.. to think that being unable to project power overseas is a good thing?

[PooshTun]

According to military commanders, the recently announced budget cuts will limit Britain's ability to fight and project power overseas. Gawd Dammit! No more invading/bombing other people' s countries because we don't like their politics or because they might impede our access to oil.

Cory - Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am not saying that being Chinese with an English name means the British Navy must come to your rescue.

I am making the point many HK Chinese were loyal British subjects all their lives, spoke English, were educated in the UK, had family here and adopted English names.

As I've said, kudos to Portugal who offered citizenship to those in the Portuguese colony across the waters.

idont - I don't presume to know more about your home so I'll bow out of the Grenada debate. :)

But do you seriously think that if the whites in South Africa were being ethnically cleansed the Brits would stay out of it like they did with Rwanda and Co?

Basically, unless a conflict is something your Daily Mirror readership would support, the British government will not risk spilling British blood. Unfortunately this is real world politics and I accept it. It just irritates me when posters go on about humanitarian missions.

Well, I suppose the parallel example to your "whites in South Africa" example is the plight of the whites in Zimbabwe, and although I seem to remember talk of planning for a military assisted evacuation, it didn't happen.

I wonder if the comments reported in OP mean that such an evacuation coukd no longer be carried out?

I think Rwanda was rather different - UK was not the former colonial power, and so we had no immediate locus. It was a civil war, not an invasion. UK supported moves in UN to send a military force, and were troop contributors when it happened. Whether the UN should have done more, and faster, is an open question. There are always constraints on what the UN can do, as it has to carry its membership, and this was many years before the Rice doctrine of pre-emptive defence so no model for a nation with no locus to go it alone.

Of course, if UK did not have the capability to project force (though arguably, that is not what we were doing in Rwanda as it was officially a peace-keeping mission), we would have been able to do even less in practical terms. And would have had less influence in getting the UN there at all if we had not been able to offer troops.

PooshTun you make some good points re Grenada, but you're wrong about the Belgrano being a ex-British ship. In WWII it was the USS Phoenix.

PoshTun - I definitely agree with you regarding the realpolitik and it becomes more glaring when African dictators commit war crimes and former colonial powers fail to act but the very same western countries enter into conflict in the Middle East.

The issues the British government had regarding Grenada pointed more to Grenada at that time exerting her independence from former colonial ties - so how would it look for the British to storm in and 'liberate'. It was not that Britain didn't want the Grenadians to be free. Thatcher raised her concerns with Reagan. The Americans really wanted to enter and even bomb us out before the leaders were killed and the situation entered meltdown. Thatcher was against that heavy handed approach. But when the leaders were killed the Americans now had an excuse to enter. Britain still warned the Americans against a heavy handed approach - hence grey area of invasion/intervention.

Britain was concerned that the operation could go horribly war and end up being a super power warring against a tiny country (with the help of the former colonial power). And many talks between Reagan and Thatcher highlight this.

So it is not as straight forward as the Falkland Islands. We have to look at the context of these issues. Again I welcome your comments. I always prefer a healthy debate and I totally respect your points. I just thought it would be nice for a Grenadian perspective to enter the debate. I really don't mean to shut down the debate.

Even back in 1982 the British government's policy on the Falkands was that they had a right to self determination and as they wished to remain British then they would be liberated from the Argentine invasion. To reinforce that point I heard a transcript yesterday or Monday on the One Show of Thatcher saying exactly that. Perhaps OP, you could see it on IPlayer?

Our policy has been since 1945 the same for any overseas territory. There has been wrangling on definitions of protectorates etc on this thread. The key words are overseas territories. As long as the people of those territories wish to remain part of the UK and her overseas territories then they will and will always be protected.

We also go to some lengths to protect British citizens living overseas in countries where it may have become dangerous to live and we always offer to get them out and back to the UK. IMO we should always have enough military forces available to carry out that role.

Under NATO and EU treaties and agreements we protect and defend (and yes sometimes per-emptively). Without our involvement we would be unprotected. We are reducing our military yes, but this is with a concerted effort to share resources with other NATO nations.

I find it so sad when I read on here people saying there are 'some good people in the military' as if these are in the minority. I also find it sad when people appear to lack any sense of respect of our military and are scornful. I also find it sad when people find a military presence scary and unsettling when the military are there to protect our interests. The vast majority are fantastic. There are always a few bad eggs, but in no way should people let that colour their overall opinion as that's monstrously unfair.

I personally would love to go to Zimbabwe to stop the stupidity. Funny how all those white people being persecuted are not being protected by us other than our offer to let them refuge in the UK.

I suppose it also worth remembering we probably are in many areas but it's either not widely publicised or not releasable to the public. 2 areas that are publicised but seem to be often forgotten is the Royal Navy's presence in the Carribean and also anti-piracy in the Horn of Africa. Both enabling capabilities which should not be under-estimated.

"PooshTun you make some good points re Grenada, but you're wrong about the Belgrano being a ex-British ship. In WWII it was the USS Phoenix"

Thanks. I stand corrected. 30 years has dimmed my memory a bit. But the point remains. The UK & Friiends sold arms to Argentina then it was a case of 'Oh My God. We can't let these sheep farmers be governed by this murderous regime'. They were a murderous regime before the invasion.

Huggy - The Falkland islanders at the time were not British citizens. As for the goverment's policy on promoting the right to self determination, how did things work out for the Hong Kong Chinese? :)

"Funny how all those white people being persecuted are not being protected by us other than our offer to let them refuge in the UK"

Thank you for making my point. Do you seriously think that if what I call your Daily Mirror readership identified with a colony full of Chinese people the UK government wouldn't have offered them refuge like the Portuguese did with their Chinese colony?

Although it may seem like it, I am not Brit bashing. I am merely responding to those posters who think that reducing the defence budget will mean that we won't be able to mount another mission like the Falkands one. To me, that isn't a bad thing.

Even if the Falklanders weren't classed as British citizens, they were still an overseas territory. Its difficult to determine a typed tone, but you seem very derogatory about the fact that a lot of them descend from Wales and many were sheep farmers (not the case now). I have been there and believe me they see themselves as British and always have done.

HK was under a 99 year lease from the Chinese. At the 99 year point we handed it back. It was different to all other overseas territories. I also remember HK citizens being offered British passports and, regardless of creed, background, social status etc, if they queued up and applied for one, they got one.

Not sure about Daily Mirror readership as the Mirror is left wing and generally supports immigration issues from ex-colonial nations etc.

You got me there. I got this deep hatred for sheep and all things connected with sheep. You are a very astute person.

LOL at your comments about how all those HK Chinese that queued up for a passport got one. I guess my friends' mistake was that they just didn't stay in the queue long enough. :o You obviously wasn't one of those people campaigning for the UK to emulate Portugal which offered their Macao subjects Portuguese citizenship.

There were issues with people applying too late. I remember that.

We obviously remember that period differently. Maybe you and I watched different programs or read different newspapers :o

I remember one BBC Question Time where a government minister came up with what I thought were rather lame reasons why the government would not be relaxing the immigration rules with regards to Hong Kong.

Another time I remember Norman Tebbit being challenged by the black journalist Trevor Phillips who made the point that many HK Chinese surveyed said that they would not leave their homes, family and jobs to come to the UK but they would like to know that if China decided to violently turn on them that they had the protection of being British citizens. Tebbit said that the HK Chinese were not 'like us' and that the country could not cope should even if a relatively small number claimed residency because there was such a cultural differences.

What cultural difference? They speak English. They aren't radical about religion. They have modern ideas about women and children. They believe in the family and working/studying hard.

Anyway, it was embarrassing watching Tebbit squirm when asked whether he regarded Philips as 'us'.

The nationality rules changed in the 1980s (I think), and most of those in overseas territories were put in the BN(O) category, which did not automatically confer right if residency in UK. Those with eligibility via descent (which may have included Falklanders, and did include some, but not all Hong Kongers, depending on when they migrated, or if they were indigenous) had full British passports. The scheme under which a quota of HKongers could acquire full British nationality on a points based system was introduced following massive public pressure after the Tiananmen massacre.

Edith - The nationality rules were changed in 1983.

Re points system, the actually quota was quite limited and it merely made it easier for those who had served the Crown to emigrate i.e. senior civil servants, senior members of the Royal Hong Kong Police and the like.

I had HK friends who couldn't garner enough points despite being British degree educated and IT professionals. Oh well, in the end they just had to make do with Vancouver and Los Angeles :o

There was also a category for working for a British company. I wonder how easy it was to decide what counted as British?

the ability to speak like Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins"? :)

WetAugust
sorry couldn't resist

So much for the MOD's financial competence?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9288954/Ministry-of-Defence-pays-millions-to-rehire-sacked-civilians.html

DP works in local gov IT. A few years ago the order came from above to reduce the permie headcount so staff were asked to volunteer for reduntancy. Those with ability and marketable skills took the money and promptly got jobs elsewhere. Those that were lazy or unemployable stayed put. After about a year Management realised that the staff left weren't up to the job and because of union rules they couldn't be let go so IT contractors were brought in to plug the gap.

The whole cost saving exercise ended up costing the authority more money. We can laugh about it because we aren't council tax payers there.

Maybe the answer is to privatise local government and the DOD :)