British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the White House this week, giving an address to congress in which he praised the "special friendship" (aka, "relationship," partnership," "alliance") between the U.S. and the U.K.

It was a sentiment that evoked 200 years of accumulated déjà vu. Every British leader in the history of post-American-revolution England has defined the relationship with America as a "special friendship." But what would it take to end that relationship and split these BFFs? 

First, it's necessary to determine what "special friendship" actually means. Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister from 1940-1945, coined the phrase after WWII, referring to the shared interests and values that tied the U.S. and Great Britain together. For these transatlantic buddies, "special friendship" means an ideological alliance. It means similar socio-political goals and enduring togetherness.

British entry into the Iraq war in 2001, according to BBC correspondent Richard Lister, proved that "no matter who is in the White House, the US and the UK are still the dynamic duo." If America gets involved with a war, British forces will be there as back-up, regardless of the digruntled cacophony rising from the rest of Europe. And vice versa, right?

But vice versa hasn't happened since 1941, and even then, there was a significant catalyst for American entry into WWII: Pearl Harbor. Yet Britain, under former Prime Minister Tony Blair, still followed its best buddy into Iraq, despite major complaints from its own citizens. British troops were deployed to an American war, without having had any part in the decision making. Dependable like an old coat, the U.K. is the first in, and last out of the American allies.

So what would happen if Britain wanted to invade Sweden? Or take over France? Or occupy Turkey? Would America have its back?

It's highly unlikely we'll find out any time soon. The U.K. was pacified by two world wars and the establishment of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1957 to "end war in Europe." It is a proud fact that since the end of WWII there have been no wars on in the EU-zone. What would be the point of jeopardizing that achievement?

But the indicators are clear. When Europe wanted to get America on board with environmentally focused policies and sign the Kyoto Protocol, all the Bush administration had to do was say "no." The difference of opinion with regard to welfare also seemed to widen during the Bush years. In the U.S., Britain's lax policies became a laughing stock. But even with Obama in office, America is still drawing the lines. Last week, Britain announced that it would conduct talks with the Iranian-backed militant movement Hezbollah in Lebanon, but the U.S. simply announced that it "is not ready" to follow suit.

The truth is that America wears the pants in this relationship, and therefore has the power to "just say no." U.S. leaders don't have to visit the Houses of Parliament in London to suck up because it's unnecessary. Never was this inconsistency better exemplified than by the strange, awkward exhchange of gifts between Brown and Obama last week. Brown gave Obama a valuable piece of history: a pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet, which was the sister ship of the HMS Resolute, aka the wood carved to make the centuries-old Oval Office desk. In return, Obama gave Brown a DVD box set. A sentimental presentation on one hand -- a late-to-the-party buy on the other. Brown went to the depths of history, Obama went to 7-Eleven.

It's no secret that Britain is hoping for a slight power shift with the Obama administration. It's tired of playing Robin to the American Batman. And with emerging powers taking the stage, eliminating the efficiency of individual prowess, it would make sense for the pair to team up as equals. In May 2008, Obama told a crowd of American expats in London: "We have a chance to recalibrate the relationship and for the United Kingdom to work with America as a full partner." An advisor to the Obama campaign told The Guardian afterwards, "It's no longer going to be that we are in the lead and everyone follows us. Full partners not only listen to each other, they also occasionally follow each other."

It makes sense for this "special friendship" to become something more equal-footed. Both economies are dependent upon one another after all, as the financial crisis has shown. The U.S. and the U.K. are among each others' biggest trading partners, and as one EU official explained it, this is a time of "global interdependence." In some respects, the Obama administration is showing more lenience toward European policies - including stem cell research, long promoted in Europe, which the President lifted the U.S. ban on this week. At the request of EU officials worried about protectionism, President Obama even diluted his "Buy American" clause in the stimulus plan. But standing together, as equals, on a more political, power-sharing level - especially where foreign policy is concerned - is a difficult task. Each country has its own interests at heart.

But America could certainly become more malleable. Britain's allegiance to the U.S. is constantly being tried and tested, as it will be again at the G20 summit in London on April 2nd. As The Telegraph reports , European leaders are trying to promote tighter regulations to curb the financial crisis, while U.S. and U.K. representatives are more focused on bail-out deals. If the U.S. and the U.K. stand together on the economy, realizing how inter-connected they are and acting appropriately as a unit, then deeper crisis may be averted. But at the same time, Britain faces criticism from Europe for aligning against them. Either way, the U.K. is in a tough position, stuck in the middle between two great forces.

Although the situation is highly unlikely to arise, what would happen if the U.K. stood with Europe, against America, on a global economic recovery plan?

Would it be like the scene in the movie Love Actually, where Prime Minister Hugh Grant decides that it's time this "special relationship" ended? Probably not. But something resonated with Brits during that scene, some yearning for the under-dog to rise up and face America as a true friend, a true ally, an equal.

"I love that word "relationship," says the Prime Minister in Love Actually. "Covers all manner of sins, doesn't it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship; a relationship based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to Britain. We may be a small country, but we're a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot, come to that. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that."

An alternate universe indeed -- and a movie that was probably not included in Brown's party-pack from Obama.