Britain should refuse to take her former colonies back

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, Brian - quite entertaining I think that it is necessary to point out that Great Britain need only take back those colonies that request re-entry into the maternal bond of Imperialism. Thence, they do not have to resume control over those deluded nations whom resist beneficial colonization. Since assuming control over independent nations whom resist sensible rule really isn't an option, there's no need to "Refuse," and therefore this point remains within the description of the resolution. The only negative factor to resuming political power over a nation that comprehends its erroneous ways is that Great Britain would also become responsible for its debt, political instability and economical strife. These dilemmas do require vast quantities of revenue to rectify, but, over the long term, the colony will increase its GDP and benefit itself and Great Britain substantially more than it drained. My opponent is correct - traders can no longer offer baubles, trinkets, diluted rum etc. for oil, gold, gems, slaves etc. However, the resources can be tapped efficiently by both the nation and Great Britain, and they can benefit both nations to a greater extent than International trade with an undeveloped society. The Diamond mines of Sierra Leone were long wasted - the immense wealth bickered over by Rebels and Government, neither of whom could afford or be bothered to reap the invaluable harvest to any great extent. If Great Britain colonized the nation, both Imperial head and colony could permit companies to mine - reaping in millions of dollars in formerly dysfunctional revenue. International trade with a lackluster nation can't possibly benefit either party, but direct investment and dominion from Great Britain would allow each to mutually benefit eachother. I will utilize Zimbabwe, again. "The Marange diamond fields, found in 2006 are considered the biggest diamond find in over a century. They have the potential to improve the fiscal situation of the country considerably, however almost all revenues from the field have disappeared in to the pockets of army officers and ZANU-PF politicians " [1] Zimbabwe is impoverished - thousands of civilians scraping yams out of abandoned fields just so that they can avoid starvation. Many receive no food at all. [2] Tobacco, Maize and forestry are all lucrative industries that have declined due to inept leadership and lack of stability. The Infant Mortality Rate has increased to 85 per 1,000 born. Adult Expectancy is only 33 (for females) to 34 (for males). Zimbabwe is suffering from hyperinflation, also. If the United Kingdom moved in and established leadership, people would be free from terror, have access to medical care and generally prosper. The neglected resources could be rejuvenated and Zimbabwe could make an astounding recovery - leading uncooperative African nations in wealth and prosperity while also luxuriating under the wonderful governance of Great Britain. My opponent does have a point regarding militaristic difference. No longer can a recruitment Sergeant employ a native or impress him/her into service. However, each nation recognizes the need for a military. The standing army would not be "Independent," any longer, but would rather be abolished as it stands and integrated into the Army of the United Kingdom. Hence, the United Kingdom's power could flourish in this manner, expanding with the numbers and equipment ceded by each nation's former army (before it sees fit to upgrade derelict or antiquated equipment - can't really go wrong with employing the AK-47, though). Also, it wouldn't need to utilize invaluable English troops to guard colonial possession as in the past - the colonials themselves would be more than capable. Also, stability would reduce rebellion and militancy - along with the need for child soldiers. As a brief exemplar, the British Army has roughly 113,970 Regular soldiers and 33,130 territorial soldiers. Add on to them Australia's: 27,828 plus roughly 19,000 in reserves, South Africa's: 30,500, augmented by 11,000 reserves; Ireland's Army: 8,500, augmented by reserves; Zimbabwe: 29,000; India: 1,325,000 with over 2 million in reserves; Canada: 67,756 plus slightly over 42,000 in reserves; Rwanda: 28,000 plus? Imagine, then, the immense might of the United Kingdom Imperial Army? My opponent creates a nice straw man with a referral to the Opium trade. Great Britain no longer depends upon Opium, but as I have discussed, there are many legal alternatives for economical success. Statistics actually depict that, other than developing nations, the primary (benefit from extraction of natural resources) and secondary (manufacturing) sectors of the economy have actually declined. I don't believe it is necessary to continue, as I have concisely demonstrated that it would be a folly for the United Kingdom to decline its former colonies who have decided to amend their formerly erroneous ways. To allow these nations to wallow in poverty when one is capable of establishing colonial dominion and administration would almost be equivalent to an unethical decision. I also believe that the Queen is more of a kind hearted soul than Brian asserts in round 1. Thanks for a very enjoyable debate! 1: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...