Talk:Splendid isolation

message: I'm not sure I'd agree 100% with 1815-1902 as expounding this policy. Where, for instance, does the Crimea War fit in? Or the proactive policies of Canning, Palmerston and Disraeli?
Normally when I see the term it refers to the late 19th century, indicating a resistance to all attempts at alliances and pacts that were taking place on the continent. Timrollpickering 00:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Eurocentric viewpoint but still a common phrase. No alliances or binding committments to the continent (well none that people talked about until the First World War). Timrollpickering 10:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the phrase is generally used in view of Britain's relations with Europe in particular, rather than the rest of the world. -- Joolz 19:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is a eurocentric viewpoint but that's life. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree it actually was 'splendid isolation' the fact is that's what that period's foreign policy is known as.--MaverickMan 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Author Robert K. Messie, in Dreadnought w3ould agree with Allan Hainey.  He indicates strongly that, amidst its colonial expansion, especially in Africa, Britain was sufficiently self-reliant (in a foreign policy sense) that it did not need to ally with other world powers.  Messie has the period of SI starting earlier; everything post-Napoleon, but this could be because of Messie's concentration on naval forces and Britain's naval hegemony.  Messie notes that in the years prior to 1902, Joseph Chamberlain (Colonial Secretary under Salisbury) sought an alliance with Germany, which would've terminated SI, but Germany stalled for a better position and whole thing dissolved.added by 204.29.26.50
----
Which Canadian journalist? How does this differ from US-style isolationism and avoidance of entangling alliances? Bastie 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm - 

message: The origins of the term is the words "the great Mother Empire stands splendidly isolated in Europe". To me that means that the UK is isolated from other powers, or on its own, in European politics. That is entirely different from being isolated and aloof from Europe - indeed contrary to it.101.98.175.68 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: : First, I'd like to thank Lucius for the recent edit because its brought things into greater focus. My concern (which I've previously expressed on edits) is that references to Brexit do not add value to this article, which relates to a term sometimes applied to 19th century British diplomatic policy.
: The article concerns its meaning and relevance in the late 19th and early 20th century, not 2018. While I agree with the content of the recent edit made by Lucius, this is not an article about whether 'Splendid isolation' is the right term to use for differences on Brexit. As Lucius points out, they're very different things and in my view not relevant here. 
: Its legitimate to say British (or English) resistance to 'foreign entanglements' has a long history (I can quote examples going back to the early 1600s and I'm sure others have their own). Positioning Brexit within a wider discussion about British foreign policy is perfectly legitimate but a different topic. 
Robinvp11 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure Watts had something more important in mind than Wikipedia edits.
Robinvp11 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove of References to Brexit etc