Great Britain derailed again

[WDB124066]

I'd believe it grober, next you'll be investing in their World Bank alternative - just wait and see....

 

[Dryce]

I believe we are incapable of any serious military action beyond aerial bombardment of ill-equipped ground forces.

We can do a bit more than that.

The RN can take out the odd city with it's four big black boats. And they can take out precision targets with their smaller black boats.

Admittedly we seem to have very few of the smaller ones. But they do a bit more than they used to.

We can also deploy said smaller black boats to do nasty things to sea commerce of any major trading nation.

The forthcoming carriers offer some interesting options - but that's subject to actually being able to deploy them with aircraft and other resources.

I am very concerned about the way things have gone over the last 10 years. I think the big carriers are an ill thought out vanity project - that is sapping resource from other areas and badly compromising us.

Meanwhile we are down to half a dozen hunter killer submarines and no maritime patrol aircraft.

 

[Deleted96908]

We can do a bit more than that.

The RN can take out the odd city with it's four big black boats. And they can take out precision targets with their smaller black boats.

Admittedly we seem to have very few of the smaller ones. But they do a bit more than they used to.

We can also deploy said smaller black boats to do nasty things to sea commerce of any major trading nation.

The forthcoming carriers offer some interesting options - but that's subject to actually being able to deploy them with aircraft and other resources.

I am very concerned about the way things have gone over the last 10 years. I think the big carriers are an ill thought out vanity project - that is sapping resource from other areas and badly compromising us.

Meanwhile we are down to half a dozen hunter killer submarines and no maritime patrol aircraft.

But it's all too widely spread isn't it?

My extended family are career RN/RM (even the women apart from one nurse) and I grew up around a sizeable navy and RM capability. But these days, it's hard to spot a RN ship in Portsmouth harbour, let alone in the Solent.

I'm reminded too of the first World War when we sailed supreme with massive shipbuilding programmes in the years leading up to 1914. And even with considerable foresight and huge budgets we still found ourselves short in 1913/14 leading to the requisitioning of 2 (3?) warships being built in the UK for foreign navies (Chilean by memory).

So even with the will, budget and foresight, you can never be sure of having sufficient and meaningful forces at sea - perhaps more so these days with the modern equivalents of Exocets on station over the horizon.

I'm worried too about Russia getting access to enclaves in N. Africa. sort of negates Gibraltar in my view.

Without wishing to risk the wrath of the censor here, what is the situation north of the border wrt continuing to house the nuclear deterrent?

 

[Dryce]

But it's all too widely spread isn't it?

Depends on what you want to do with it all.

Also the strategy post war was based on being a part of a larger NATO whole. Though post cold war NATO seems to have lost its way a bit as the focus of the participants has diminished or moved elsewhere - and got sidetracked by the Middle East.

 

[Dryce]

Without wishing to risk the wrath of the censor here, what is the situation north of the border wrt continuing to house the nuclear deterrent?

If I were in MOD doing planning there is no way I could plan the successor to Vanguard and Trident based on the assumption that Faslane and Coulport were available for the lifetime of the successor programme. I'd be tempted geographically by rebasing in NI but wary of complications from that. Barrow might be another option.

But at the end of the day it probably ends up at Plymouth. Replacing the functionality of Faslane isn't really a problem - the V-boats are maintained at Plymouth.

Operating the V-Boats out of Plymouth would have some hassles - and possibly add a few % to the overheads of a patrol.

Moving the facilities/operations from Coulport would perhaps be a harder task.

There isn't much scope for discussing this in the UK or Scotland. Despite being based on a rational contingency that Scotland could depart the UK within the lifetime of the successor programme - it would be misunderstood and treated by both sides of the independence debate and by the rest of the UK and the rest of the world as an official expectation that Scotland would separate.

 

[Bellow]

Without wishing to risk the wrath of the censor here, what is the situation north of the border wrt continuing to house the nuclear deterrent?

The EU referendum, then depending on its outcome, possibly another referendum - then an answer. Game of hopscotch.

Or, the UK as a whole don't have the appetite for nuclear which hasn't been questioned - merely assumed it does.

There is more I'd like to say re first para (EU ref') but don't want thread closed so I wont.

 

[Dryce]

The EU referendum, then depending on its outcome, possibly another referendum - then an answer. Game of hopscotch.

The EU referendum is being played by the pro-independence advocates as being a harbinger of a demand for independence if the *UK* votes to leave the EU.

But.

If the UK votes to leave the EU that complicates things horribly.

First off that means that any arguments about automatic EU membership are off the table if the UK is out and Scotland separates from the UK.

But it also means that a separate Scotland in the EU is left with its nearest and most important trading partner outside the EU.

And then there is the SNP assumption that Scots won't vote to leave the EU. But that's not certain - bear in mind that UKIP actually has a Scottish MEP after the last EU election.

It's a more complicated world than many want to think about.

Or, the UK as a whole don't have the appetite for nuclear which hasn't been questioned - merely assumed it does.

In the past the vocal people have tended to be against but the silent majority for.

My observation is that most people are actually against. The real difference is that the silent majority are *conditionally* against.

If you can recall perhaps in the 80s that unilateralists were probably the dominant voice - but the silent majority were probably in the main multilaterlists.

There is more I'd like to say re first para (EU ref') but don't want thread closed so I wont.

Ooops.

 

[Bellow]

If the UK votes to le ave the EU that complicates things horribly.

Veritable can of worms opened and we all know why. Is this a referendum we really need? When Nick Clegg (at the time of the coalition) visited a Nissan plant in Tyneside(?) he came away realising that much of the workforce would vote to leave the EU. Turkeys do vote for Christmas....

It also complicates Gideon's plans. An 'out' vote if he supports staying in seriously jeopardises his (political) future.

 

[Dryce]

Is this a referendum we really need?

Yes. It's critical.

Turkeys do vote for Christmas....

Or more noble people perhaps vote for what they think is best for their country and not what you might assume is best for themselves?

 

[Bellow]

Yes. It's critical.

Why so? For the sake of democracy - when we have an unelected HoL?

Or more noble people perhaps vote for what they think is best for their country and not what you might assume is best for themselves?

Talking of nobility - an unelected HoL!

 

[Dryce]

Why so? For the sake of democracy - when we have an unelected HoL?

The HoL has no bearing on any argument to do with the EU.

(However I think one does have to question the intelllect and motive of those who 'reformed' it a decade ago rather than doing the right thing and removing it).

 

[Bellow]

The HoL has no bearing on any argument to do with the EU.
.

I mentioned it as I assumed your reason (still not stated!) as to the criticality of an EU referendum was one of democracy. Once democracy is being discussed then naturally the HoL has to be scrutinised. Not only for its hideous running costs at a time of 'austerity' but the corrosive effects of the cronyism it breeds. Reforming it appears as higher priority than pandering to the xenophobes (which the EU referendum is all about) especially given that this thread has shown how the Great in Great Britain has long since sailed to foreign lands.
Why do we need an EU referendum?

 

[Dryce]

I mentioned it as I assumed your reason (still not stated!) as to the criticality of an EU referendum was one of democracy. Once democracy is being discussed then naturally the HoL has to be scrutinised.

There is no valid relationship between the two unless there is some odd intent to obfuscate.

than pandering to the xenophobes (which the EU referendum is all about)

Sounds like the scene is already being set then. Can't use the 'R' word because they're all Europeans in the EU. Oooooh. Let's go for [FX: shuffles through thesaurus and dictionary] this word! [ FX: points finger at 'Xenophobe'] and so behold ..... the 'X' word is now born.

Interestingly this is the ploy that those who would see themselves as our intellectual betters in the political classes and the BBC use when trying to suppress reasoned discussion on matters such as immigration.

So I guess we can see how the sides will shape up in the EU ref in the coming months as the political classes and BBC try to smother the debate to get their outcome.

given that this thread has shown how the Great in Great Britain has long since sailed to foreign lands.

Don't worry - we have two big aircraft carriers on their way to retrieve it (by force if necessary - as long as we can pay for the planes).

Why do we need an EU referendum?

Because as you suggested - the ordinary UK person (possibly from Tyneside) may have views that have significantly diverged from that of our political classes (and the BBC).

So it's worthwhile to make sure that collectively we all know where we stand.

 

[Bellow]

There is no valid relationship between the two unless there is some odd intent to obfuscate.

Nope - democracy has to be universal - not in pockets. 'We'll ask you about EU membership but we know best when it comes to the HoL'. Nah.

Sounds like the scene is already being set then. Can't use the 'R' word because they're all Europeans in the EU. Oooooh. Let's go for [FX: shuffles through thesaurus and dictionary] this word! [ FX: points finger at 'Xenophobe'] and so behold ..... the 'X' word is now born.

Interestingly this is the ploy that those who would see themselves as our intellectual betters in the political classes and the BBC use when trying to suppress reasoned discussion on matters such as immigration.

So I guess we can see how the sides will shape up in the EU ref in the coming months as the political classes and BBC try to smother the debate to get their outcome.



Don't worry - we have two big aircraft carriers on their way to retrieve it (by force if necessary - as long as we can pay for the planes).



Because as you suggested - the ordinary UK person (possibly from Tyneside) may have views that have significantly diverged from that of our political classes (and the BBC).

If it is xenophobia then call it xenophobia. Simple. There is no argument that GB is immune to it and plenty propaganda that propagates it.

So it's worthwhile to make sure that collectively we all know where we stand.

In a Tyneside dole queue?

 

[Dryce]

Nope - democracy has to be universal - not in pockets. 'We'll ask you about EU membership but we know best when it comes to the HoL'. Nah.

Well it's a bit late to try and justify this spurious connecton.

Maybe the people bothered by this should have sopken up and had last year's referendum defered until their HoL issues were resolved.

[ I'd have still thought it was spurious ]

If it is xenophobia then call it xenophobia. Simple. There is no argument that GB is immune to it and plenty propaganda that propagates it.

Well there in lies the problem. What our political classes (and of course the BBC) think is 'X'ic (nee 'R'ist) is just a ploy to stifle reasoned discussion.

So yes if it is really X'ic call it X'ic.

But don't tar it as being X'ic just to shut down something you don't like.

Most of the EU discussion is about economics. It won't all be - and given the manner in which there is a schism in the EU between Germany and some of its near neighbours and that there are threats to freedom of movement then there will be other valid considerations added to that discussion. And a year is a long time - other political stuff will happen along the way.

Before last year's referendum I reckoned the split would be 60:40 to remain in the UK. I got the outcome right but the numbers wrong.

My reckoning is that in next year's referendum that the split will be 60:40 to leave the EU.

In the UK the three amigos blinked and vowed - probably with no effect on the outcome. I think the EU will blink too - and if it does it probably also won't change the outcome.

In a Tyneside dole queue?

Or in a Tyneside factory.

 

[Bellow]

Well it's a bit late to try and justify this spurious connecton.

Barely 7pm - not late at all. Spurious connection?....

Maybe the people bothered by this should have sopken up and had last year's referendum defered until their HoL issues were resolved.

A stitch up because someone prevented redrawing electoral boundaries - that much is well known.

[ I'd have still thought it was spurious ]

Spurious connection?....
Like drawing the BBC into this?

Well there in lies the problem. What our political classes (and of course the BBC) think is 'X'ic (nee 'R'ist) is just a ploy to stifle reasoned discussion.

So yes if it is really X'ic call it X'ic.

But don't tar it as being X'ic just to shut down something you don't like.

I'm not trying to shut down debate but open it up to expose shallow minded bigotry and try and avoid it blighting important decisions that affect us all. Xenophobia is a form of ignorance. I want people to be informed and that requires challenging all ignorance.

Most of the EU discussion is about economics. It won't all be - and given the manner in which there is a schism in the EU between Germany and some of its near neighbours and that there are threats to freedom of movement then there will be other valid considerations added to that discussion. And a year is a long time - other political stuff will happen along the way.

Before last year's referendum I reckoned the split would be 60:40 to remain in the UK. I got the outcome right but the numbers wrong.

My reckoning is that in next year's referendum that the split will be 60:40 to leave the EU.

In the UK the three amigos blinked and vowed - probably with no effect on the outcome. I think the EU will blink too - and if it does it probably also won't change the outcome.

The three amigos (once the one-who-purrs had growled in their ears) did influence the outcome. That the public were stupid enough to fall for it makes it an absolute imperative that they are better informed for the next plebiscite.

Or in a Tyneside factory.

Really? When all the companies that are in UK for the easy access to Europe are denied said access - why would they stay? Chances are their start-up costs were paid for by UK grants so they have nothing to lose by leaving and relocating to the continent. And I think you are right. I think the vote will go to the 'out' side.

 

[Dryce]

Really? When all the companies that are in UK for the easy access to Europe are denied said access - why would they stay?

We'll see.

Phoney war at the moment - some people not speaking up who may speak up later to give their views. I'm surprised the manufacturing sector has been so quiet - but that may change once there is any kind of campaign going.

 

[Bellow]

Perhaps part of the manufacturing sector is slowly making their workforce aware that the cars they are assembling are left hand drive for a specific reason. I hope they succeed.

 

[grober]

Perhaps this impending EU money market reform might explain why some are keen for us to leave?
New legislative framework for markets in financial instruments published in the Official Journal

Today, the Directive on Markets in Financial Instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC (MiFID II) and the Regulation on Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFIR) have been published in the EU Official Journal. Member States have two years to transpose the new rules which will be applicable starting January 2017. The new framework aims to make financial markets more efficient, resilient and transparent. It introduces a market structure which closes loopholes and ensures that trading, wherever appropriate, takes place on regulated platforms. It introduces rules on high frequency trading. It improves the transparency and oversight of financial markets – including derivatives markets - and addresses the issue of excessive price volatility in commodity derivatives markets. A new framework will improve conditions for competition in the trading and clearing of financial instruments. Building on the rules already in place, the revised MiFID also strengthens the protection of investors by introducing robust organisational and conduct requirements or by strengthening the role of management bodies. The new framework also increases the role and supervisory powers of regulators and establishes powers to prohibit or restrict the marketing and distribution of certain products in well-defined circumstances. A harmonised regime for granting access to EU professional markets for firms from third countries, based on an equivalence assessment of third country jurisdictions by the Commission, is introduced.

 

[Bellow]

Nige working on behalf his city chums? My suspicion has always been thus.

And the assembly plants that once pieced together Minis, Nissan, etc - all building Geelys. Is that where this is heading? (Hope the plant workers enjoy 16 hour shifts).