe in a profound way for decades.
Britain considers itself as seeking a Singapore-like role in current events. Well, the analogy falls short except in the wooly minds of Brexiters, but another does come to mind: Austria-Hungary prior to WWI. In following Germany into defeat in the Great War, the rifts of that empire were laid bare, tearing the empire asunder and leaving a fearful void in European affairs. Britain, if it is not careful, may find itself shorn of its luster, and remain a great power only in museums and the minds of the crassest of English voters.
July 30, 2022
A wonderfully told political history of modern Britain, reflecting the deep knowledge of a political journalist.
While there are other sub-plots, the story is dominated by the consequences of one big mistake. After 3 wars in 100 years Germany and France decided to pool their economies to give peace a chanc. Britain was invited in but decided to stay outside because it saw itself as a global power for whom Europe was too small a sandpit to play in. Subsequently the country experienced a steady decline, but the global ambitions remained, as did the lack of the economic capability needed to realise those. For some reason it thought that it had to choose between the up-and-down relationship with the US, and the disdained Europe.
Sometimes history does rhyme. Cf p138 for the 1963 fall of the out-of-ideas and unpopular Tory government over a squalid story of sex and the ruling classes' ''anything goes'' entitlement. Needless to say, the relationship with Europe was also in the air. Will Truss be the Alec Douglas-Home 2.0 rather than the Thatcher tribute act she is selling?
p397 for the correspondence between Brexit and the election of Trump.
While there are other sub-plots, the story is dominated by the consequences of one big mistake. After 3 wars in 100 years Germany and France decided to pool their economies to give peace a chanc. Britain was invited in but decided to stay outside because it saw itself as a global power for whom Europe was too small a sandpit to play in. Subsequently the country experienced a steady decline, but the global ambitions remained, as did the lack of the economic capability needed to realise those. For some reason it thought that it had to choose between the up-and-down relationship with the US, and the disdained Europe.
Sometimes history does rhyme. Cf p138 for the 1963 fall of the out-of-ideas and unpopular Tory government over a squalid story of sex and the ruling classes' ''anything goes'' entitlement. Needless to say, the relationship with Europe was also in the air. Will Truss be the Alec Douglas-Home 2.0 rather than the Thatcher tribute act she is selling?
p397 for the correspondence between Brexit and the election of Trump.
March 6, 2021
Very interesting history of Britain, what led to Brexit, and what happens now.
Enlightening in many ways to those of us who didn't see it coming. Depressing for me to see how are vote will lead to Britain being more insular and play a far less important role on the world stage. Maybe the people who voted for this are happy to be a smaller, weaker and poorer country , serving more important countries. The vote to make Britain great and a world leader will probably do the opposite.
This book covers a lot of ground but doesn't get too bogged down in detail to make it hard work to read. As someone who doesn't have a deep interest in political history I found it nteresting and informative.
Enlightening in many ways to those of us who didn't see it coming. Depressing for me to see how are vote will lead to Britain being more insular and play a far less important role on the world stage. Maybe the people who voted for this are happy to be a smaller, weaker and poorer country , serving more important countries. The vote to make Britain great and a world leader will probably do the opposite.
This book covers a lot of ground but doesn't get too bogged down in detail to make it hard work to read. As someone who doesn't have a deep interest in political history I found it nteresting and informative.
January 20, 2026
An interesting insight into Britain's relationship with the US and Europe. I struggled to get into it, finding it hard to follow the events of the 40s and 50s that I knew nothing about. Into the 60s and onwards and you start to see how Brexit was shaped by events even before Britain joined the EEC, and how intra-party wars over Brexit dominated British politics even in the 80s/90s. Scarier still were the descriptions of the Brexiters' attitudes and integrity, and implications that owners of major British newspapers have such an influence on politics
June 3, 2022
Well researched and written. Complete with an engaging narrative
February 8, 2022
Once a great nation, with colonies spread across the world; is struggling to cope with reality. The reality of its new place in the new world order. A new identity has to be adopted, which realistically means just being another European country, but most of the English are still clinging to an altered anglo identity, partners with the Americans and supported by the Commonwealth nations.
I can relate, after living in the UK as a Pakistani for over 20 years I am still struggling with two identities. It's a constant debilitating dilemma, one which only I can cure. But first I have to consider both identities side by side, decide which one is for me, only then will I be able to adopt one.
The problem with Britain is that this identity debate is not happening, no one really wants to be just another European country, they want to be something far better, cut above all the other European nations, want their space at the top of the table. Only more misery will force the British to address this fundamental dichotomy.
I can relate, after living in the UK as a Pakistani for over 20 years I am still struggling with two identities. It's a constant debilitating dilemma, one which only I can cure. But first I have to consider both identities side by side, decide which one is for me, only then will I be able to adopt one.
The problem with Britain is that this identity debate is not happening, no one really wants to be just another European country, they want to be something far better, cut above all the other European nations, want their space at the top of the table. Only more misery will force the British to address this fundamental dichotomy.
May 3, 2021
The analysis of our post war performance as a nation is both uncompromising and forensic. It cuts through the politics and looks at our international standing calling out the mistakes, missteps and the overwhelming mistake of not changing our national psyche after the end of empire. The author does this with a great understanding of the people that shaped foreign policy at the same time as keeping the narrative entertaining and insightful. Let’s hope our current leaders read and learn the lessons of our post war fall from world influence.
October 26, 2021
A titan of a book, Britain Alone details the continual myopia at the heart of our post-war approach to foreign policy. It is a story of inflated ambition and diminished resources, and the twelve chapters take a forensic journey through the philosophy that underpinned how we conducted our dealings with other countries. Stephens identifies a swathe of domestic and foreign policy challenges that dogged post-war Britain, not least the navigation of a world in which the rules and players had changed. Decolonisation meant we “lost an empire” but failed to “find a role” - and the Suez Crisis (1956) as such was an early an expression of the imperialist ‘great power’ pretensions that Britain (namely Eden) felt implored to cling on to. From there, the core issue is the mismatch between what Britain believed it could - or should - do and the realities at play - Brexit is identified as one such outcome, and the referendum is detailed from European and domestic perspectives. It feeds into a larger narrative of hubris and of being trapped in historical amber as to ‘our place’; Britain, Stephen argues, pursued great power status, but in so doing left itself handicapped in a changing world.
Stephens identifies the playing ‘the Greeks to America’s Romans’ mentality of diplomacy - but astutely identifies the inequity of the relationship, and as such the European ‘pillar’ is, especially from 1973, a means of leveraging influence in Europe. But we joined too late - the rules were set, and Britain’s attempts to try rewrite them were at odds with the consensualism inherent in the European ‘project’. We were not truly there at the genesis, and perhaps suffered since. The two ‘pillars’ - the ‘special relationship’ and relations with Europe - are charted up to 2020, illustrating the contemporary erosion of the UK’s foothold in both, leaving Britain ‘alone’ as a result of Brexit and increased international protectionism akin to 1800s international relations reviving after an apparent ‘end of history’ mentality - of increasing liberalisation and the spread of democracy to all corners of the globe - was in vogue in the 1990s. There are gradations and variables - certain PMs have different philosophies and the ‘special relationship’ wavers depending on power politics and personalities, like Macmillan and Kennedy, Wilson and Johnson, Reagan and Thatcher, Bush and Blair; some European leaders have different aims as to the EU, with France and Germany's approach to the 'project' clearly differing from Britain's. The parts on Gorbachev are fascinating, too. Equally, some constants are identified in the 'special relationship' - the intelligence and security benefits, the deterrent, and a shared culture of sorts. These feed into NATO and other benefits that Stephens identifies - but also pose tensions as to how dependent the UK is on its American cousin. What's also missing, Stephens, says, is a strategy as to how to mobilise Britain's soft and hard influence for the better. Some paradoxes also feature - like how the welcoming of admittance of former Soviet territories into the EU as a sign of spreading liberalisation at the end of the Cold War was later harnessed in rhetoric around ‘toxic’ immigration from those countries.
The source work is impeccable - there’s a great range of new interviews with the people in the room where it (i.e. diplomacy) happened. It covers just about anything you could ask for in a foreign policy book like this and does not hold back. It’s also very readable, benefitting from Stephens’ credentials as a journalist. Stunning - one of my favourites. I want to read it again (and no doubt I’ll have to pick up the expanded paperback in 2022).
Stephens identifies the playing ‘the Greeks to America’s Romans’ mentality of diplomacy - but astutely identifies the inequity of the relationship, and as such the European ‘pillar’ is, especially from 1973, a means of leveraging influence in Europe. But we joined too late - the rules were set, and Britain’s attempts to try rewrite them were at odds with the consensualism inherent in the European ‘project’. We were not truly there at the genesis, and perhaps suffered since. The two ‘pillars’ - the ‘special relationship’ and relations with Europe - are charted up to 2020, illustrating the contemporary erosion of the UK’s foothold in both, leaving Britain ‘alone’ as a result of Brexit and increased international protectionism akin to 1800s international relations reviving after an apparent ‘end of history’ mentality - of increasing liberalisation and the spread of democracy to all corners of the globe - was in vogue in the 1990s. There are gradations and variables - certain PMs have different philosophies and the ‘special relationship’ wavers depending on power politics and personalities, like Macmillan and Kennedy, Wilson and Johnson, Reagan and Thatcher, Bush and Blair; some European leaders have different aims as to the EU, with France and Germany's approach to the 'project' clearly differing from Britain's. The parts on Gorbachev are fascinating, too. Equally, some constants are identified in the 'special relationship' - the intelligence and security benefits, the deterrent, and a shared culture of sorts. These feed into NATO and other benefits that Stephens identifies - but also pose tensions as to how dependent the UK is on its American cousin. What's also missing, Stephens, says, is a strategy as to how to mobilise Britain's soft and hard influence for the better. Some paradoxes also feature - like how the welcoming of admittance of former Soviet territories into the EU as a sign of spreading liberalisation at the end of the Cold War was later harnessed in rhetoric around ‘toxic’ immigration from those countries.
The source work is impeccable - there’s a great range of new interviews with the people in the room where it (i.e. diplomacy) happened. It covers just about anything you could ask for in a foreign policy book like this and does not hold back. It’s also very readable, benefitting from Stephens’ credentials as a journalist. Stunning - one of my favourites. I want to read it again (and no doubt I’ll have to pick up the expanded paperback in 2022).
April 10, 2021
This book traces the path of Britain's involvement with Europe from the Suez crisis of 1956 to Brexit in 2016. While few of the facts are new, it is interesting to see how British governments grappled over time with the relationship with Europe. The author focusses on each British Prime Minister of the period. This makes the book very readable, as it does not bog down in the details of treaties and trade arrangements.
The authors argument is that the British did not feel they needed Europe at the end of the Second World War. By the time they realised that they needed to be part of the EEC, France and Germany had already set the path.
A highly readable account and a very good overview of the relationship.
The authors argument is that the British did not feel they needed Europe at the end of the Second World War. By the time they realised that they needed to be part of the EEC, France and Germany had already set the path.
A highly readable account and a very good overview of the relationship.
July 22, 2021
I honestly have no recollection of having bought this book in May this year. I've read a few books attempting to explain why Brexit came to be and feel like there's a bit of a limit as to how much more insight I can get from trade paperbacks.
I was browsing the Kindle, saw this and thought I'd give it a go. As you can probably guess from my rating, I'm deeply impressed with Stephens' treatise on how British foreign policy of the past half century has led the United Kingdom into the predicament in which it now finds itself.
Stephens, a journalist at the Financial Times posits that Brexit is the result of decades of confusion and errors in British foreign policy brought about by the end of Empire, the "special" relationship with the United States and the failure of successive British Prime Ministers to properly grasp and engage with their own continent.
The book is primarily devoted in the first two-thirds or so to the relationship between London and Washington. Stephens opens with the situation immediately after the war before proceeding to Britain, France and Israel's ill-fated adventure in Egypt in 1956. From there, we proceed to Britain desperately trying to cling to it's lost great power status via procuring nuclear weapons. The focus then shifts gradually towards the new Coal & Steel Community in Europe, Britain's membership of the European Economic Community and it's departure some 43 years later in the referendum of 2016.
Stephens writes as one would expect from an FT journalist, that is to say in a highly engaging and insightful manner. The book is meticulously researched and, despite my intense personal interest in Brexit, much more illuminating that I was expecting. For instance, I'd no idea that the conspiracy of Suez was as sinister or as inept as it's portrayed here. Ditto for the myth of Britain's so-called independent nuclear deterrent.
To conclude, I highly recommend this book if you've an interest in British history post-war, Brexit or international affairs in general. It's the best book I've read this year.
I was browsing the Kindle, saw this and thought I'd give it a go. As you can probably guess from my rating, I'm deeply impressed with Stephens' treatise on how British foreign policy of the past half century has led the United Kingdom into the predicament in which it now finds itself.
Stephens, a journalist at the Financial Times posits that Brexit is the result of decades of confusion and errors in British foreign policy brought about by the end of Empire, the "special" relationship with the United States and the failure of successive British Prime Ministers to properly grasp and engage with their own continent.
The book is primarily devoted in the first two-thirds or so to the relationship between London and Washington. Stephens opens with the situation immediately after the war before proceeding to Britain, France and Israel's ill-fated adventure in Egypt in 1956. From there, we proceed to Britain desperately trying to cling to it's lost great power status via procuring nuclear weapons. The focus then shifts gradually towards the new Coal & Steel Community in Europe, Britain's membership of the European Economic Community and it's departure some 43 years later in the referendum of 2016.
Stephens writes as one would expect from an FT journalist, that is to say in a highly engaging and insightful manner. The book is meticulously researched and, despite my intense personal interest in Brexit, much more illuminating that I was expecting. For instance, I'd no idea that the conspiracy of Suez was as sinister or as inept as it's portrayed here. Ditto for the myth of Britain's so-called independent nuclear deterrent.
To conclude, I highly recommend this book if you've an interest in British history post-war, Brexit or international affairs in general. It's the best book I've read this year.
April 8, 2021
Indispensable. Utterly essential reading for anybody too young to remember the most of the second half of the 20th century. The FT's Philip Stephens does a fantastic job of tying the last 70 years around a single narrative of Britain trying to find its place in the world post-empire. A lot just 'clicked' after reading this.
December 20, 2021
This is one of those books I find profoundly insightful but I lack an adequate curiosity and vocabulary to make it all stick. I found myself wanting to know a great deal more about each of the Prime Ministers and their particular impact on the UK and while the author gives plenty of details I wonder if I'm being taken in owing to my lack of context. The arguments presented are sound, yet I cannot distinguish them from the conventional wisdom on the Continent. I felt particularly out of sorts in consideration of my lack of understanding the appeal of Nigel Farage's UKIP to Londoners vs Midlanders, for example. That was just around Brexit.
What proved quite useful is the author's capture of the actual power balance between the US and UK's 'special relationship' and the extent to which the England's appeal is overstated in its own collective consciousness. As someone who grew up after the maps were no longer pink, I was keen to know how very few people stateside cared about the Commonwealth. I get a good sense of the egos of those who clamored over the fate of the post-colonial world with some idea how fruitless that British sense of prestige was. It makes me think of Blackadder as an even greater work of genius than previously considered.
I expect that I will find recent European history (outside of the great wars) to be even more compelling from this point forward. Thanks Mr. Stephens.
What proved quite useful is the author's capture of the actual power balance between the US and UK's 'special relationship' and the extent to which the England's appeal is overstated in its own collective consciousness. As someone who grew up after the maps were no longer pink, I was keen to know how very few people stateside cared about the Commonwealth. I get a good sense of the egos of those who clamored over the fate of the post-colonial world with some idea how fruitless that British sense of prestige was. It makes me think of Blackadder as an even greater work of genius than previously considered.
I expect that I will find recent European history (outside of the great wars) to be even more compelling from this point forward. Thanks Mr. Stephens.
March 28, 2021
The early chapters are the most interesting. The later stuff is entirely secondhand for anyone who was alive at the time.
December 11, 2022
This is a first-class take on British foreign policy from the end of the second world war to the current day. While the author clearly takes what might be described as an "orthodox" view to foreign policy, most of his analysis is hard to argue with.
December 23, 2022
the history of postwar Britain, as told by the President of the Tony Blair fan club
There’s nothing wrong with a bit of bias, but it soon became obvious that the author of this book has nothing but withering contempt for every single member of the British political establishment other than Tony Blair. Shamelessly globalist and unflinchingly Europhile, Stephens portrays the history of the last eighty years as nothing more than a string of own goals and embarrassments at which the wiser minds of Europe could only shake their collective heads.
For the record, this book is actually quite a lively and entertaining history, as long as you only want to focus on the negative, and as long as you’re prepared to accept that the deep-state Sir Humphreys of the establishment always have a more intelligent plan than our elected leaders.
There are some shocking revelations - especially around the secret deals that manufactured the Suez crisis - but the author misses enormous and massively significant episodes of history for the sake of focussing only on Little Britain’s disasters on the world stage.
The actual book reads much like a charge sheet, as each former Prime Minister is flayed with the benefit of hindsight, leaving us in no doubt that the whole world has never done anything but gaze on in disbelief at Britain’s incompetence. I’m off now to weep for the tragic loss of Saint Tony. So much so that I’ve decided to immerse myself in the author’s other entirely objective works - Tony Blair: The Making of a World Leader, or the equally unbiased The Price of Leadership, whilst listening to things can only get better on repeat.
There’s nothing wrong with a bit of bias, but it soon became obvious that the author of this book has nothing but withering contempt for every single member of the British political establishment other than Tony Blair. Shamelessly globalist and unflinchingly Europhile, Stephens portrays the history of the last eighty years as nothing more than a string of own goals and embarrassments at which the wiser minds of Europe could only shake their collective heads.
For the record, this book is actually quite a lively and entertaining history, as long as you only want to focus on the negative, and as long as you’re prepared to accept that the deep-state Sir Humphreys of the establishment always have a more intelligent plan than our elected leaders.
There are some shocking revelations - especially around the secret deals that manufactured the Suez crisis - but the author misses enormous and massively significant episodes of history for the sake of focussing only on Little Britain’s disasters on the world stage.
The actual book reads much like a charge sheet, as each former Prime Minister is flayed with the benefit of hindsight, leaving us in no doubt that the whole world has never done anything but gaze on in disbelief at Britain’s incompetence. I’m off now to weep for the tragic loss of Saint Tony. So much so that I’ve decided to immerse myself in the author’s other entirely objective works - Tony Blair: The Making of a World Leader, or the equally unbiased The Price of Leadership, whilst listening to things can only get better on repeat.
February 17, 2021
A survey of Britain's relationship with the US and the EU from the Suez crisis of 1956 (when Britain's attempt to revive its great power status was knocked on the head by the United States) until the UK's exit from the EU last year. The author focuses on Britain's policies of being both the US's closest ally (or most docile poodle, depending on your viewpoint) and a member of the EU, and using the country's position in each case to strengthen its position in the other.
Of the two policies, the European has always been by far the more fraught, with Britain having long had a troubled relationship with the EU. This troubled relationship arises from Britain's history as the centre of an empire, a history difficult to reconcile with being the mere equal member of an international organisation that presumes to overrule domestic laws and is well charted by Stephens.
The relationship with the US has, in many ways, been no easier, with Britain desperate to the point of embarrassment to be seen as the US's closest ally. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the case of Britain's nuclear weapons which she has chosen to tie so closely to the US that surely no-one really believes they are truly independent. Indeed, one of the strongest contrasts to emerge from this book is that between Britain's surly resentment of the trespasses on its independence by the EU with its willing abandon of its independence to the US.
The author is well versed in the history, politics and personalities and writes a truly entertaining narrative that fairly speeds along. Well worth a read.
Of the two policies, the European has always been by far the more fraught, with Britain having long had a troubled relationship with the EU. This troubled relationship arises from Britain's history as the centre of an empire, a history difficult to reconcile with being the mere equal member of an international organisation that presumes to overrule domestic laws and is well charted by Stephens.
The relationship with the US has, in many ways, been no easier, with Britain desperate to the point of embarrassment to be seen as the US's closest ally. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the case of Britain's nuclear weapons which she has chosen to tie so closely to the US that surely no-one really believes they are truly independent. Indeed, one of the strongest contrasts to emerge from this book is that between Britain's surly resentment of the trespasses on its independence by the EU with its willing abandon of its independence to the US.
The author is well versed in the history, politics and personalities and writes a truly entertaining narrative that fairly speeds along. Well worth a read.
September 9, 2021
This is the book that I have been waiting for someone to write for a long time. How Britain managed it's declining stature after WWII has always intrigued me. The author moves through 70 years of British history at a clip.
While I disagree with his eventual conclusion, that Britain is better in Europe, I was enthralled with his telling of history, especially the Thatcher/Major years.
One thing I took away from the book is how few PMs come into Number 10 with any foreign policy experience (or even interest in the same), and most have to learn on the job. If Britain wants to be "Global Britain”, electing people who want to engage with the world (and know how to) would be a start.
I found myself skimming through the last half of the last chapter since it seemed only to serve as an outlet for the author to express his dislike of the current prime minister.
Overall, this was an engaging book, and I plan to read This Sovereign Isle next to see how another author tackles the same topics.
While I disagree with his eventual conclusion, that Britain is better in Europe, I was enthralled with his telling of history, especially the Thatcher/Major years.
One thing I took away from the book is how few PMs come into Number 10 with any foreign policy experience (or even interest in the same), and most have to learn on the job. If Britain wants to be "Global Britain”, electing people who want to engage with the world (and know how to) would be a start.
I found myself skimming through the last half of the last chapter since it seemed only to serve as an outlet for the author to express his dislike of the current prime minister.
Overall, this was an engaging book, and I plan to read This Sovereign Isle next to see how another author tackles the same topics.
June 12, 2024
The topic is really interesting, how to grapple with a loss of national identity and clamouring for a role in the new world order. There are some really interesting historical lessons in there about how diplomacy works, the top two for me being
1. Its incredible how much foreign affairs come down to 2 people just getting on with each other
2. Everyone is just out there for themselves. France and Britain are friends as long as their interests align
In the end, the book is pretty one sided - which was expected as the author is telling a specific a point of view. But it kind of leave you with a sense of 'All PMs we've had were idiots, except Edward Heath'. And I would have liked a bit of pontification about the future because, believe it or not, there are actually multiple models and futures that exist.
3 stars feels fair. I did the audiobook
1. Its incredible how much foreign affairs come down to 2 people just getting on with each other
2. Everyone is just out there for themselves. France and Britain are friends as long as their interests align
In the end, the book is pretty one sided - which was expected as the author is telling a specific a point of view. But it kind of leave you with a sense of 'All PMs we've had were idiots, except Edward Heath'. And I would have liked a bit of pontification about the future because, believe it or not, there are actually multiple models and futures that exist.
3 stars feels fair. I did the audiobook
January 29, 2024
Every Englishman should read this book in order to learn the reality of a declining kingdom and to behave likewise. When I was in the UK in 1980s my flat mates were still boasting the legacy of the long gone empire. I had to bite my tongue so as not to remind them that UK also lost the biggest empire. The choice between USA n Europe is the centre theme of this book. Well written and concise but Stephens tends to show off his vocabulary by using uncommon word.
For someone who wrote such a good book I m a bit disappointed by his biased comments on Russia, China and Hong Kong. He still see the world in black n white
For someone who wrote such a good book I m a bit disappointed by his biased comments on Russia, China and Hong Kong. He still see the world in black n white
March 1, 2021
Clear analysis and measured eloquence, but with little to inspire hope for the future, Philip Stephens’ ‘Britain Alone’ is as likely to inspire pessimism in those who agree with his conclusions as it is to be dismissed by those who disagree. Stephens provides an interesting and meaningful, if inherently politicised, historical analysis of Britain’s place between the United States and Europe, and with it its struggle for influence and purpose, since 1956. For the full review, see here: https://buckysbookreviews.com/2021/03...
November 10, 2022
Really easy to read, but also hard-hitting. It was very sombering to read how Britain has hurt itself.
There will inevitably be some bias (the author seems quite pro-Tony Blair apart from Iraq war) but overall it was a good read and gave a good understanding of the overall pitfalls of British (in particular English exceptionalism).
I would have liked to see more of a roadmap for the future, and the author's thoughts on what the future will hold, especially seeing as a vast majority of young people voted pro-Remain and seem to have a more pro-Europe mindset.
There will inevitably be some bias (the author seems quite pro-Tony Blair apart from Iraq war) but overall it was a good read and gave a good understanding of the overall pitfalls of British (in particular English exceptionalism).
I would have liked to see more of a roadmap for the future, and the author's thoughts on what the future will hold, especially seeing as a vast majority of young people voted pro-Remain and seem to have a more pro-Europe mindset.
March 31, 2021
Best history of Britain post-WW II
Stephens explains in a clear and interesting way Britain’s dilemma between an Atlantic relationship with America or a closer integration with Europe until it broke at the worst possible moment when globalization is going in retreat. So well written I felt the urge to highlight whole sections of the book.
Stephens explains in a clear and interesting way Britain’s dilemma between an Atlantic relationship with America or a closer integration with Europe until it broke at the worst possible moment when globalization is going in retreat. So well written I felt the urge to highlight whole sections of the book.
November 29, 2024
Excellent narrative of the road to Brexit. Great portraits of the various personalities involved. People tend to forget (their) history and this is very apparent in the case of Brexit, which has left Britain diminished. It is shown how the pro-Leavers have a variety of motivations and are not at all a homogeneous group. He also shows the problems with their arguments.
February 17, 2021
An insightful history lesson
A factual look back at the UK’s history explaining why we’ve ended up where we are. A perceptive, non-judgemental insight as to how this crisis was inevitable as all factors aligned to provide the perfect backdrop for chaos.
A factual look back at the UK’s history explaining why we’ve ended up where we are. A perceptive, non-judgemental insight as to how this crisis was inevitable as all factors aligned to provide the perfect backdrop for chaos.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews