Europe

[Louis VI the Fat]

No i imagine the concept of sovereignty is a diminished brand on the continent, that last 200 years would prove that adequately, but again that is not the UK's problem, we'll still be sitting high and dry on our little island the next time the continent turns into a bloodbath.

Sorry, Furunculus, but sometimes I feel like you and I live in alternative realities.

What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality.

Your Britain - militaristic, autarkic, autistic, impervious, closed and blind to diverging opinions - this UK you perceive to exist and wish to preserve, does not exist. And, even worse, if it would exist, it would resemble North Korea. Not the UK. Not even a sovereign UK, or a previous UK, or an idealised UK.

[Tribesman]

i'm going by the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The Military Balance 2008 edition, not wikipedia.

So what . Are you disputing the figures from HM treasury and the French dept. of defence?

we have just had 12 years of labour throwing money up the wall.

And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only throwing money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts

[Furunculus]

So what . Are you disputing the figures from HM treasury and the French dept. of defence?

And before that you had 18 years of the conservatives not only spunking money up the wall but selling off the countries assets for peanuts

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.
Does set of figures X include:
> operational expenses
> attrition replacement
> equipment procurement
> R&D projects
> Intelligence apparatus
Then you must ask yourself if figures for nation Y include the same, and they mostly do not.
For example while the Gendarmerie are under the control of the Interior Ministry I believe they are funded from the Defence budget.
So official figures published from their respective nations have little merit for comparative purposes, which is why i went to the trouble of getting the figures pulished by the IISS in the 2008 publication of The Military Balance.

again, so what? how does that relate to having a vast public debt which derives from annual additional public spending which amounts to £200+ billion each year since 97?

[Tribesman]

Defence spending is a very complex thing Tribesman, and very hard to compare.

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them

[Furunculus]

Yeah , new destroyers coming in at 157million over budget wouldn't be in the budget would it.
And you want more of them

ah, the second rule of tribesman debating; obfuscate in a cloud of nonsense the fact that you picked out point to argue about that was totally irrelevant to the argument in question, and was wrong to boot.

[edit] and the third tactic; where you shroud your comment in derisory smileys in a effort to make your point seem so obvious that no one else need look into the matter further. [/edit]

good going.

[Tribesman]

ah, the second rule of tribesman debating; obfuscate in a cloud of nonsense the fact that you picked out point to argue about that was totally irrelevant to the argument in question, and was wrong to boot.

Wrong?
Look....

we have the second largest official defence budget

No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

and the third tactic; where you shroud your comment in derisory smileys in a effort to make your point seem so obvious that no one else need look into the matter further.

It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

[Furunculus]

Wrong?
Look....
No you have the fourth, simple isn't it . And as you stated "official" then the only relevant source is the official defence budget.

It is obvious, there is no need to look any further.
Your country has huge debts.
It cannot pay for the military it already has.
What it is buying is costing more than it allowed for and is getting delivered late.
And you want them to spend more even though they can't afford it, and buy more even though they ain't getting what they already bought??????

the word "official" is there to point out that most military think-tanks believe that china massively under-reports its defence budget, so its not a little bit under or over the UK and france, it is probably about 30% higher, if not even higher.

really Tribesman, you do yourself no favours, as surely i am not the only one to notice that the majority of your debating style is to spout ridiculous and irrelevant nonsense, and smothered in smileys, in the hope that no-one looks to deeply at your 'response'.

you're intelligent enough to debate very well on your own merits, you should try it sometime. :)

[Furunculus]

Sorry, Furunculus, but sometimes I feel like you and I live in alternative realities.

What you do is, you take a history that is completely off to begin with, drastically simplify it, and then from this simplification deduce an entire world system. It has no bearing on reality.

Your Britain - militaristic, autarkic, autistic, impervious, closed and blind to diverging opinions - this UK you perceive to exist and wish to preserve, does not exist. And, even worse, if it would exist, it would resemble North Korea. Not the UK. Not even a sovereign UK, or a previous UK, or an idealised UK.

i was responding to adrian, specifically:

I don't know what watered-down version of sovereignty you adhere to, but it doesn't mean much to the rest of the world.

and speculating as to why the sovereignty to which i admire has so little-resonance in his world-view.

and quite the opposite, i perceive very readily that britain has historically been very open to the world, and has benefited from this immensely. i support the right of free movement within the EU, my girlfriend is polish, i am all for letting turkey into the EU. 'my' britain is not closed. by the same token the accusation of autarkism is ridiculous, i am the first person to shout for free trade, something which i rarely hear from your location. i simply have no wish to be governed by those who have no demos-cratos link to myself.

as to militaristic, yes i believe the first duty of the nation state is the provision of internal and external security, and thus a subject of budgetary prominence, however my choice would to be rebuild the navy, not create endless napoleonic regiments to conquer the 'heathens'. and oddly enough i get the impression that people here look to the EU from of fear of outsiders and the future, in which case it is their countries they should be badgering about defence spending.

but most importantly, what does this have to do with the question of whether britain needs to be a part of a federal europe.

[Fragony]

as to militaristic, yes i believe the first duty of the nation state is the provision of internal and external security, and thus a subject of budgetary prominence ] [ and oddly enough i get the impression that people hear look to the EU out of fear of outsiders and the future, in which case it is their countries they should be badgering about defence spending.

Quite right. And there is a reason we are in the Nato, there is absolutely no reason to be in the EU but trade. There is absolutely no reason to involve the EU in internal, which would be national, affairs. Even in it's current form it has managed to overrule our high court because they had doubts about a Somali refugee getting a fair trial, at our bloody high court ffs, you would expect that scared the crap out our politicians but no. More government is NEVER a good thing, ever.