http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/memo/globukus/ucm1902.htm. (If this does not work, Google Foreign Affairs Select Committee and you should get there).
Of course, Britain's military forces are almost entirely integrated into US-dominated NATO forces. According to Professor Dombey, the exclusive character of US-UK nuclear relations means that Britain would be violating agreements made with the US, during the cold war, by sharing nuclear information with its EU partners.
FASC chairman, Mike Gapes MP, argues, in his 'rejection' of excessive deference towards the US, that Britain ought to take a leaf out of President Obama's book and be more 'pragmatic'. There is no hint of the irony implied by such a statement. Gapes also says that "The UK needs to adopt a more hard-headed political approach towards our relationship with the US with a realistic sense of our own limits and our national interests.
"Certainly the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US but there is a need to be less deferential and more willing to say no where our interests diverge. In a sense, the UK foreign policy approach this Committee is advocating is in many ways similar to the more pragmatic tone which President Obama has adopted towards the UK.
"The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But the use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided."
Interestingly, Gapes then suggests that: "Yes, we have a special relationship with the US, but we must remember that so too do other countries including regional neighbours, strategic allies and partners. British and European politicians have been guilty of over-optimism about the extent of influence they have over the US. We must be realistic and accept that globalisation, structural changes and shifts in geopolitical power will inevitably affect the UK-US relationship. It is entirely logical for the US to pursue relationships with other partners who can provide support that the UK cannot. Having said that, recent minor disagreements between the UK and US do not threaten the relationship. Rather they highlight a need for better understanding between our governments to maintain its strength."
This hardly reads as a rejection of the special relationship, a term that needs considerable unpacking in any case.
In addition to the military alliance with the US, Britain and America are almost inextricably bound up with each other. I am not referring here to linguistic, cultural, and political-historical connections: those factors are profoundly important if difficult to tease out in regard to their political significance.
Here, I am referring to what has been pointed out by Robert Worcester: Britain and the US are each other's largest foreign investor; thousands of US public servants and officials visit their UK counterparts each year, dwarfing the levels of such exchanges with any other nation.
And, although globalisation may be changing the world in myriad ways, Britain and the United States are the two major driving forces behind the entire process. Recall, the MoD's attachment to Britain's role in defending global flows - of people, ideas, money, trade, and so on.
It may be imprecise to call the relationship 'special': it is certainly too early to declare it dead.