Westministenders: Boris and The By-Elections

[RedToothBrush]

You lot post too fast!

A50 has made it out of the Commons without any amends. Its on its way to the Lords, but this week is half term, so in theory not much going on (in the UK at least). It hit the Lords on the 20th where it might not get such an easy ride. The Lords will not (and CAN NOT) stop brexit or frustrate it. But the numbers are in perhaps more favour of amendments if they choose to go that way, than the Commons. This would throw the bill back to the Commons. This is pretty reasonable.

In the meantime its 12 days to go until the Copeland and Stoke Central By-Elections.

Leave.Eu think UKIP have Stoke in the bag. They think there will be a 33% turnout. I think a turnout that high is the land of fantasy. Paul Nuttalls who was at Hillsborough is now a devout Stokie who has lived there all his life. Except of course he isn't.

Copeland looks like it will go Conservative. Its theirs to throw away. It would be the first victory for a sitting government in a by-election since 1983 if they make it. They intend to use a victory as another argument for a 'mandate'. But have they managed to drop a nuclear booboo?

One more Question. What are the chances of this thread making it to the 23rd?!

There you go prettybird wonder how many English migrants NS is willing to take.
www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-majority-back-independent-scotland-in-or-out-of-eu-1-4367975

And It is hard to know who your allies are, sometimes. Don't forget the US were spying on the the Germans only recently. Wikileaks let it slip about the phone tapping.

If Gibraltar becomes victim to Spanish aggression, who's 'fault' is that?
I would argue that Spain in responsible for Spain's actions, no one else.

This is very disingenous - though in fairness the article headline is also misleading.

Parallels with the ROI are wrong: the ROI is outside Schenghen, so at the moment, Schenghen controls take place between the ROI and the mainland European Schenghen zone. This makes it (potentially) feasible, post brexit, to maintain FOM across the NI/ROI border as at present.

Spain is inside Schenghrn though so the Spain-Gibralter border will be the external border for the Schenghen zone as well as the external EU border.

Obviously there are going to be controls! How can anyone who knows anything about the EU believe otherwise? Once someone crosses from Gibralter into Spain, they can circulate freely throughout the Schenghen zone. Spain will have to verify that people crossing the border have an EU/ EEA passport or a Schenghen visa/ visa waiver. They will no longer be able to assume that most of those crossing are EU citizens, as they can do at present, because most Gibralter residents who are not dual citizens will no longer have an EU passport.

Gibraltar, sorry ~blush~

the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years
So it's reassuring that mad dog Matiss is in charge atm.
And Fallon was saying this a year ago:
In an interview with the Telegraph, the Defence Secretary says Vladimir Putin would be pleased by Brexit, as he warns the security threats facing Britain mean it is no time to "hide under the duvets"

"If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years".

Personally that sounds a tad over optimistic.

The UK just about managed the theoretical and practical science behind the multi-stage bomb in the 1950s. I would be amazed if we had even one-hundredth of that capability today.

The UK needs to realign its ambitions with its skills base. So who cares if we can't design and build a nuclear weapon ? We could make an awesome documentary about how the US did. With Benedict Cumberbatch playing Robert Oppenheim.

No more Benedict Cumberbatch in anything. Dad's Army might be more appropriate at this point.

On the ground, it was reported in the autumn that years of defence cuts means that armed forces may not have the personel to use new state of the art equipment.

Regular army numbers are being cut from 100,000 in 2010 to 80,000 by 2020.

The coalition gov cut the defence budget by 20%.

So we may have all this shiny new equipment and no-one and no infrastructure to operate it.

unicorns While we will have our 'own' defence systems, we'll only be able to use them on the US say so. Sigh. I do wish people would educate themselves on this point. It is down to the British PM if we use Trident, no-one else,; just as during Kosovo, it was T Blair that gave approval for the UK launched Tomahawk strikes, not POTUS. Ask any nuclear submariner and they'll tell you precisely that.

Cailleach1 And? The whole point of collective defence and standardisation is that we pool and share resources, which is what is happening with Trident. I note that the US doesn't choose to share this particular technology with any other country bar us. I also note that we buy materiel from other countries - we buy TLAM from Raytheon which is a US company, as does the US govt. The Eurofighter Typhoon is being built by us and 3 other nations, so the Trident set up is really not that unusual.

We could go France's route and do our own nuclear deterrent, but the US have the expertise and resources, and are happy to sell to us.

Isn't the TA being roped into more and more professional soldiering?

The decimation of the armed forces has been ongoing for a couple of decades now.
Started under Labour & continued with the coalition; only since the 2015 GE has there been any sort of attempt to halt the decline.

The premature release rate of some of the most skilled trades is enormously high at the moment, and has been for some time.

So we may have all this shiny new equipment and no-one and no infrastructure to operate it.

Weeeellll

we have aircraft carriers with no aircraft. And if Trump is serious about scrapping the F35 ...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/donald-trump-pledges-cut-military-budget-criticising-control/

(snip)

But defence experts told this newspaper there would be disastrous consequences for Britain if Mr Trump were to put the plan on the scrap heap at this late stage.

"If the US were to cancel the programme in its entirety tomorrow, the UK would truly be up a creek without a paddle," Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said.

Financially, Britain would lose the £2billion it has contributed to the research and development of the supersonic jet, which has been designed to avoid detection on enemy radar.

(contd)

the fact that La May mentioned not a jot of this on her triumphant return from the US speaks volumes. It certainly suggests that a certain orange-haired SCROTUS has his clammy hands around the UKs ever-shrinking testicles ...

So who cares if we can't design and build a nuclear weapon ? We could make an awesome documentary about how the US did. With Benedict Cumberbatch playing Robert Oppenheim.

Along somewhat similar lines, and pardon the disgression, has anyone listened to the Radio 3 dramatisation of Michael Frayn's Copenhagen? It has Cumberbatch as Heisenberg and Simon Russell Beale as Nils Bohr. It's excellent.

Financially, Britain would lose the £2billion it has contributed to the research and development of the supersonic jet, which has been designed to avoid detection on enemy radar

£2 b:That's a few hospitals' budgets.
Which won't be needed if we've been bombed by the Russians.

We could go France's route and do our own nuclear deterrent, but the US have the expertise and resources, and are happy to sell to us.

Hardly indicative of "taking back control", though ? Also (as pointed out) relies on the US being of the same mind. Those of us who know the history of the UKs nuclear deterrence will remember only too well how Macmillan was forced to beg Kennedy to allow the UK access to US technology. (They will also know the price Macmillan had already paid to Eisenhower previously). What does the UK do if Trump suddenly realityizes that the US shouldn't sell nuclear secrets to anyone ? Or doubles the price. Put a tender out to the world ? Or suddenly discover we've always been friends with North Korea ?

Personally I don't see the UK needs to be a nuclear dick-swinger anyway. Not when people go cold, hungry and ill. But if we were to invest in nuclear science, a good aim would be to become 100% self sufficient in energy - and lead the world in Thorium power.

Isn't the TA being roped into more and more professional soldiering?

In theory, it just hasn't happened. It costs money to train soldiers.

The decimation of the armed forces has been ongoing for a couple of decades now.

Sure, but the financial crisis made deep cuts inevitable. Since the economy started to recover it was stepped up again. So now they've got a whole lot of equipment on order, without the numbers to man it.

In addition the ministry of defence has a £700million black hole this year due to sterling's plunge - where military equipment have been made in dollars.

Wonder how many EU nations have mums buying equipment and clothing for their boys in the front line.

Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler if you think we're on the run?

Woman several. Germany had to pull its soldiers off exercise because they had hit the overtime limit (rofl).

The state of defence in some NATO nations who are also EU member states is parlous. The UK has been underfunding for years, and needs to spend far more, but we are hitting the 2% according to the NATO metrics.

Wouldn't mind learning how to use a gun though, Mums army?
Women's marches could take on a whole new meaning.

Lurking I think you are confusing the EU and NATO. The latter is not part of the EU, and is purely a defence alliance. What we do vis a vis defence and NATO is nothing to do with leaving the EU. They are entirely separate issues and organisations.

But if we were to invest in nuclear science, a good aim would be to become 100% self sufficient in energy - and lead the world in Thorium power
Thorium power sounds brilliant, if only we had some nuclear scientists; Mums Eurtatom anyone?.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy/#.WKW_xlLYDzI

Sure, but the financial crisis made deep cuts inevitable. Since the economy started to recover it was stepped up again. So now they've got a whole lot of equipment on order, without the numbers to man it.

The worst cuts were made long before the financial crisis.

Ironically, it was the financial crisis that kept their numbers at good levels.
The RAF were on the verge of a manning crisis in the late 2000s, then the crisis happened and people who were about to leave stayed in instead.

As soon as the jobs market started opening up again (2012ish) the skilled people started to leave again, culminating in them haemorrhaging out over the last few years.

That's why there's not anywhere near the optimum number of skilled personnel anymore.

Mistigri The 2% thing is largely symbolic. No it's not symbolic at all. It's measure that allies are bound to spend over a variety of metrics to ensure that they can contribute to the Alliance as and when the Alliance needs it.

I used Luxembourg as an example as it is a country with a high GDP that doesn't meet the 2% as it has a very small defences, and thus finds it hard to meet the 2% across the specified metrics. Being landlocked takes away the opportunity to have a maritime capability for example. However, Luxembourg can meet the 2% by assisting in other areas and providing money/materiel etc. Belgium doesn't meet it either by a long chalk. Other Allies keep trying to push out the period over which they will meet the target, and Mattis has finally said enough. This has been coming for a decade at least.

Semi Boots were a larger employer than the RN from the early 2000s I think.

Gloria The Army was aiming at 80,000 before that and I thought they had got there by now. They tried to avoid doing their redundancies until the last possible minute though. The RN and RAF were well down the track by the time the Army kicked itself into gear.