A single
Europe will develop, either in the form of a voluntary association
of European Nation States, which establishes a Political and Fiscal
Union, or it will develop in the form of a Fourth Reich.
From the
19th century on, history has been one of an increasing
concentration and centralisation, both at an economic and a political
level. At an economic level, it was manifest in the evolution from
the small firm, through the joint stock company, the limited
liability company, the Trust and the Cartel, all the way through to
the Capitalist State Monopoly. That development has been well
theorised and explained by Marxist economic theory. It demonstrates
the way in which Competition necessarily leads to Monopoly, which
leads to Competition at a higher level. The more efficient small
firm prospers. As a consequence it becomes larger. Its larger size
provides economies of scale, making it even more efficient, and so on. Large
firms become able to buy up smaller firms. Credit, established to
speed up, and reduce the costs of transactions, becomes available to
finance investment, and to facilitate first the development of the
Joint Stock Companies made up of associated individuals, and then
limited companies that draw in thousands, and millions of investors.
The
embryonic forms of Capital – Merchant Capital and Money Capital –
arose under the domination of the feudal Aristocracy. They grew in a
symbiotic relation with it, that necessarily tied this Capital to the
Nation State through those ruling classes. The Merchant Capitalists
expanded the range of goods, available for the feudal rulers, through
trade. The feudal rulers provided finance, and armies to facilitate
the Merchants in establishing new markets, which also expanded the
land ownership of the feudal rulers, providing them with new sources
of Rent. Colonialism arises on the back of this symbiotic relation
between Feudalism and Mercantilism.
By the time
Lenin wrote “Imperialism”, this arrangement, under which the world
had been divided up, was well established, and it was this that Lenin
describes, and theorises. But, in reality, this world was already in
decline, by the time Lenin wrote about it. In the 19th
century, it was Industrial Capital, Productive Capital, Capital
proper, which comes to dominate, in the form of these ever larger
productive units. It comes to dominate largely in opposition, not
just to Feudalism, but also to the Merchant and Money Capital that
had been allied to Feudalism. The breaking up of existing monopolies did
not just affect the Feudal Landlords, it affected the Monopolies of
the Merchants and Money Capitalists too. As Marx and Engels
described, when those Industrial Capitalists eventually succeeded in
abolishing the Corn Laws, it was not just the limitations on the
import of Corn that went. Quotas, and duties on a whole range of
imported raw materials were swept away. The Industrial Capitalists
were happy to continue to allow the Landlords, the Merchants and the
Money Capitalists to continue ruling over the Colonies, so long as
they ensured them the cheap materials they needed, and the
markets for their manufactures they needed. But, already by the end
of the 19th Century, Industrial Capital recognised that
the real source of its profits was not in the credo of the Merchant
Capitalist – buy low, sell high – but in the extraction of
Surplus Value from productive workers, and increasingly, the means
for doing that was via Relative Surplus Value, the continual lowering
in the Value of Labour Power, through the introduction of
increasingly efficient and productive machinery and techniques. To
make most effective use of that, increased size was needed.
The
expansion of productive, Industrial Capital, beyond its borders, was
driven not by a search for sources of cheap raw materials, or
markets, as had been the case with Colonialism, but by a search for
ever new sources of productive workers to exploit. The
industrialisation of much of Europe, of the US, and of Japan was
achieved, not just by the export of machinery, and of Money Capital
to finance it, but by the physical investment of British industries
in those countries. The reason football spread rapidly, across
Europe, is because British firms, who took some of their British
workers with them into these countries, set up their own football
clubs as they had done in Britain.
Even at the
time that Lenin was writing “Imperialism” the vast majority of
foreign investment by the existing “Imperialist” economies was
not into the Colonies, or undeveloped countries, but into other
developed “Imperialist” economies. But, at this time, the
ability of firms to operate on an international level was limited by
the existing means of production, in particular the means of
communication. However, as Michael Barratt Brown described in his book,
“The Economics Of Imperialism”, one of the things that changed
this was the development, by large firms, of a new form of
organisation. They developed the concept of an business that was
organised into a modular form with a central controlling body, which
operates as a “Bank”, taking in revenues, from the separate arms,
and in turn providing the finance for investment and expansion. On
this basis, it does not matter whether one of these modules is in
Moscow or Mumbai. This provides the organisational basis for the
establishment of the Multinational firm. In the period after WWII,
the majority of these multinational industrial companies were in the
US, and in the following period, they grew in size and number, and of
course, other companies in Europe, and then in Japan, adopted this
model.
In the
1980's, but more particularly, in the 1990's, with the rapid
development of international telecommunications systems, and then of
the Internet, this model could be expanded to a new level, because it
means that a central organisation can now keep minute by minute
control over operations of a myriad of company units across the
globe. The Nation State of the 19th Century, developed to
meet the needs of Capital operating within its borders. As the most
powerful sections of Capital now operate, not at a national level, but
at an international level as Multinational and transnational
companies, the nation state is no longer adequate to its needs. In
fact, it has long since ceased being capable of fulfilling that
function.
When the USA
was established, it was on the basis of a series of independent, but
federated states. The States were supposed to exercise sovereignty
within their own remits, with the Federal State acting to secure the
countries borders etc. But, as the USA industrialised rapidly in the
middle of the 19th Century, it became obvious that
Industrial Capital required a strong centralised state. The US Civil
War was fought not to abolish slavery as is often portrayed, but in
order to establish such a State, and to remove the ability of
individual States – such as the Confederacy – to do their own
thing. Although, we often speak of the horrors of European history
that saw millions die in wars, the truth is that the US Civil War saw
more than 600,000 people killed, at a time when the US population was
only around 35 million. The European Wars have been fought for
essentially the same purpose, to establish a single European State.
In fact, during WWII, Hitler made an offer to Churchill that if he
gave Germany a free hand in Europe, Britain would be free to keep
hold of its Colonies. Of course, it was not much of an offer,
because a single European state under German dominance, would soon
become a world dominating power, whilst Britain, with only its
economically undeveloped Colonies, would quickly have become
irrelevant.
In the 19th
century, it was not just the US that went through such a violent
process of unification. Britain had by that time already undertaken
the process, having subjugated Wales and Ireland centuries earlier,
in the 18th Century, Scotland was finally incorporated
peacefully after centuries of conflict. But, in the 19th
Century, nation states were established through violent conflicts in
France, Germany, and Italy. Marx and Engels saw these developments
as inevitable and progressive. The continuation of that process,
just as with the continuation of the process of concentration and
centralisation of Capital at an economic level is equally inevitable
and progressive. But, the means by which it is achieved is not at
all predetermined. It could arise on the basis of consent, and
mutual interest as happened with the Union of England and Scotland,
or it can arise by more brutal means. That does not necessarily mean
war.
When
efficient companies grow they can concentrate and centralise power by
various means. On the one hand, their size and efficiency means that
in time of economic crisis, they are able to weather the storm.
Smaller companies cannot and go bust. The bigger companies buy up
their Capital for next to nothing, and simply take over their market
share. Alternatively, the bigger company can decide to simply buy up
the smaller company, particularly if they have some new technology
or product that the bigger company wants. They also have other
means at their disposal. They can use their size to engage in
predatory pricing, slashing prices to levels that the small company
cannot compete with, thereby driving them out of business.
Sometimes, they can engage in activities that might be illegal, for
example, they can use their size and power to pressure suppliers not
to supply the smaller companies, or retailers and wholesalers not to
buy from the smaller company.
We see a
similar thing within economies. In Britain, the size of the economy
in London and the South-east acts as a magnet for yet more economic
activity. It is only counteracted by Government regional policy,
which seeks to maintain a level of social stability by preventing the
process from simply snowballing into massive economic decay, and
depopulation of the regions. In Europe, a similar thing exists in
what is called the “Golden Triangle” of Northern Europe. Again,
it is only counteracted by European Union policy that seeks to
channel funds to other regions. This is one reason that if a single
European State is not established, and particularly if the existing
arrangements break apart – which they will if the current crisis is
not resolved, by the establishment of a single state – then economic
laws will bring it about by other means.
If, the EU
no longer existed, then its current regional policies would cease.
The first casualties of that would be the peripheral European states,
who are currently suffering. The significant beneficiary would be
Germany. Outside the structure of the EU, Germany would be free to
concentrate its resources on developing its own economy. Germany is
already by far the most efficient and most powerful economy in
Europe. But, Germany's productive forces long ago went beyond the
limits of the German Nation State. Outside the EU, and outside the
Euro, a new German Mark would rise sharply in value, whilst other
European currencies, including the Pound would sink against it. The
consequence of that would, other things being equal, be that
Germany's exports would become far less competitive, which would have
a negative effect on the German economy. But, there is no reason
that other things would be equal. German industrial companies would
seek to expand into other parts of Europe, buying up cheaply the
capital, and taking over the markets of bankrupt companies in the
periphery, for instance.
In order to
buy these companies, Germany would need to sell Marks and buy
Pesetas, Drachma, Francs etc. That would reduce the value of the
Mark, and increase the value of these other currencies. The more
German companies dominated the economy of Greece, Portugal, Spain,
Ireland and so on, the more they would be able to dictate terms to
their “sovereign” Parliaments. In today's global economy, no
government can survive if it fails to ensure that these huge
multinational and transnational companies invest, and provide jobs in
their country, however much the ideologists of the petit-bourgeois
eulogise and mythologise over the role of the small firm.
Of course,
it would not just be Germany. Germany would find common cause with
other Northern European countries such as the Netherlands, Austria,
the Czech Republic, and probably Norway and other Scandinavian
economies, and probably some sections of Capital in France. A more
rapid integration, concentration and centralisation of Capital within
these economies would be inevitable, bringing with it an even greater
and more rapid growth of their economic and political power. Such,
an economic and political bloc would undoubtedly see the UK, as a
powerful economic force sitting on its borders, with historic links
to the economy of the US, as a potential enemy. Unlike the relation
that tiny countries like Norway and Switzerland have with the EU, a
powerful German centred economic bloc, would treat the UK in the same
way that a big company treats a smaller, but still dangerous
competitor. In other words, the UK would find itself facing all
kinds of restrictions in doing business not just with the main
European economies, but with those economies in the periphery and
elsewhere that were now dependent upon German business to provide
them with employment, and economic growth. The UK would face import
restrictions, and so on, and concerted attempts to undermine it
economically, by all the kinds of measures mention in relation to
large companies, as well as politically by all those measures
available to powerful states. Even Britain's relation with the US
would falter, because Britain is only of value to the US in Europe,
as a means of exerting influence. The US has already turned its face
to the Pacific, with its decision to relocate its Navy there, as it
sees the future not in Europe, but in China, and the developing
China-Japan hub of the Asia-Pacific Rim Economic bloc.
In short,
the UK economy would be rapidly sidelined and marginalised, going
into a rapid decline. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels
wrote,
“The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world
market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption
in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn
from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it
stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or
are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries,
whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all
civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous
raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones;
industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in
every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by
the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their
satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of
the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have
intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of
nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The
intellectual creations of individual nations become common property.
National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more
impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures,
there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication,
draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The
cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it
batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’
intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels
all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of
production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation
into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word,
it creates a world after its own image.”
When they
spoke of “The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy
artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it
forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to
capitulate”, they were
actually referring to the small, Central European states, which
believed they could isolate themselves from Capitalist development.
Today, if the EU does not move forward, to a single European State,
and as a consequence breaks apart, it will be the low prices, and the
vast arsenal of Capital at its disposal, that will allow Germany to
batter down the walls of other European states, and establish a
broader economic unit by other means. Where today, the possibility
exists to bring that about by democratic means, that create the
conditions for ensuring that a structure exists for developing a
European economy with some modicum of political control for the
benefit of the whole of Europe, instead it would mean it arising on
the basis of a greater Germany, a Fourth Reich, under which control
simply rested on the economic, and therefore political power
exercised by Germany. It would achieve what Napoleon, the Kaiser and
Hitler could not.
When
Marx and Engels speak of “To the great chagrin of
Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the
national ground on which it stood”, they
could as easily be
speaking of today's reactionaries be they those of the Far Right in
the BNP and UKIP, or the not so far Right in the Tory Party, or those
within the Labour Movement, who continue to look in the rear view
mirror rather than through the windscreen to see where they are
going.
A
single European State is in the interests of European Big Capital,
yet its biggest obstacle is the manoeuvring of Capitalist
politicians, who operate within the constraints of structures that
are still geared to the needs of the 19th
Century Nation State. It is also in the interests of European
workers, yet the leaders of the Labour Movement, tied to bourgeois
notions of Statism and Reformism, are thereby equally tied to
Nationalism, and an alliance with the reactionary national
bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie. And, the structures that the workers operate within - The Trades Unions and Reformist Workers Parties - also constrain their own struggles within these limits thereby reproducing the same sets of ideas, and the same sets of leaders. The recent pronouncements by
Angela Merkel, that Germany will agree to EU Bonds, and the other
measures required to solve the debt crisis afflicting peripheral
Europe, confirm the argument I have made for the last two years.
Germany is demanding that the requirements of a fiscal union, with
control over Budgets exercised centrally i.e. with German oversight,
before they will commit to the necessary measures that will stop the
Eurozone exploding.
Germany
can afford to do that because if it explodes it will pick up the
pieces in the way described above. But, the economic chaos that
would immediately ensue would not leave Germany unscathed either. It
is a dangerous game to play. Today, Spain is expected to ask for a
bail-out for its banks. The IMF say €40 billion are required.
Other Credit Ratings Agencies say up to €360 billion is required.
The current figures are based on official figures that suggest that
Spanish property prices have fallen by around 20%. Anyone who has
looked at Spanish property prices recently knows that is joke.
Prices have already fallen by around 50-60%, and probably need to
fall by another 50%, or more to get to reasonable levels. The Banks
in Spain are totally bankrupt because of the debts on this property,
and when it collapses, the Banks will need something far closer to
the €360 billion than the €40 billion.
That
is before the debts and deficits of the Spanish regions are taken
into consideration. The parallels with Greece are apparent. Large
amounts of money is already flowing out of Spanish banks as it has in
Greece, as depositors fear they may not get it back, or if there is a
return to the Peseta, it will be worthless. That in turn puts the
Banks in an even weaker position, creating a self-fulfilling
prophecy. In Greece, the rich began removing all their wealth from
the country, and moving themselves too. I was in Spain a few weeks
ago, and in the Northern Costa Blanca, there is still an appearance
of affluence. The marinas are still full of very expensive yachts,
there are still plenty of expensive luxury cars around. But, at the
same time all of the attendant aspects of poverty and unemployment
are on display. I realise now why every Spanish villa has bars on
the windows and doors, why many have security cameras, and others
have dogs you wouldn't want to tangle with. The villa we were
renting was burgled when we'd only been out for a couple of hours,
and talking to its owner he told me his parents and sister who lived
in nearby villas had been burgled before, and a representative from
the Villa rental company reported he too had been burgled. These are
the first signs, as with all those that Paul Mason
has reported both from Spain and from Greece, of a society that is in
danger of breaking apart.
On
Newsnight, last night, Costas Lapavistas, argued that instead of
austerity, what Europe needed was something approaching a Marshall
Plan, with also debt forgiveness, the restructuring of the Banks etc.
Outside a Socialist Revolution (which is not going to happen any
time soon) he is right. Europe has fought wars in the Balkans to
stabilise its Eastern Flank, it has fought a war in Libya for similar
reasons (though with the opposite result), and it has pumped money
into MENA as part of trying to establish a wider economic zone. It
has talked about some kind of Marshall Plan to stabilise any
bourgeois democracies that develop in MENA. But, it is dangerously
at risk of failing to take those measures within its own borders, and
thereby of blowing itself apart.
Yesterday,
on Bloomberg, David Blanchflower, slammed the austerity policies of
Cameron and Osbourne, as well as those being applied in Europe. The
idea of stimulus, he rightly argued, is being presented as though it
simply meant borrowing to finance additional consumption. But, there
is no reason he said why such stimulus should not go to finance
investment, which would make European economies more efficient.
It
is not inevitable that the current debt crisis, affecting peripheral
Europe, should go unchecked, and spread to the rest of Europe, and
possibly to the US and China. The measures that Costas Lapavistas
and David Blanchflower have described could resolve that crisis, but
they are impossible outside a single European State, or at least a
situation where such a development is being consciously pursued.
Workers should not simply allow such an important issue to be in the
hands of the bosses and their politicians, who look likely to flunk
it. There has never been a more important time for workers across
Europe to forge closer links between each other. We need a Europe
Wide Labour Movement, including a single European Workers Party, and
single European Trade Union Movement. We should build upon the
European Co-operative Movement that already exists along with the
International Co-operative Alliance, seeking to forge closer links
between it, and the European Workers Parties to develop a Europe wide
Workers Alternative to Capitalism and its recurrent crises. We
should demand the convening of a European Constitutional Convention
to discuss the establishment of a democratic European Constitution,
including the election by Universal Suffrage of a European President,
and Government. We need to begin to forge a United States of Europe,
and to begin to work towards the establishment of a European Workers
Government.
You're right on this one: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_i9_e0FeNDMaSvg8-Hg9hOWgHMQ?docId=CNG.a7e454e629754cec0b725dd3ec54f6c0.401
ReplyDeleteTime to discuss a European platform, I think. Starting ideas:
ReplyDelete1) For the whole European Union to be and be declared a single and indivisible democratic republic
2) For the whole European Union to be and be declared socially democratic *and economically republican*
[*Economic republicanism, though falling short of socialist ownership, acknowledges the bankruptcy of "social democracy" on the ownership question.*]
3) All the proposals listed in Transition to Socialism in the European Union by Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell, and Heinz Dietrich: http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Berlinpaper.pdf
4) 2) Matching the transnational mobility of labour with the establishment of a transnationally entrenched bill of workers’ political and economic rights, and with a globalized and upward equal standard of living for equal or equivalent work realized on the basis of real purchasing power parity, thus allowing real freedom of movement through instant legalization and open borders, and thereby precluding the extreme exploitation of immigrants
5) Abolishing all public debts outright, overtly and covertly suppressing excessive capital mobility associated with capital flights, ending the viability of imperialist conflicts and not just wars as vehicles for capital accumulation, and precluding all predatory financial practices towards the working class – all by first means of monopolizing all central, commercial, and consumer credit in the hands of a single transnational bank under absolute public ownership
6) to 10) http://www.redpepper.org.uk/economic-democracy-the-lefts-big-new-idea/#comment-27546
Fuller socio-income democracy through direct proposals and rejections – at the national level and above – regarding the creation and adjustment of income multiple limits in all industries, for all major working class and other professions, and across all types of income.
The realization of zero unemployment structurally and cyclically by means of expanding public services a) to fully include employment of last resort for consumer services and even b) to fully socialize the labour market as the sole de jure employer of all workers in society, contracting out all labour services to the private sector on the basis of comprehensive worker protections.
The increase of real social savings and investment by first means of mandatory and significant redistributions of annual business profits, by private enterprises with more workers than a defined threshold, as non-tradable and superior voting shares to be held by geographically organised worker funds.
The implementation of economy-wide indicative planning based on extensive mathematical optimization.
Enabling the full replacement of the hiring of labour for small-business profit by cooperative production, and also society’s cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans.
How likely do you think it is that Germany's powerful anti-nuclear movement is being funded by by other European countries, who fear German domination of Europe and seek to hobble its industrial machine by forcing up the prices it must pay for its energy?
ReplyDelete(As well as by Russia, who seeks to sell gas to Germany to replace nuclear power.)
I'd have to honestly say I have no idea! My guess is not very likely.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first things the EU did when it was set up was to develop the European Atomic Energy industry. European Capital is ranged as a whole against North American and Asian Capital to a far greater extent than any differences between European States could act as a counterbalance.
That's not to say there are not conflicts between European States, and between competing European national political elites. But, those conflicts reflect the contending interests of national bureaucracies and elites, and to an extent that reflects continuing national interests of small, nationally based capital. But, it is Big Capital that in the end dominates, and its interests continue to drive towards the need for a strong, centralised, European State.
A strong German economy is vital to such a project, just as a strong Prussia was vital to the project of building a single, centralised German state.
Why (in your opinion) are the Germans so hostile to nuclear energy, despite the fact there has never been a meltdown or other significant nuclear accident on German soil?
ReplyDeleteAbout 80% of Germans want to abandon nuclear power -- even the Japanese at the time of the Fukushima disaster were not as hostile as that!
Are the historical linkages between anti-nuclear-power activism and anti-nuclear-weapons activism (the latter would naturally be strong in Germany due to its Cold War front line position) the key?
Oh, and I wonder how many people reading this post about German economic domination of Europe would have thought "we should have Morgenthaued the bastards"?
I think German opposition to nuclear power is a reflection of the strength of the Greens in general in German politics. Japan has to import most of its energy, so I think its understandable that its people should be supportive of an energy source that seems to be more under their own control.
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on what you mean exactly by your last comment?
Can you elaborate on what you mean exactly by your last comment?
ReplyDeleteThat the Allies should have imposed the Morgenthau Plan on Germany to make sure it could never rise again...
Right, sorry, I misread what you had originally said.
ReplyDeleteWell I'm sure those kinds of sentiments still exist within Europe - witness the Fawlty Towers episode, though that's some time ago now. I'd guess that those sentiments are mainly in Britain, given the continuing influence of nationalism and parochialism in British culture.
In France, if anything its the opposite. France and Germany have been coming closer together. That was true under Mitterand and Kohl, and under Merzoky, and will probably be true if an SDP adminstration gets elected with them and Hollande.
I think that many of the people in Central and Eastern Europe, are also likely to not have that view, because they have done very well out of German investment in their economies.
Morgenthau would have been a big mistake for the same reason the Versailles Treaty was a big mistake. It would have stoked nationalist sentiment in Germany, creating instability at the heart of Europe. It probably would not have stopped German industry developing, but might have meant that East German industry developed more. The USSR would have had a good incentive to encourage that.
Moreover, it would not have changed the economic dynamic within Europe that drives towards the establishment of a single European State. If Germany had not fulfilled the role of central driving force, someone else, like France would have.
I found Alistair Darling and others comments about the SNP's call for a currency union with Britain interesting. Darling said, you can't have a currency union without a political union. True, which is why the EU will have to have a political union. But, you cannot have a single market without a single currency, for the reasons alluded to previously about a level playing field.
As a socialist I am in favour of such greater centralisation and breaking down of borders, because it represents progress. As Trotsky once said, we wouldn't be in favour of the Kaiser's war, or the Kaiser's Germany creating a single Europe, but, if it happened we wouldn't call for that Europe to be broken up again!
I suspect anti-German sentiment in Britain is not just down to Britain's famous "island mentality", but also because British foreign policy for centuries could be summed up as "don't permit a European hegemon to form!" Whenever one continental state became dangerously powerful (such as the Habsburg Empire in the 16th century, or France in the late 17th and early 19th century, or Russia in the late 19th or late 20th century, or Germany in the early 20th century) the British policy was always to ally with nos. 2, 3 and 4 etc to cut down no. 1.
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing that British foreign policy is inevitably doomed to failure (perhaps because of the increasing importance of non-European states)?
The best way British foreign policy could prevent a European hegemon developing at the moment would be to build a strong centralised European state. Prussia no longer holds the position in Germany it once did.
ReplyDeleteUK foreign policy is misguided. For various reasons it has tried to develop as a mid-Atlantic policy. But, the UK is only of use to the US as a central part of the EU. The more the UK distances itself from the EU, the more the US will distance itself from the UK, and seek some other partner within Europe to fulfil that function.
On an economic level the only reason US or Japanese firms have interest in the UK is because of the access it gives them to EU markets.
The foreign policy is an example of what I was saying the other day it reflects the views of a UK political elite rather than the interests of the dominant section of capital.