EU President has the charisma of a damp rag

[Furunculus]

How can we defend the realm's sovereignty against enemies if we look like a bunch of rednecks?

the way we have always done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy

:p

[Louis VI the Fat]

if we look like a bunch of rednecks

One will find all European countries have a large, populist rightwing. Of whom provocations and insults are not merely expected, but for whom this is an essential means to mobilise their electorate, to show them they are one of them.

I shall maintain this is not about Belgium versus the UK.

Even so, a slight expression of regret that Belgium (how have they ever wronged the UK?) should've been publically insulted by a Briton who, if he not represents Britain, was elected by British, would show why the UK was once a byword on the continent for good manners and inhibited political reticence.

[tibilicus]

the way we have always done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy

:p

Isn't the RN due for massive cuts?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Isn't the RN due for massive cuts?

Yeah, I was just making a presentation the last week in my Comparative Politics class on that. Massive indeed. Especially those aircraft carries - ouch, they are everything to a navy in these times. But I do not see why Britain should sink into even deeper hole because of such a relatively unnecessary spending. As long as UK navy is comfortably ahead of Argentina, it will be alright, especially with the NATO.

[Furunculus]

Yeah, I was just making a presentation the last week in my Comparative Politics class on that. Massive indeed. Especially those aircraft carries - ouch, they are everything to a navy in these times. But I do not see why Britain should sink into even deeper hole because of such a relatively unnecessary spending.

As long as UK navy is comfortably ahead of Argentina, it will be alright, especially with the NATO.

lol, because we spend soooooo much on Defence!

i didn't realise that Britains strategic interests started and stopped at the falklands........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceej...CC9FA&index=16
At around 2:00.

Hannan protests an anti-fillibustering law by comparing this to a Hitler putsch by the German Parliament President Pöttering. A man who sadly never knew his father because he tragically died in WWII, which was influential in this well-respected Christian-Democrat's strive towards a democratic Germany and Europe.

Dear oh dear.

I link to the video because it shows another face of British conservatism. Christopher Beazley. He tells Hannan he can't say this, and asks him to 'step outside with him'. Now there's a British Conservative* for you. A British Conservatism that is more gentle, more 'British' too, taking pride from good manners instead of the absense of it.


*Beazley has communists for breakfast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_..._and_Communism

hannan was right, blithely setting aside democratic institutions so that affairs can move 'forward' is something germany should be both familiar with and wary of, and as an object lesson to the EU it was very apt even if it was also a little tasteless.

[Aemilius Paulus]

lol, because we spend soooooo much on Defence!

Of course not, but most countries can use a defence spending cut, especially with their economy in such a state.

i didn't realise that Britains strategic interests started and stopped at the falklands........

They are the main ones under possible danger. Can you give me another similar example of a British possession threatened by a nation with a viable military? Gibraltar ? Argentina is the measuring stick for the Brits, as I said. It was my understand that if the UK had a comfortable superiority against the Argentinian forces, that would be enough for anything else. Or are you worried the Litvinenko affair may escalate ? I could very well be mistaken here, but I would need you to point out where more vital and threatened interests of Britain lay.





You could have just enjoyed our rare agreement, moment of convergence on the issues of that outspoken MEP and left it at that, but noooo, you conservatives....

[Furunculus]

Of course not, but most countries can use a defence spending cut, especially with their economy in such a state.

They are the main ones under possible danger. Can you give me another similar example of a British possession threatened by a nation with a viable military? Gibraltar ? Argentina is the measuring stick for the Brits, as I said. It was my understand that if the UK had a comfortable superiority against the Argentinian forces, that would be enough for anything else. Or are you worried the Litvinenko affair may escalate ? I could very well be mistaken here, but I would need you to point out where more vital and threatened interests of Britain lay.

You could have just enjoyed our rare agreement, moment of convergence on the issues of that outspoken MEP and left it at that, but noooo, you conservatives....

The first duty of the sovereign nation state, the provision of internal and external security, should not be subject to such budgetary belt-tightening when it:
> occupies a mere 5% of annual government spending
> is not the cause of the present financial difficulties
> has not been grossly inflated in recent years, and therefore likely to be packed with waste

oh how wrong you are, Britains military responsibilities extend far beyond such piffling local matters as the falklands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ent_operations

no, sadly i have the inescapable need to disagree with people who i believe to be misguided. :)

[Aemilius Paulus]

oh how wrong you are, Britains military responsibilities extend far beyond such piffling local matters as the falklands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ent_operations

No, I did not mean the places where you voluntarily intervene, in your imperialistic delusions, which your nation still retains to some degree, operate. I meant the dependent territories of your Commonwealth (i.e. Pitcairn, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Falklands, Tristan de Cunya [sp?], etc)

[Boohugh]

Massive indeed. Especially those aircraft carries - ouch, they are everything to a navy in these times. But I do not see why Britain should sink into even deeper hole because of such a relatively unnecessary spending.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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?

[Furunculus]

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?

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.

[Andres]

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceej...CC9FA&index=16
At around 2:00.

Hannan protests an anti-fillibustering law by comparing this to a Hitler putsch by the German Parliament President Pöttering. A man who sadly never knew his father because he tragically died in WWII, which was influential in this well-respected Christian-Democrat's strive towards a democratic Germany and Europe.

Dear oh dear.

I link to the video because it shows another face of British conservatism. Christopher Beazley. He tells Hannan he can't say this, and asks him to 'step outside with him'. Now there's a British Conservative* for you. A British Conservatism that is more gentle, more 'British' too, taking pride from good manners instead of the absense of it.


*Beazley has communists for breakfast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_..._and_Communism

[Subotan]

Hannan protests an anti-fillibustering law by comparing this to a Hitler putsch by the German Parliament President Pöttering. A man who sadly never knew his father because he tragically died in WWII, which was influential in this well-respected Christian-Democrat's strive towards a democratic Germany and Europe.

Dear oh dear.

I thought I recognised him! That's the NHS hater!

[Furunculus]

I thought I recognised him! That's the NHS hater!

you mean the person who recognises that other nations operatings other systems of healthcare achieve much better outcomes from their health service as a percentage of GDP spent?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ts-on-the-nhs/

Interrupting my holiday with some thoughts on the NHS


By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: August 12th, 2009

149 Comments

Five different BBC journalists have phoned today – presumably in response to this piece in the Independent. That’s the Beeb for you, I suppose: I’ve been setting out my views on healthcare in some detail over the years but, since I’ve been doing so mainly in the Telegraph, our state broadcaster hasn’t noticed.

I am blogging from Dax where the feria is in full swing, the streets swaying with white-clad French people in red neckerchiefs and sashes. I love French ferias, and am still daydreaming of a repetition of this episode. But I am nowehere near a studio, so any journalists wanting a line from me will have to make do with the following.

1. In The Plan, published last year and co-authored with Douglas Carswell, I set out at length a scheme to replace the current government monopoly in healthcare with a Singapore-style system of personal health accounts. The Singapore system produces better outcomes than ours for half the price. If we spent the same percentage of GDP on healthcare as now, but put equivalent power in the hands of our consumers, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that we would be much healthier. (Incidentally, the state pays for those who can’t afford their own accounts in Singapore, as in every developed country. It never ceases to amaze me how many British people have been convinced that free healthcare for the poor is a unique property of the NHS.)

2. I am not the Conservative Party’s healthcare spokesman. I’m fond of Andrew Lansley, and I strongly support David Cameron as party leader. On this issue, though, I disagree with both of them.

3. When I was in Washington last week, I joked that, within minutes of my speech, John Prescott would be accusing me of “insulting our hard-working doctors and nurses”. I over-estimated the old bruiser: it took him a week. The idea that I – or anyone else – would set out to offend 1.4 million NHS workers needs only to be stated to see how silly it is. You see how the Left works, though. Any suggestion that the NHS might be improved upon is shouted down as an attack on the people in it – which is precisely the point I was making about how hard it is to reform so large a bureaucracy.

4. I particularly like Prezza’s idea that being “Progressive” means refusing to countenance any change to a system designed in 1944.

5. It seems increasingly obvious that American voters are turning against Barack Obama’s plans. That’s not to say that the Dems won’t get something called “health reform” through: they have invested too much political capital not to. But British-style state-administered hospitals – that plainly ain’t gonna happen.

6. Which raises the intriguing question of whether Britain would establish the NHS today.