It is stupid if you think Britain should be part of the US projection of power. It is a painful but necessary break if your politics is serious about sovereignty and disentanglement. The naivete here is imputed.

Once again, we do. US bases here aren't for our protection, they're for the projection of American power. If Trump is serious about annexing Greenland in the face of opposition, why should we keep them?

And there's the issue. It's not about "feeling good", it's about interests. Whose interests do you stand for?

It depends where your interests lie. Are the interests of the global majority, which includes most of us, best served by tying ourselves to US power regardless of who's in the White House? No. But if you're a city slicker, or a careerist politician the answer will probably be different.

Well yes, none of these things are easy. But in the mean time we have a president destabilising the alliance he's the head of, is a known quantity when it comes to bullying people, and demonstrably only understands the language of pushback.

Of course they are, and I know the US dependencies that underpin the UK's position. The issue is whether this should continue.

Ah, the good old horse shoe theory. On the contrary, "my US right or wrong" is the comfort zone of simplistic "realist" international relations. The more complex, ambitious, and *right* thing to do is withdrawing from a dependency that threatens calamity.

Some might suggest that this is the problem, and that the answer is not to continue being an American supplicant and look to our near neighbours instead.

As Polanski points out, the bases in Britain.

Not trying to stand apart from European allies would be a start.

Not actually Polanski's argument, is it? No wonder your government is tanking - you never meet with the world as it is.

Well yes

It's not about "opposing" or "denouncing", it's about negotiation. And negotiation sometimes requires playing hardball.