Politics Today

[Stuffy]

One for Stuffers from his favourite newspaper..

Though Simon Jenkins is known as a left wing Tory (an endangered species, admittedly)

I am not a pacifist. I accept the need to fight to protect my home, hearth and nation and, in extremis, to uphold some concept of global civilisation against an all-consuming tyrant. I grew up accepting the danger of a nuclear war exchange as real; I was never a member of CND. Nonetheless, it stands to reason that all public expenditure must justify its claim on the taxpayer, especially one such as defence that is essentially precautionary. Defence is an insurance premium, a massive one. But it cannot merely be asserted as necessary, and left to professionals to fix the premium.

Does Britain really need the military?

Our armed forces were made to fight in conventional wars and cannot meet the real threats to modern Britain. So why must we pay £45bn for something that's so obsolete?

www.theguardian.com

That you Arthur here's hoping that none of the ink got on your chips

Interesting picture of the Challenger 2 MBT. I say this because I believe they've stopped making them now. Oh, I believe they simply upgrade the 227 we have left with the 120mm Rheinmetall gun that's used on the German Leopard MBT. That's another job gone to Germany along with Penguin Random House. Incidentally, while we have 227 tanks the Swiss who haven't had a war for 150 years have 380. Strewth!

 

[Hermann]

One for Stuffers from his favourite newspaper..

Though Simon Jenkins is known as a left wing Tory (an endangered species, admittedly)

I am not a pacifist. I accept the need to fight to protect my home, hearth and nation and, in extremis, to uphold some concept of global civilisation against an all-consuming tyrant. I grew up accepting the danger of a nuclear war exchange as real; I was never a member of CND. Nonetheless, it stands to reason that all public expenditure must justify its claim on the taxpayer, especially one such as defence that is essentially precautionary. Defence is an insurance premium, a massive one. But it cannot merely be asserted as necessary, and left to professionals to fix the premium.

Does Britain really need the military?

Our armed forces were made to fight in conventional wars and cannot meet the real threats to modern Britain. So why must we pay £45bn for something that's so obsolete?

www.theguardian.com

It's not so much the spend (although I don't doubt that like every taxpayer funded enterprise there is a lot of waste) but more the focus. We don't really need a large fighting force, except to fulfil our obligations to NATO/UN etc. We're not going to be invaded, and I can't imagine anyone is too keen on a big middle east campaign again. Instead we need to be focusing on cyber warfare (and terrorism of course, but that is a police/intelligence matter rather than military), which is the only way Putin and pals can really threaten us.

 

[Stuffy]

People like Nicky Campbell ?

Could be

 

[Hants_red]

Meanwhile the inevitable campaign to smear Keir takes its first baby steps.

Nadine Dorries told to check 'validity' of social media posts

Minister who shared false allegations about Labour leader told to be more responsible by Tory bosses.

www.bbc.co.uk

Awful false news by Nadine. She has form for supporting the far right and their anti-muslim rhetoric. Will Johnson do anything about it? Of course not, nor will the Tory party.

 

[Rosencrantz]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1260692283625746432

Made me chuckle

 

[elginCity]

Errr, you were saying Elgy?

I was probably saying, don't get so hung up on the hardware, Stuffers, consider the strategy and direction of travel. The Cold War is over, the US compass has now turned towards China.

European strategic autonomy, and its unity, has been encouraged by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan etc Presidents both red and blue, because it's in the US interest. The populist Trump with this blip of isolationism won't be allowed to derail long term US global strategy and influence, any more than the Johnson isolationist blip will derail the US-EU alliance, as Putin wants. This will be the new 'Special Relationship', you'd better get used to it !

“Let me reaffirm clearly the support of this administration for European unity. We consider a strong and united Europe not a rival, but a partner.” – President Ronald Reagan, 1982

 

[Alistair20000]

I was probably saying, don't get so hung up on the hardware, Stuffers, consider the strategy and direction of travel. The Cold War is over, the US compass has now turned towards China.

European strategic autonomy, and its unity, has been encouraged by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan etc Presidents both red and blue, because it's in the US interest. The populist Trump with this blip of isolationism won't be allowed to derail long term US global strategy and influence, any more than the Johnson isolationist blip will derail the US-EU alliance, as Putin wants. This will be the new 'Special Relationship', you'd better get used to it !

“Let me reaffirm clearly the support of this administration for European unity. We consider a strong and united Europe not a rival, but a partner.” – President Ronald Reagan, 1982

What do you think Ronnie meant by those words Elgy ?

 

[Alistair20000]

It's not so much the spend (although I don't doubt that like every taxpayer funded enterprise there is a lot of waste) but more the focus. We don't really need a large fighting force, except to fulfil our obligations to NATO/UN etc. We're not going to be invaded, and I can't imagine anyone is too keen on a big middle east campaign again. Instead we need to be focusing on cyber warfare (and terrorism of course, but that is a police/intelligence matter rather than military), which is the only way Putin and pals can really threaten us.

How can you be sure about that ?

 

[arthur]

How can you be sure about that ?

Have you asked the Costa Ricans the same question?

 

[elginCity]

What do you think Ronnie meant by those words Elgy ?

Draw your own conclusion, Al, but an unequivocal message, I think you'll agree.

March 24, 1982

This year, 1982, marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome. These documents established the European Community, then the second largest trading entity in the world and an emerging influence in international relations.

In his State of the Union message in 1957, President Eisenhower welcomed the efforts of ``our European friends to develop an integrated community.'' Every administration since then has supported that goal. We believed then, and believe now, that a united Europe would achieve economic progress, would play a more effective role in world affairs, and would be better able to join the United States in preserving world peace and security. The European Community has more than redeemed our faith in its purposes. We should not underestimate the progress made in the past quarter century. From a gleam in the eyes of Jean Monnet and others, the Community has become an irreversible and dynamic reality.

Let me reaffirm clearly the support of this administration for European unity. We consider a strong and united Europe not a rival, but a partner. As we enter the second quarter century of relations between the European Community and the United States, we face economic and political challenges as difficult as those which confronted our predecessors in 1957. However, the relationship between Western Europe and the United States has changed fundamentally. In those days the United States was the dominant partner, and Europe had a more dependent role. Now the economic weight of the two sides is more evenly balanced. The gross domestic product of the European Community is comparable to that of the United States. The United States looks to Europe today for cooperation in a spirit of full partnership commensurate with its economic and political importance.

Both Europe and the United States recognize that partnership involves responsibilities. These responsibilities apply to the economic area in particular where we both have the responsibility to avoid actions which have an adverse impact on our trading partners and to preserve our free trading system. They also extend to our common security interests, where we have the responsibility to cooperate on support for like-minded countries seeking closer Western ties, and to resist the efforts of those who do not share our values to extend their power and influence. The European Community, as well as the United States, will provide responsible leadership in these areas in the years ahead.

I have every confidence that in the coming quarter century, we will build an even more productive relationship between the European Community and the United States. As we commemorate the achievements of men like Jean Monnet, we must follow his example and those of the other giants of that generation, looking ahead with vision, courage, and optimism.

Statement on the 25th Anniversary of the European Community

32482c

www.reaganlibrary.gov