[moodymonster]

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.
Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

Meanwhile the French navy, which will be far superior to the Royal Navy after the cuts, will announce before the April presidential elections that a new carrier will be built.

A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."

Telegraph | News | Navy to cut its fleet by half

I guess that's what happens when the gov't takes the country to war and doesn't increase the defence budget.

Navy Matters | Home Page

So to pay for the war in Iraq and A'stan we're getting rid of units that aren't at the forefront of this war. So next time when a ship is attacked or an area mined, or pirates attack or whatever unseen threat arises the RN won't be there - the threat may arise through the Navy's non-existence. Supremely dumb.

Removing these assets represents an exponential decrease in the RN's capabilities. And places our national security firmly in the hands of our 'allies'. Who can be relied on to only work in their own national interests, which may or may not coincide.

This gov't are helping to create the conditions for major conflict in the not too distant future.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop the destruction of the Royal Navy and spend the defence budget more wisely.

[Doofy]

The EU (and their integration plans) are behind this. For sure.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The EU (and their integration plans) are behind this. For sure.

Nice excuse for dropping the ball on being a world power.

-t

[moodymonster]

no, it's more down to the imcompetance of this gov't and their short-sightedness.

They are cutting to fund the wars, removing defence capabilities when threats around the world are growing.

Look at the UK defence budget, compare to the US one.

2001
UK £23.9 US $303
2002
UK £23.8 US $336.8
2003
UK £24.2 US $383.2
2004
UK £24.3 US $416.7
2005
UK £24.6 US $411.4

So in order to pay for war the US gov't allocates extra money. Whereas the UK gov't removes our existing capabilities to pay for it. The gov't takes no responsibility for anything, including paying for a war of choice.

Essentially they're running a war with a peacetime armed forces, on a peacetime budget.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

no, it's more down to the imcompetance of this gov't and their short-sightedness.

They are cutting to fund the wars, removing defence capabilities when threats around the world are growing.

Look at the UK defence budget, compare to the US one.

2001
UK £23.9 US $303
2002
UK £23.8 US $336.8
2003
UK £24.2 US $383.2
2004
UK £24.3 US $416.7
2005
UK £24.6 US $411.4

So in order to pay for war the US gov't allocates extra money. Whereas the UK gov't removes our existing capabilities to pay for it. The gov't takes no responsibility for anything, including paying for a war of choice.

Essentially they're running a war with a peacetime armed forces, on a peacetime budget.

Just as a note, the increases in the US defense budget have NOT been offset by decreases in other parts of our national budget. It is all deficit spending. So, we in the US are going to have a nice trillion $$$ addition to our national debt because of spending increases on defense and the War on Terror.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The EU (and their integration plans) are behind this. For sure.

… since the EU is in charge of Britain's defense budget

[Doofy]

Let me explain: The EU is trying to form a single country (like the US). Those governments in the current EU which are most compliant with these measures (and play along) are those populated by socialists and commies. Like the UK government, for example.

I guess it all depends on whether one believes that the current UK government are incompetent or are actually quite competent in working to a hidden agenda. I believe the latter, since I don't believe that anyone is actually as stupid as NuLabour make themselves out to be.

Oh, and I probably read too much Vladimir Bukovsky.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just as a note, the increases in the US defense budget have NOT been offset by decreases in other parts of our national budget. It is all deficit spending. So, we in the US are going to have a nice trillion $$$ addition to our national debt because of spending increases on defense and the War on Terror.

worth pointing out.

but a deficit is better than removing defence capabilities.

[OreoCookie]

@Doofy
This has nothing to do with the current topic.

[moodymonster]

UK gov't - not stupid, but so enthralled in their own beliefs they lack the ability to see what is going on. Don't have to be stupid to be incompetent.
I don't think it would be massively different under a Conserlabtive gov't either. Whoever we get, we're buggered.

The cuts would have happened under Thatcher had the Falklands not happened. The forces that went there weren't fit for task - Air Defence ships outfitted with 1950s radars etc (the ships were modern - just fitted with old gear - new missiles though). Had Argentina waited a few years and let us get rid of those forces, we would only been able to watch impotently as they took UK territory leading to a decline in UK standing around the world.

[olePigeon]

John Cleese should run for Prime Minister. That'll fix things.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let me explain: The EU is trying to form a single country (like the US).

No cigar for Doofy. First off, what is "the EU"? You refer to it like it's some kind of separate body with its own agenda. I hope you don't have the same problem with understanding what the EU is that you have with understanding what the UN is. If the Brits don't want something to happen in the EU, they are fully capable of stopping it. Heck, they could just leave the EU if they wanted to. Secondly, there is absolutely no suggestion by any government in the EU that the EU states amalgamate into a single country. To suggest that countries like France or the UK would even vaguely agree to that is ridiculous.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Doofy
This has nothing to do with the current topic.

Incorrect. It's the reason that the UK government act the way they do. You can choose not to believe this, but you'd be wrong.

I'm pretty sure I can link most of the actions of the UK government over the last ten years to EU directives in some form or another.

Originally Posted by Troll 

No cigar for Doofy. First off, what is "the EU"? You refer to it like it's some kind of separate body with its own agenda. I hope you don't have the same problem with understanding what the EU is that you have with understanding what the UN is. If the Brits don't want something to happen in the EU, they are fully capable of stopping it. Heck, they could just leave the EU if they wanted to. Secondly, there is absolutely no suggestion by any government in the EU that the EU states amalgamate into a single country. To suggest that countries like France or the UK would even vaguely agree to that is ridiculous.

You've not read Maastricht or the still-active and pursued constitution, have you?

Here's some primer from the pro-EU BBC:

What the constitution says:

The EU will for the first time have a "legal personality" and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: "The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states."

What it means:

This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails.

By having a "legal personality", the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.


What the constitution says:

A new procedure describes how a member would leave the EU: " A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal."

What it means:

It was always the case that a member state could leave by simply repealing its own legislation. Now there is a formal procedure designed to show that the EU is a voluntary association. However a departing member would have to agree terms so there is an implied threat that it would not be that easy.

This clause is presumably designed never to be used.

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | What the EU constitution says

Wiki on the Amsterdam treaty:

The Amsterdam Treaty meant a greater emphasis on citizenship and the rights of individuals, more democracy in the shape of increased powers for the European Parliament, a new title on employment, a Community area of freedom, security and justice, the beginnings of a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the reform of the institutions in the run-up to enlargement.

Looks like an organisation trying for a US-style system to me.

The UK's armed forces cuts are designed by a wildly pro-EU government to render us less independent so that we further integrate and depend on the relationship with other member states. Period.

[Big Mac]

I say Doofy for PM.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You've not read Maastricht or the still-active and pursued constitution, have you?

Actually, I read Maastricht every other day and have read the Constitution more times than I care to remember. I remind you that the Constitution does not apply. It has been rejected. Even if it did nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to forming a single country. Not even a hint of a suggestion.

EU law already do trump national laws. However, the members of the EU themselves decide what topics the EU is competent to pass laws on. And those laws have to be enacted into local legislation. As I said, the UK has representatives in the law-making commissions and if the UK really had a problem with something, it could simply withdraw from the EU. That is certainly what France and Italy and Spain would do if anyone ever suggested a single state. And the agreement to terms is not conditional upon the state leaving. How do you think other states would force the UK to stay in the EU if it didn't want to? That's ridiculous. The reason the UK stays in the EU is because it's making you stinking bloody rich.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Looks like an organisation trying for a US-style system to me.

That doesn't mean it is so.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The UK's armed forces cuts are designed by a wildly pro-EU government to render us less independent so that we further integrate and depend on the relationship with other member states. Period.

Well then the UK government is stupider than even I thought. There is no EU-wide military agreement so putting your security in the hands of France and Germany and Spain and Italy and others is a pretty stupid thing to do. Most of the other member states have been increasing their military spending. How do you explain THEIR reaction? Are they not dominated by "wildly pro-EU governments"?

[OreoCookie]

The EU is based international treaties. As soon as a treaty is signed and ratified (by the respective parliament following the correct procedures), it becomes national law, Doofy. So the EU doesn't `trump' British (or more general: national) law, but a national law says so.

If your own government wants to promote EU integration and cooperation, it's a national decision to do so, but not a conscious decision by an abstract entity -- the EU -- to manipulate Britain into compliance and to systematically weaken GB. The most important decisions are made by the governments directly and have to be unanimous. Nobody can force Great Britain to do anything, unless it agrees to do so or is already obligated by certain treaties (which have since become national law). So stop making it seem as if the evil EU is out there to hurt and weaken poor GB. Instead, you may still criticize your own government for making the wrong strategic decisions over the last several decades.

Sounds to me you are still nostalgic and yearning for the days when the UK was a world power. It's not and hasn't been for at least 80 years.

[moodymonster]

I don't think it's part of some wide ranging EU conspiracy, rather a tradition of neglecting the armed forces and shortsighted planning, relying on the hope that the resources won't be needed. The UK at the moment doesn't have carrier fighter aircraft, and won't for at least a decade. If you look at Australia who are also getting the JSF - they're looking to get Super Hornets to fill the gap in the meantime. Hope isn't a good insurance policy.

The forces are always the easy target for cuts. This is true for all political parties. This gov't however has used the forces far more than anyone else for decades whilst simultaneously cutting them. The wars in A'stan and Iraq haven't been funded by extra money, but by cutting future projects and neglecting current ones. Alongside reducing current capabilites as well. (At the same time spending £2.3B on furnishing MOD offices in London btw - the civil servants need those fancy doors, marble floors and £1000 chairs!)

We're also using tankers to carry out patrols in some places instead of warships.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I remind you that the Constitution does not apply. It has been rejected.

This shows to me that you don't really know what's going on. Sure, the constitution has been rejected by the people. But did you know that every part of it is being run through as separate legislation, under the radar?

Originally Posted by Troll 

The reason the UK stays in the EU is because it's making you stinking bloody rich.

No it isn't. The EU costs the UK £150bn per year.

Sorry guys, you're all being hoodwinked. Print this thread out and put in a safe place for 20 years. Then come back and read it with 20/20.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So stop making it seem as if the evil EU is out there to hurt and weaken poor GB. Instead, you may still criticize your own government for making the wrong strategic decisions over the last several decades.

The EU is a communist project (read some Bukovsky).
The UK government is a bunch of commies.

I'm not saying it's the EU. I'm saying it's the EU, the UK government and every other commie turd out there. All of them.

The reason for this is exactly as stated: to weaken independence and promote interdependency. It's the exact same reason that sees the UK export the same quantity of potatoes to Germany each year as it imports from Germany. Let's coin a new phrase: Interdependency Generation. There ya go.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This shows to me that you don't really know what's going on. Sure, the constitution has been rejected by the people. But did you know that every part of it is being run through as separate legislation, under the radar?

No, YOU don't know what's going on. Practically everything that is set out in the Constitution is ALREADY part of the law. The Constitution was largely an exercise in consolidation not an exercise in law-making.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No it isn't. The EU costs the UK £150bn per year.

And what do you get in return? Why is London suddenly the financial capital of the world? I'll tell you. Because the UK is part of the EU. Because the Euro is the de facto currency in financial London. The UK is rich today because it's part of the EU.

[moodymonster]

The UK was rich before the EU. London was a financial capital before the EU even existed.

Changes during the 80s have had a great affect on London, paving the way for how it is today.

loads more here:

The golden gateway - Sunday Times - Times Online

The causes of London’s ascendancy are complex and include 9/11, Enron, cluster theory, time zones, the decline of the dollar and the rise of the pound, India, China, Russia, the Middle Eastern petrodollar boom, the legal system, private equity, hedge funds and many other local and global changes. But to understand the background you need to know about top hats and big, greasy bangers washed down with pints of bitter, about white port and long, boozy lunches. As recently as 30 years ago, the City was a very different place. It was a big club centred around Threadneedle Street and the Royal Exchange. Computers were nonexistent and brokers wrote down deals in longhand. The stock exchange had a real market floor using an antiquated system that divided brokers, who brought in the business and worked for fixed commission, from jobbers, some of whom wore silk top hats, who made the market in shares.

All took long lunches, usually plates of solid cholesterol in dark pubs. In this flushed, Dickensian world, men of insurance, law, accountancy, shipping, pork bellies, gold, copper and zinc returned, dazed, to their offices to lie down if the dreaded white port – a killer, never touch it – had been served with the coffee. One City veteran recalls seeing an overindulgent colleague arriving back at his office and stepping out of a taxi still holding a glass. “I thought then, ‘This has got to stop.’”

And it did. Twenty years ago, Margaret Thatcher, encouraged by her industry secretary, Cecil Parkinson, set off a bomb beneath the stock exchange. It was, in fact, called the Big Bang, and it involved the radical deregulation of the financial markets. It ended fixed-share commissions on trading shares, introduced corporate ownership of brokers and paved the way for screen-based trading. The effect was to destroy the closed trading shop and open the City’s doors to the world. It blew the Square Mile into the future – by simultaneously blasting it back into its past. The City came into being because of its laissez-faire attitude. Three hundred years ago, east Europeans, Germans, French and Chinese arrived and began trading everything from textiles to gold. They were attracted by London’s commercial and social freedoms.

Frankfurt, home of the European Central Bank, was supposed to take over from the City as Europe’s financial hub following the introduction of the new currency. It is now little more than an oxbow lake off the Thames. Canary Wharf is a larger financial centre than the German city, with lmost 80,000 working there for companies such as HSBC, Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Bank of America. More euros are traded each day in London than in the rest of Europe combined. “London has thrived unashamedly despite the fact we haven’t joined the euro,” says Michael Spencer, reputedly the City’s richest man, worth at least £600m, and chief executive of the trading giant Icap. “Let's amuse ourselves with the many cries at the time that, if we didn’t join the euro, the City of London would be overtaken.”

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

No, YOU don't know what's going on. Practically everything that is set out in the Constitution is ALREADY part of the law. The Constitution was largely an exercise in consolidation not an exercise in law-making.

We must be reading different constitutions.

Originally Posted by Troll 

And what do you get in return?

Shed-loads of Eastern European immigrants skewing the job market. Not that I care, 'coz I like your average Eastern European. But that's it. That's the sum total of the benefit to us from the EU.

Originally Posted by Troll 

Why is London suddenly the financial capital of the world?

It is?

[moodymonster]

London is the financial capital of the world.

[Doofy]

Damn. I'll have to stop looking at the Dow then.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Damn. I'll have to stop looking at the Dow then.

Last month, the FT announced that London had finally upstaged New York as the financial capital of the world. Based on the amount of money that flows through London I think. It was A financial capital before. Now it is (once again) THE financial capital.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Last month, the FT announced that London had finally upstaged New York as the financial capital of the world. Based on the amount of money that flows through London I think.

Yeah, that'd be our tax dollar being siphoned off through Whitehall to Brussels and Africa.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Last month, the FT announced that London had finally upstaged New York as the financial capital of the world. Based on the amount of money that flows through London I think. It was A financial capital before. Now it is (once again) THE financial capital.

But Troll - shurely you're not suggesting that multinational financial institutions seek to maximise their profits in a country run by a bunch of commies?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by nath 

But Troll - shurely you're not suggesting that multinational financial institutions seek to maximise their profits in a country run by a bunch of commies?

Absolutely not. I'm suggesting that they choose to maximise their profits in a country run by Africa-loving hippies.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Absolutely not. I'm suggesting that they choose to maximise their profits in a country run by Africa-loving hippies.

Oh no! The multinationals must be in on the plan to hide the fact that what appears to be a vaguely unpleasant and incompetent right wing government is in fact a secret society of communists, dedicated to the construction of a European Super State of Communist Metrosexuals.

Damn them and their evil Stalinist machinations!!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, that'd be our tax dollar being siphoned off through Whitehall to Brussels and Africa.

I don't think `your' tax pounds don't even come close to the net capital flow through London