The Tail End of Peace and War

With the basic peace terms agreed upon with the France, the remaining task was to negotiate with France's allies. The main allies who joined France in declaring war on Britain included the following.

First, there are countries with territorial disputes with Britain, such as Spain, the Netherlands, and the United States. Spain insists that the Gibraltar fortress is an integral part of Spain territory since ancient times. The Netherlands, on the other hand, demands that the Britain recognize Netherlands sovereignty over Cape Town.

On these two issues, Britain was certainly required to make concessions. Gibraltar could not be controlled by the Britain; this was not only Spain's intention, but also France's. The France could not tolerate a Britain military base controlling the exit from the Mediterranean Sea, thus dividing the France coastline into two unsupportable parts.

As for the Netherlands, Cape Town had already been successfully captured by the France - Netherlands allied forces not long ago. In this offensive, the allied forces, relying on swift action, captured the fortress with zero casualties, seized nearly one hundred cannons, and liberated the people of Cape Town. Of course, the British Army in Cape Town also suffered no casualties. The last batch of the British Army left on France and Netherlands ships before the France - Netherlands allied forces launched their final offensive. The France and Netherlands were very professional; after receiving their payment, they indeed quickly and safely delivered them to the Portugal in Maputo.

Now that Cape Town had fallen, the Britain had no choice but to accept it.

If it were only these two issues, their negotiations would naturally be easier. However, as the saying goes, it's easier to see the King of Hell than to deal with his underlings. These two countries even demanded more war reparations and colonies from Britain —a demand that the France hadn't even made.

France, of course, wouldn't make such a demand. They weren't short of money, and with the Britain market fully open to France, the France could gain far more than just reparations. Furthermore, France's voluntary waiver of war reparations would lessen Britain resentment towards France. In short, the France didn't intend to exploit the Britain people themselves; they preferred the Britain government handle it, like Austria had. While this would allow middlemen to profit, it would also give the France more flexibility in navigating various political conflicts.

But the situation was different for countries like Spain and the Netherlands. Although the Britain market was open to them in full, based on the principle of non-discrimination, they lacked the industrial power of the France, so the terms of full market access did not offer them much benefit. Therefore, they insisted on receiving war reparations or a Britain colony.

Therefore, negotiations on this issue reached a stalemate. Finally, after the France agreed to provide the Britain government with a low-interest loan, the Britain also agreed to provide war reparations to both countries. Of course, the amount was quite limited, because although these two countries had joined the war, their contributions were also very limited.

But negotiating with the United States was a different story. The territory that the United States had already occupied was undoubtedly United States, and acknowledging this didn't put much pressure on the Britain government. However, the United States demanded even more war reparations than the Ireland had asked for.

Frankly, while the Britain disagreed with the demand for large sums of reparations from the Ireland, Britain themselves felt it was understandable. After all, Britain had plundered Ireland for so many years and done so many good deeds Ireland; now that they were defeated, it was normal for them to ask for exorbitant compensation. But what right did those North America rebels have to demand so much money? Of course, we Britain burned their cities, but that was because they initiated the war of aggression against us. So, we could accept the land they occupied after our defeat, but reparations? On what grounds? Just because you didn't sign an alliance treaty with the France?

Yes, there was no alliance between the United States and France because the United States did not agree to unconditionally open its markets to each other. So, although the United States was a participant in this war, even a major one, it was not an ally of France. Therefore, the France stated that while they hoped Britain could reach a final peace agreement with the United States, since the United States was not an ally of France, they did not intend to intervene in this matter and thus rudely interfere in the internal affairs of the United Nations.

Regarding France's attitude, Foreign Minister Simonie analyzed it to the Prime Minister and the Crown Prince as follows. "I think the France don't want us to make any concessions to the United States, and they may not even want to see us reach a peace agreement with the United States. Because the existence of a United States that is not fully integrated into the France system is always a threat to Louisiana. So I think we don't need to make any concessions to the United States at all; in fact, perhaps we should make more demands on United States."

"What do you mean?" the Earl of Liverpool asked.

"Not only should we not pay war reparations to the United States, we should even demand that United States pay for the territory they occupy. After all, they are not allies of France stance is clear: they will not support these rebels. So even if negotiations with them fail, what can they do? Can they cross the Atlantic Ocean and launch an expedition against Britain?" Foreign Minister Simonie replied.

"Won't their navy disrupt our shipping routes to the Americas? After all, our navy has suffered too many losses," the Crown Prince asked.

"If they dare, let them try," Simonie said dismissively. "Our colonies are also completely open to France, so if they attack this shipping route, it won't just harm our interests, but also the interests of the France. So if they're bold enough, let them try. It won't be a bad thing for us. Therefore, Your Highness, we don't need to reach a peace agreement with the United States at all. If we can gain the understanding of the France, we can completely destroy the negotiations with them by demanding an exorbitant price, and even shift the blame for the breakdown of negotiations onto the United States."

"My friend, have you spoken with Foreign Minister Talleyrand about this matter?" the Earl of Liverpool asked.

"Of course, Foreign Minister Talleyrand said that France would not interfere in this matter—that's tacit approval. But if we want to shift the blame onto the United States, that's not his responsibility. However, he's willing to lead me to meet with Mr. Jerome Bonaparte, the supervisor of the Roman Bank; perhaps he can offer some advice," Simonie replied.

"Jerome Bonaparte? The brother of Napoleon's regent? Very good! Excellent! You've done a superb job! We need to establish connections with the Bonaparte Family now, even if not for this matter. We need to establish connections with them on many things," said the Earl of Liverpool.

"Our previous goodwill toward Minister Talleyrand has been rewarded," Simonie replied. "I think we should continue to express some goodwill to Minister Talleyrand."

"You're right, that's not a problem. The help he gave us deserves even more kindness in return."

Thus, the peace negotiations between the Britain and United States naturally fell through. The Britain were even unwilling to send officials at the deputy ministerial level to negotiate with the United States, instead sending some low-ranking civil servants who had just joined the Foreign Office to deal with the United States, and incidentally train them in some basic diplomatic skills, such as talking nonsense that ignores the facts, or talking for hours on end without saying anything at all. Anyway, our Foreign Office people said they couldn't see it, and they just couldn't see it.

Thus, even after France and its allies reached peace agreements with the Britain, the United States and Britain were still theoretically at war. However, the Britain "generously" announced that they could voluntarily maintain a "unilateral ceasefire" in the event of an attack by the United States. This statement was praised by the France and the rest of Europe, who expressed that it demonstrated the Britain sincerity in pursuing peace.

Of course, the France statement was not without reason. One reason was that Britain had used customs duties as collateral to borrow another commercial loan from the Roman Bank.

In addition, other countries in the France alliance that declared war on Britain included the Confederation of the Rhine, the Northern Italian Republic, the Austrian Empire, and the Papal States. Negotiations with them were relatively simple because, although they declared war on Britain, most of the time it was just a declaration and no actual fighting took place.

Of course, these countries wouldn't pass up the opportunity to profit from the situation, so they all demanded territorial concessions and reparations. However, they also knew that their ally, France, didn't want to excessively delay the peace talks. So, although their demands were quite loud, in the end, they were quite satisfied with only receiving a small amount of money, since they hadn't done anything anyway.

The Papal States present a slightly more problematic situation because they have a demand to spread orthodox Catholicism in Britain. The Anglican Church in Britain strongly resists this. All Protestantism dislike Catholicism, as the very foundation of Protestantism is its rejection of Catholicism. Of all Protestantism, the Anglican Church is the most resistant to Catholicism. The reason isn't the blood feud between Henry VIII and Bloody Marie, but rather because the Anglican Church is so similar to Catholicism. Compared to orthodox Protestantism like Lutheranism and Calvinism, which are clearly distinct from Catholicism, the followers of Catholicism are generally not drawn to Catholicism. However, the Anglican Church and Catholicism are so similar that the differences between them are difficult for anyone other than a scholar specializing in religion to discern. These two religions are thus the most antagonistic.

However, the arm can't twist the thigh. As devoted followers of Catholicism, the France, in their peace agreement with Britain, demanded that Britain abolish the Church of England, adopt a policy of religious freedom, and allow other denominations to freely preach and establish churches and other facilities in Britain. Fortunately, according to previous agreements between France and the Papal States, the Catholicism France would not preach abroad, so they would still be dealing with orthodox Catholicism. However, considering Britain's current financial straits, the Anglican Church would naturally receive less funding. More importantly, wealthy Britain patrons, to maintain their status, would all want to cultivate relationships with the France. Although the Catholicism in the Papal States seems somewhat different from the France Catholicism, their relationship with France is clearly closer than that of the France Anglican Church. Therefore, it's truly difficult to say which side those patrons who used to frequently donate to the Anglican Church will ultimately side with.

So now that France's conditions have been agreed to, the return of Catholicism to England is a foregone conclusion. However, one issue has led to a stalemate: who will crown the new Britain king?

If the Anglican Church were to Anglican Church, it would violate the promise of "not establishing a state church," but if the Catholicism were to take over, it would also seem to violate the requirements of this doctrine. Therefore, the coronation of future Britain monarchs would have to take another form. As for what that other form would be, everyone agreed that it would be discussed later.

The last difficult negotiating partner was Ireland. Britain's recognition of Ireland independence was, of course, non-negotiable. Furthermore, Ireland demanded substantial war reparations from Britain. On this issue, the France attitude was completely different from their stance in the peace talks with the United States and Britain. In the France view, Ireland was almost the most exemplary ally—limited development potential, posing no threat, but militarily capable, serving as a scapegoat or shield for the France.

Therefore, the France strongly supported the Ireland demands. Under these circumstances, Britain had no choice but to compromise Ireland and agree to pay as much as 500 million francs in reparations. Of course, the Britain couldn't come up with that much money all at once. But as the saying goes, "A lot of lice don't itch, a lot of debt doesn't worry." In any case, they would pay in installments and borrow money from the Roman Bank.

Of course, through these loans, the France have essentially controlled the entire Britain fiscal expenditure. In this sense, the current United Kingdom government is no longer an independent government, but has become a complete agent of the France in Britain.

After resolving the issue with the Ireland, all obstacles were removed in the negotiations. Finally, Foreign Minister Simonie, on behalf of the Britain government, signed the peace treaty with France and its allies. Peace was once again restored to Europe. Of course, peace was not yet fully achieved; the war still lingered— the Britain and United States were still at war. But who cared about that?