Is Britain still a superpower?

[Suburbia]

Regardless of if the British monarchy declines or not, is Britain still a superpower or are those days over?

[Lumine]

Hasn't been once since - at the very least - Suez.

[gerritcole]

It’s solidly in the Canada tier but with nukes

[cp]

Certainly not. Britain lost the ability to independently project its military power beyond Europe after the 1950s (brief excursions like the Falklands War are too small to count). Economically, it isn't even at the top of the second-tier economies (1st tier: USA, China). Brexit and a sclerotic political system are only making it more marginalized diplomatically.

The only thing it really has going for it now beyond legacy power (nukes, security council seat) is its soft power, which may be the single justifiable argument for keeping the monarchy.

[beesley]

Fully endorse the above post - it's up to the government now to make a success of Brexit and prevent the isolation with more than just rhetoric. We're not a superpower, but we have a lot of useful soft power.

[CumbrianLefty]

Certainly not. Britain lost the ability to independently project its military power beyond Europe after the 1950s (brief excursions like the Falklands War are too small to count). Economically, it isn't even at the top of the second-tier economies (1st tier: USA, China). Brexit and a sclerotic political system are only making it more marginalized diplomatically.

The only thing it really has going for it now beyond legacy power (nukes, security council seat) is its soft power, which may be the single justifiable argument for keeping the monarchy.

And, indeed, one of the arguments for retaining the union itself.

[Middle-aged Europe]

LOL, no... hasn't been since the 1950s.

[Cassius]

We never were a superpower really, even in the mid-19th century when it could credibly be claimed that Britain was the pre-eminent Great Power. Even before the First World War we were just one of a number of Great Powers, a label under which I’d (very unscientifically) also group France, Germany, America and Russia at that particular time. As others have mentioned above, we’ve been a second tier power since the 1950’s at least (and in many respects Britain was pretty weak internationally in the thirty years prior to that). Of course, fantastical notions about needing to maintain our ‘international role’, a legacy of our former status as a Great Power, played a key role in our decision to join the EEC in the first place and have formed a mainstay of europhile rhetoric ever since.

[ingemann]

As Cassius says UK have never been a super power, they were simply a great power. There have only been two super powers USA and USSR, not even modern China fall in the category.

So is UK a great power still... it’s complex would be the answer. I lean toward UK being a true Great Power until the Brexit referendum, but afterward it have simply been placed in such a position of weakness versus its neighbors, that I have a hard saying it still is. Of course that’s likely a little to short term to think of it, and we will only in a few decades know whether UK have been permanent weaken.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's in a second tier, but there really aren't any superpowers besides USA, China, and very arguably Russia mostly due to its insistence on conducting itself like one. 

[Red Velvet]

All by itself it isn’t. Same goes to every European country.

But the EU is.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Neither Russia nor Great Britain are superpowers. They're the modern equivalent of Great Powers,  in part because they have nukes and Security Council seats.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We never were a superpower really, even in the mid-19th century when it could credibly be claimed that Britain was the pre-eminent Great Power.

I'm not even sure if the concept of a 'Superpower' even makes sense before the middle Twentieth Century. Just not how the World worked and, frankly, not how it could have done just on a basic technological level.

[Beet]

Britain plays the role that Macedonian Greece played during the Hellenic age, after Alexander's conquests. Nominally, it no longer is, if it ever was, a superpower, and is shrunken down to a little pathetic island that has shot itself in the foot via Brexit and is struggling to hold itself together (Scotland).

But in reality, its culture and language, via the US, Canada, Australia, and other former colonies that now speak English, have spread all over the world more than any other country. English is the lingua franca and Britain's daughter country, the US, dominates world culture (if Britain is Greece, the US is the Roman Republic).

[Lord Halifax]

Even before the First World War we were just one of a number of Great Powers, a label under which I’d (very unscientifically) also group France, Germany, America and Russia at that particular time.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was still considered a great power at the time (Austria being one of the five European great powers in the post-Napoleonic settlement), but I suppose you could make a case that it had become second tier by then (although still clearly stronger than Italy and the Ottoman Empire), but it's hard to claim Japan didn't become a great power after the Russo-Japanese War (arguably they already did following the First Sino-Japanese War).

[Meclazine for Israel]

In an investment banking perspective, yes.

[Bismarck]

No. Britain, France, Japan, Germany, and maybe Russia (russia is weird because its a class above these others militarily but a class below economically) would fall into the second tier category of great powers.

[Malarkey Decider]

No. Britain, France, Japan, Germany, and maybe Russia (russia is weird because its a class above these others militarily but a class below economically) would fall into the second tier category of great powers.

I would argue that India is probably in that category at this point.

[Bismarck]

No. Britain, France, Japan, Germany, and maybe Russia (russia is weird because its a class above these others militarily but a class below economically) would fall into the second tier category of great powers.

I would argue that India is probably in that category at this point.

Yes I think you’re right. I honestly just forgot to add them.

[jaymichaud]

No, the tier below.

[Tartarus Sauce]

All by itself it isn’t. Same goes to every European country.

But the EU is.

This will likely be one of the most long-term damaging impacts of Brexit. There's no way that Britain is going to be more influential in international affairs outside of the EU than within it. You could argue that such is a secondary concern to focusing on domestic issues, but a lot of the Brexit campaign seemed to revolve around sentiments about how extricating themselves from the political union and going it alone would somehow restore some of their former prestige. Instead, they needlessly burned their bridges with a neighboring politico-economic bloc which wields far more leverage than they do.

[CumbrianLefty]

We never were a superpower really, even in the mid-19th century when it could credibly be claimed that Britain was the pre-eminent Great Power. Even before the First World War we were just one of a number of Great Powers, a label under which I’d (very unscientifically) also group France, Germany, America and Russia at that particular time. As others have mentioned above, we’ve been a second tier power since the 1950’s at least (and in many respects Britain was pretty weak internationally in the thirty years prior to that). Of course, fantastical notions about needing to maintain our ‘international role’, a legacy of our former status as a Great Power, played a key role in our decision to join the EEC in the first place and have formed a mainstay of europhile rhetoric ever since.

But vox pops during the referendum repeatedly made clear that a significant number voting for Brexit did so at least partly because they saw it as a way of restoring Britain's "greatness". And of course we did not lack for WW2 references (not least of the "PLUCKY BRITAIN STANDING ALONE" type) either.