Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last

Exactly, which is why I wished you good luck restoring it, since it is gone and I am sure quite a bit of Brits would not mind some parts restored. Neither would I mind, for that matter. The Aussies and the Yanks have been going wild for too long, and for the Africans it would be another one of the hundreds of regime changes, this one being the least objectionable most likely.

Reply

que? do you want to expand on that a little, in order that i can judge if you are insane or not?

because none of the above would welcome the reinstatement of empire, and no-one in Britain is of a mind to impose it!

Reply

Better than Preston Brook's approach.

Reply

Yeah, those few billion pounds spent on replacing carriers designed for and built during the Cold War makes all the difference when we're blowing £170 billion a year on giving chavs 6 bedroom mansions in London and paying for the Sky TV they need to watch because they don't work...

In any case, the Strategic Defence Review hasn't been carried out yet so saying where any defence cuts would fall is pure speculation. There is also no indication the Royal Navy will be hit harder than the other two services if whatever government comes to power is so utterly shortsighted it decides to cut defence spending significantly.

Reply

Given the current political climate at home and the paucity of "Sun Never Sets" territories , the UK IS spending too much on defense spending. Politically, a majority -- at least from what I've seen -- would prefer the UK to reduce its military efforts, dialing it back to a brigade of ground troops, one naval task force, and the SAS. Only the SAS would be deployed in all but the rarest instances. If that truly is the case, then the rest of the monies are being wasted and could be re-apportioned to spending areas considered more salient.

What are the figures regarding public support for a UK military that is more "actively" involved?

Reply

difficult to assess objectively, because the public have seen a military that is VERY actively involved, i.e. non stop decade long overstretch in nasty foriegn wars that never seem to end and appear to bring little obvious feel-good-factor.

notably the public is sick of these wars.

on the other hand, public awareness of, and sympathy to, the military is on rise, and short sharp feel-good wars like Sierra Leone and the Falklands have pretty wide support.

this is one of the reasons RUSI laid out the Strategic Raiding Doctrine, because the British public at large are happy for Britain to remain a Great Power........ as long as they only have to put up with the feel-good wars............ so the doctrine focuses on high-intensity expeditionary and rapid-reaction warfare.

This is being the very pointy end of a sharp stick; quick in and quick out, but it is also a valuable strategic capability possessed by only two other nations that can do it, so Britain can retain its Great Power status.

This tolerance to feel-good wars could also be a cultural meme from times past, in that most of Britains history we have used the Royal Navy like a scalpel rather than the Army like a club, so we have three hundred and fifty years of hearing news reports like; "chief Unga-Bunga has taken the British Ambassador hostage and refusing British trade through his ports", swiftly followed by; "The Royal Navy blockaded Unga-Bunga's main port while Royal Marines stormed the palace and released the British Ambassador, the crisis is past." Hoorah for Britain!

It is that kind of continual painless success that may explain why Britain remains more jingoistic that many nations on the continent, but it also puts limits on the kind of conflict the British public is 'willing' to stomach.

Reply

I think it's fair to ask why the UK just doesn't leave the Union if they don't like it.


a simple, yet very telling google search

Reply

because our politicians do. Labour refused to allow a Referndum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the Tories know that if they hold a Referndum on the EU we will leave; so they won't.

Reply

Because the people who don't like the EU are represented here by Farage. Such a party-pooper, they just want to be left alone.

Reply

And why don't they want to leave? Is this some EU conspiracy to only allow British politicians who support the EU into political parties? Are they not British in the first place? Is it required an oath of fidelity to the EU when you join a British political party? Are British politicians payed with EU money? Is it a Zionist conspiracy to unify the world? Are the British politicians afraid of being laughed at by everyone if they leave the EU?

Why don't they want to leave?

Reply

Leaving the EU has potential ecenomic sanctions attached, but, more than this, most of the current front-benchers are Europhiles rather than Patriots. They think in terms of Europe rather than Britain; then you get people (like me) who appreciate the value of a European trading bloc and co-operation but dislike the anti-democratic nature of the EU and believe the institution needs gutting.

Look at Lisbon, for example, it was decided by 27 men and women gathered together into a room, it was signed by them, and then the Irish voted (twice) and it became law. The proviso for necessary referndums and a SINGLE one in each country was not written into the treaty because it would have died. While I appreciate that politicians know things, we don't and we do elect them, I resent the circumvention of democracy when it pertains to the manner in which we are governed.

Particularly with regard to an Oligarchy like the EU.

Reply

A short history lesson. When the traitor Heath proposed joining the common market, he and his accomplicies told the electorate that it was a trading bloc. There would be no loss of national sovereignty. Period. Ironically in those days it was the Labour party who opposed the idea.

The negotiations complete, the UK joined the common market in 1973. It was such a contentious issue that two years later the govenment, this time a Labour one, agreed to hold a referendum on membership of the common market.

The referendum was held ( I remember it well) and it was asserted again and again that it was just a trading bloc and that membership would be good for Britain. At the time I was in full agreement with this. The poll was taken and the Ayes had it. So we stayed in.

The organisation Britain joined was called the European Economic Community.

A decade or so later, without a referendum, Thatcher signed the act that would transform the EEC into the European Community. I was in my twenties at the time and I admit to being slightly concerned at the move. No matter said the government, it was just a 'tidying up' exercise. (sound familiar?)

Fast forward to the early nineties. Maarstricht was signed, again with no recourse to the voters, and as we all know this treaty was the one that created the European Union. By this time, the voters were becoming alarmed at what was going on. After all, didn't we just join a trading bloc? What's all this talk about parliaments and councils and suchlike. Again it was not put to the electorate. It was claimed at the time that there's nothing to see here, move along, after all it's just a tidying up treaty. Deja Vu.

Another decade another Euro. This time the govt. under Blair realised that joining the single currecy was not a vote winner and pretended that they didn't want monetary union and so we stayed out.

Half a decade on an EU constitution was suggested as a 'tidying up exercise' to help the EU function better. It was on all the main three parties manifesto that signing up would be put to a referendum. They all renaged on that promise. In due course the treaty was signed by Mc Doom in a broom cupboard when he thought no one was looking. (all true)

So ther we have it. The UK was duped by successive tory and labour governments. People dont like to be taken for fools and have their views stamped on and disregarded but because they were it's no surprise that 70% of the population want out. How would you feel?

As for those EU fanboys who say let the UK go, you can't afford it. The simple fact is the EU needs the UK to prop up finance the massive spending going on over in Pumpyville.

I shall now have a cold shower.

*and breathe*

Reply

It seems that PVC and IA have answered your question very satisfactorily, so i will limit myself to your ancillary question: We're British, we don't go in for Zionist conspiracy theories like you excitable foreign types. :)

Reply

True, we engineered the original Zionist Conspiracy, after all.

Reply

My name is The Wizard and I endorse the OP.

We'll put an end to this "nation-state" nonsense sooner or later. Go EU!

Reply

So, why is this 70 % not voting for that Farage guy who will surely decide to have the UK step out of the EU and save you all lots of money in the proces?

If 70 % of your population hates Europe so much, then why doesn't 70 % vote en masse for a party that says it's going to step out of it if elected?

Reply

They don't want to blame themselves for their problems, they prefer to blame faceless bodgey men over in Europe. Even though they are in Europe, but some how, saying 'over there' makes it more imposing for them.

Reply

Quick answer, UKIP are a single issue party.

The UK oters dont hate the EU, we just thought that it would have been nice if we were asked first if we wanted to become part of a federal Europe.

No. It's about democratic accountability and fiscal transparency. As a businessman what do you think HMRC sanction would be to me if my accountant refused to sign off my accounts for over a decade?

I'll give you a clue. Arrows on suits. Bars on windows. Lights out at 7 pm.

Reply

From the perspective of a Europhile, and I'm sure this is the same for many apathetics, Eurosceptism is a confusing ideology, as it covers so many different perspectives.

The first is anti-Europeanism, and states that we should ignore Europe and set out to forge our own destiny in the world, usually by latching on to the USA like a louse.

The second is anti-Integration, and although it recognises the value of trade with Europe, anti-Integrationists express sceptism about economic or political integration with Europe

The third is more difficult to sum up in a single word, but anti-Oligarchism will suffice for this post. This is a focus on the perceived "democratic deficit" of the EU, particularly institutions like the Commission and the Strassburg Parliament.

(These is also a fourth, Socialist version, but this is largely irrelevant and I won't discuss it)

All of these fit snugly under the big cosy tent of Eurosceptism, and aspects of them probably appeal to all people, especially those right of centre and beyond. But let have a little thought experiment. Suppose the European Union suddenly came alive, and addressed al the problems that the anti-Oligarchs had. The Strassburg Parliament was blown up, the Comission assigned to the dustbin of history and elections for a President were held. After the dust had settled, how many Eurosceptics would be left?

It would be nice if a Eurosceptic could answer that, as I can't even begin to guess, because anyone who holds the opinions of the first or the second ideas I mentioned would nearly always agree with the ones below. Everyone who is an anti-Integrationist is an anti-Oligarch. And every anti-European is an anti-Integrationist and an anti-Oligarch. But it doesn't work the other way round, and yet Eurosceptism covers all of these different movements.

This leaves us asking, what does it mean to be a Eurosceptic, and what are you actually voting for when you vote for a Eurosceptic party? Euroscepticism is never given the tough analysis which an ideology as important as its followers say it is deserves. The result is a mish-mash of policies, and the ability of Eurosceptic parties to skip quite merrily between the three positions in order to appeal all voters. Scared you might lose some of the vote to the BNP? Then crank up the anti-European insults! Worried that your core vote is drifting back to the Tories? Then stress the importance of EFTA and your commitment to free trade! Need to expand your vote to the floating voters? Then pump out the leaflets plastered with words like "liberty", "democracy", "freedom", nice fluffy words that everyone agrees with.

Of course, the downside to this lack of consistency is confusion when parties like that gain power. But as nobody is interested in Europe, as it is weak, nobody cares, so that's alright then.

Also, I ******* hate Internet Explorer. The Piece of junk timed out on me when I wrote that post originally, and I had to retype it.

Reply

See, you are the type of Brit who prolly read the A Modest Proposal and took it seriously Of course I was joking. If I said the Yanks and Aussies 'have been wild for too long', should that not hint at the joking nature of my post?

Of course, no-one will welcome losing independence. But I am not so sure about the second. Sure, people are not thinking of the countries to impose the rule on specifically, but some probably have nostalgia for the days the Empire was stronger and larger. After all, why does Britain intervene in so many nations? Economist itself noted the British long such delusions, and that Brown was one of the first to take a more sober look at this... I mean, you can debate this, but there is still some truth in it.

Reply

What IA is saying, which is that none of the truly Eurosceptic parties could be trusted with running the country long enough to disengage from the EU.

Reply

Britain built it's wealth on basically creating a massive, secure trading bloc (that's effectively what the Empire was) and it still relies on that trade (although with everyone now) for the health of the economy. Over 90% of our physical trade travels by sea, the vast majority of which goes through 7 key maritime chokepoints (a number of which are in the middle east/indian ocean region), including a significant amount of our energy supplies. If we let the rest of the world go to pot then it'll only come back and bite us in the bum, so it's in our interests to intevene abroad.

Reply

This thread has diverted a bit into the usual red herring of why does Britain not leave the EU this is constantly quoted by eurosceptic's and pro-union people its never gonna happen people.
The reality is neither side wants that eventuality I have stated before and state it again Britain's sovereignty was finished the day the Treaty of Rome was signed England's ability to pit one side against the other to prevent a powerbloc in Europe was finished with European integration.

Instead Britain must ensure it uses it power to follow paths more preferably to it by close dealings with my own country and the other newer members in the east who are more amenable to the views of Britain on business and trade. Britain requires the free markets of the EU and its finance industry requires the savings of Frannce and Germany etc I could go on but you all get the point.

Reply

Yes I think that is at the core of the issue. But it immediately prompts the question if the EU is such an affront to the British MEPs yet they do see how it could be so much better etc. etc., then why do they just spew random crap like that instead of doing what they are elected to do: making some change? As far as integration goes, UK is pretty much unique in how distant it wants to remain (not being part of Schengen for instance); but as far as wanting an economic reform in the EU it isn't. As far as wanting more accountable EU it just keeps shooting itself in the foot.

Reply

beaten me to the punch again, nicely done.

the other half to the answer to AP's question is that perhaps we have a relatively non-traumatic collective memory of war, largely because it has never been visited upon us in quite the same way as most other countries, a fact that makes a mockery of the statement; Great Britain is not an island.*

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-not-an-Island

you mean like:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ings-into-life

how does that grab you?

Reply

Just went on the UKIP website.

Didn't realise they were major climate sceptics. Oh well, at least they're honest about it.

Reply

Possibly true, but the world has changed much from the days of the Empire. Where once were several European nations trying to screw each other over colonial affairs and maritime trade routes, now there is pretty much free trade in the world. A Romanian ship will pass through Malaca strait just like a British ship would and if one of the big boys (India, China, US...) tried to change how it works, you wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway. You can still throw your weight around the middle east (but even that is debatable if you didn't have US support) but that won't last long. So, building and maintaining a huge navy is just a waste of money, in my humble opinion.

Reply

Very true, in the current globalised world we need a stable system of trade more than ever.

That's a very state-centric view of things and wouldn't necessarily be considered the main threat currently. Take Somalia and Yemen for instance, both straddle one of the most important waterways in the world, but it isn't the states themselves that are causing problems, it's the turmoil inside the states that creates instability. It's in the UK's interests to have a military cabable of intervening in those areas if necessary, especially as most other nations seem unwilling or unable to, which requires a navy with the correct capabilities. Yes you can argue that we are unlikely to intervene alone, but that is why our military is centred around operating in alliances with other nations and very rarely on our own. It is in the UK's interests for trade to go smoothly for everyone, not just ourselves, so any instability in any region is a threat to that.

For starters, I'd hardly call it huge (as Louis will be more than happy to point out, even the French have a bigger navy than us now!). There are barely enough ships and personnel to maintain our standing committments to the EU, NATO and the Commonwealth and our operations supporting current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, so downsizing isn't really going to help anyone. Having a navy capable of things only one or two other nations can do allows us to punch way above our weight politically and is really rather cheap in comparison to the benefits it provides.

Reply

Id give him a 7 on the "burn" scale. Maybe if he called the EU president fat and noone loved him including his whore mom and fat girlfriend, he couldve succeeded in his mission to make him cry. Too bad.

Reply

And the UKIP is plagued by the usual problems of the populist right: incompetent, foulmouthed, full of political adventurers. Not a party one wishes to entrust with power.

Most corrupt party in the UK too. And, were it not for MEPs from cultures with less dreadfully dull and uncreative attachement to the separation of what's public and private, the UKIP would be the most corrupt in the European Parliament as well.



I do find it worrying, and a bit sad, though, that for moderate Britons, or from elsewhere, for whom Euroscepticism is close at heart, there is not really a moderate political option. Multiculturalism and the EU - on these two subjects, there is much electoral discontent that doesn't find itself represented by mainstream parties. That is democratically untenable in the long run.

Reply

Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last