Brexit.

[Arkady Arkright]

Found on Youtube :- Brexiteers Were Right - Brexit Is Creating Benefits*!
* just not for the UK...

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Why Britain and France Hate Each Other

The two countries are more similar than is often acknowledged.

www.theatlantic.com

Evernote link

England (not Britain) and France have been frenemies for a thousand years now -- of course it's a complex relationship.

 

[Free]

Why Britain and France Hate Each Other

The two countries are more similar than is often acknowledged.

www.theatlantic.com

England (not Britain) and France have been frenemies for a thousand years now -- of course it's a complex relationship.

Let's be thankful that we already know they eventually heal their political divisions.

 

[Sid]

I'm totally in favor of a NAxit.
If some allies want to screw somebody, it should better be among themselves then one of us (the EU), like now France with the submarine deal between the USA and Australia, while there was a deal with France already made.
Europe should start to spend more of the military budget within the EU.
Let's break up the NATO and do it all by ourselves. It is good for our economy in the end if we start to develop and produce out own systems.
And that when more independent on materials we should step out of the NATO.

Why spend most of it in the USA now.
It does not seem to matter much if there is a Republican or a Democrat in office.
The USA and the UK are no longer really 100% trustworthy

Of course we can work as close together as possible.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm totally in favor of a NAxit.
If some allies want to screw somebody, it should better be among themselves then one of us (the EU), like now France with the submarine deal between the USA and Australia, while there was a deal with France already made.
Europe should start to spend more of the military budget within the EU.
Let's break up the NATO and do it all by ourselves. It is good for our economy in the end if we start to develop and produce out own systems.
And that when more independent on materials we should step out of the NATO.

Why spend most of it in the USA now.
It does not seem to matter much if there is a Republican or a Democrat in office.
The USA and the UK are no longer really 100% trustworthy

Of course we can work as close together as possible.

The problem, at least for the EU, I think, is cost.

In 2020, the US spent $US778.0 billion on defence, and China spent $US252 bn. Russia spent US$61.7bn and the UK US$59.2 bn .

France spent $52.7bn and Germany $52.8bn. Italy spent $28.9bn, and I don't know how much the others spent because they're not in the world's top 15 military spenders and I couldn't be bothered to look it up.

How large an army do you want, how much extra do you want to spend on defence a year in The Netherlands, which could otherwise be spent on health, education, the environment, tax cuts, whatever, and what's the potential cost -- financial, strategic and tactical -- of having different kit and supplies from the US and UK?

 

[Sid]

A rich union as the EU should be capable to build the most modern and efficient defense in the world within a decade if they only could get over it to give up national armies and unite them to one EU force and invest in own development. Totally within the 3% of the national budget rule from the NATO.
A lot of double existing units could be streamlined then.

Russia isn't the big thread like NATO tries to make us believe.
Russia would bite of way more than it ever could chew by invading Western Europe, not only military, so they won't.
The Kremlin is not manned with fools. They would have 446 million enemies over night.

And China is more peaceful than all the western nations so far.
To me China is far more economically worrisome than military.

Being in the NATO with untrustworthy partners isn't really a great option either IMHO.

But no worries, a lot of EU countries are not willing to give up their national armies and will keep trowing billions in the US economy buying their stuff there.
I just gave my own opinion, not that of the EU.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

A rich union as the EU should be capable to build the most modern and efficient defense in the world within a decade if they only could get over it to give up national armies and unite them to one EU force and invest in own development. Totally within the 3% of the national budget rule from the NATO.
A lot of double existing units could be streamlined then.

Russia isn't the big thread like NATO tries to make us believe.
Russia would bite of way more than it ever could chew by invading Western Europe, not only military, so they won't.
The Kremlin is not manned with fools. They would have 446 million enemies over night.

And China is more peaceful than all the western nations so far.
To me China is far more economically worrisome than military.

Being in the NATO with untrustworthy partners isn't really a great option either IMHO.

But no worries, a lot of EU countries are not willing to give up their national armies and will keep trowing billions in the US economy buying their stuff there.
I just gave my own opinion, not that of the EU.

I don't disagree.

I've simply provided reference figures -- this is what everyone's spending at the moment.

According to Netherlands Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2021, the total defence budget for The Netherlands in 2019 was $US12.0bn (that's for everything -- pensions for former military and civilian personnel, training, reseach, the lot).

All I'm asking is how much, in total, do you think the EU should spend on defence in total and how much extra do you, as a citizen of The Netherlands, want to spend on defence a year (whether in the form of direct contributions to an EU defence force or on the Nederlandse krijgsmacht).

Seems to me that all 27 EU countries have to answer that kind of question before anyone can start to talk seriously about what a European military should look like and what its role should be.

Remember, this is all money that could just as easily be spent on something else, like renewable energy or insulating people's homes, or more schools and hospitals, or international aid or increased unemployment benefits or tax cuts, as plenty of people on all sides of the political spectrum all across Europe will doubtless argue very persuasively when the matter comes up for discussion.

 

[Sid]

I think 3% of the national budget is realistic to pay for defense. That would mean that the Netherlands and others would have to pay more than they do now but
if that money is mainly invested inside of the EU, it will help the internal economy as well. Every euro invested in the USA now, that is not compensated in some way, is money not really economically well spend. Especially when that ally turns out to be long term unreliable.

Besides, if the national governments give up their own armies and pay these 3% to Brussels, it is possible to grow to a situation that the money is evenly invested in the 27 countries or with some extra for the countries with weaker economies inside the EU.
And if we as EU would totally concentrate on a pure territory defense system, it would be a lot less expensive as it is now.

I'm no defense specialist, but if the EU would purely concentrate on developing and producing modern defensive war equipment, we could easily stay within that 3% budget. Do we need to produce all by ourselves? Nope. But there would be a shift needed from most of it to the USA and others to most of it spend in the EU.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Lorry driver shortage: Temporary visa scheme to run until Christmas Eve

Ministers move to bring in overseas workers as disrupted fuel deliveries lead to queues at petrol stations.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I think 3% of the national budget is realistic to pay for defense. That would mean that the Netherlands and others would have to pay more than they do now but
if that money is mainly invested inside of the EU, it will help the internal economy as well. Every euro invested in the USA now, that is not compensated in some way, is money not really economically well spend. Especially when that ally turns out to be long term unreliable.

Besides, if the national governments give up their own armies and pay these 3% to Brussels, it is possible to grow to a situation that the money is evenly invested in the 27 countries or with some extra for the countries with weaker economies inside the EU.
And if we as EU would totally concentrate on a pure territory defense system, it would be a lot less expensive as it is now.

I'm no defense specialist, but if the EU would purely concentrate on developing and producing modern defensive war equipment, we could easily stay within that 3% budget. Do we need to produce all by ourselves? Nope. But there would be a shift needed from most of it to the USA and others to most of it spend in the EU.

What's realistic for defence is what sort of defence force you want to pay for, and what you expect to have to use it for, both generally and in the worst case.

That's all I'm asking -- what sort of a defence force do you envisage having and how will it be used? I know what NATO does and how that works, but what sort of roles do you see this new force fulfilling? And is it intended as an alternative or a complement to NATO?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Seems to me that all 27 EU countries have to answer that kind of question before anyone can start to talk seriously about what a European military should look like and what its role should be.

That's making the second step before having finished the first in my opinion. First of all the question needed to be answered should be which kind of organization should run this military. At the moment we are in the mid of the militarization of the EU. I deem the EU as unfit to run a military in its current state.

So first question would be, if talking about the EU: which kind of EU do we want as foundation of it? A more democratic one, or the one with its democracy deficit right now?

Then we can start talking about if the EU needs a military, or not. But not the other way around.

Furthermore, as it was pretty much visible in Afghanistan and Iran are modern armies quite useless in modern warfare. Asymmetrical warfare has become pretty much the standard of all recent conflicts, and this is a method where a normal army cannot win, just fail. So just like in the era when knights became obsolete due to the invention of gun powder it's probably time to rethink some warfare strategies as well.

As we can see evidently with China nowadays economy is a big area of global power and warfare strategies.

Also, Sid, think about this one:
Being in the NATO with untrustworthy partners isn't really a great option either IMHO.

The Americans live by the simple rule: either you are for us, or against us. There's not much space in between. If NATO would be disbanded by the Europeans, not Americans, it would mean that we are against them.

 

[Sid]

I'm no military expert, so what is needed

What's realistic for defence is what sort of defence force you want to pay for, and what you expect to have to use it for, both generally and in the worst case.

That's all I'm asking -- what sort of a defence force do you envisage having and how will it be used? I know what NATO does and how that works, but what sort of roles do you see this new force fulfilling? And is it intended as an alternative or a complement to NATO?

I have no clue what the military exactly needs. That is up to military pro's.
What I would like to see is that: the EU gets its own army under central EU command outside of NATO as independent thinkers with independent decision making.
Maybe working close together as equal partners with what will be left of NATO then, but no longer as part of it. Just like France now.

The EU gets as independent as possible when it comes to military equipment and bombs, bullets and the lot. Support our own economies instead of overseas.
EU first. After al the Dems government seems to follow that same strategy as 45 preached.

We need to get rid of stupid decision making, like some EU countries bought JSF jet fighters in the USA (including my country), while excellent fighter planes where available in the EU.

 

[Sid]

Also, Sid, think about this one:
The Americans live by the simple rule: either you are for us, or against us. There's not much space in between. If NATO would be disbanded by the Europeans, not Americans, it would mean that we are against them.

So what?
They need us as much as we need them.
The USA lives mainly on the credit granted by the rest of the world. If we ask our money back that they owe us.... not much left of the superpower.
Think about that one.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm just worried that, as some people here in the UK discovered over the last few years, it's a lot easier to decide an organisation is dysfunctional and you want to leave it than it is to decide what you actually want to put in its place.

 

[Sid]

I have no say in the EU than the few moments I can cast my votes. I'm just a one man band in one of the smaller countries inside the EU, making some noise out of frustration over how 45 like the Biden administration acts (together with the UK and Australia) in this submarine matter with France.
I don't expect my ideas will be adapted in Brussels any time soon.

 

[Sid]

I'm just worried that, as some people here in the UK discovered over the last few years, it's a lot easier to decide an organisation is dysfunctional and you want to leave it than it is to decide what you actually want to put in its place.

At least we have the lorry drivers to bring the equipment in place.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Larry Niven envisaged a future where the leader of the world was the Secretary General of the United Nations. Back in the '70s that seemed reasonable to me.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

At least we have the lorry drivers to bring the equipment in place.

Do you, though?

Brexit has certainly exacerbated the problem in the UK, but we're talking about a shortage of five thousand or so drivers from the EU at a time when there are some hundreds of thousands, I think, qualified lorry drivers in the UK than there are drivers working in the industry.

It's not a job people want to do long term, in other words, and not particularly because of pay but also because, besides money, drivers also value predictable regular hours, living at home, and so on.

That's primarily because of the just-in-time delivery model on which so much of Europe's economy now depends, and I think everyone's having problems.

Certainly if this episode forces businesses to reconsider their supply chains and improve pay and conditions sufficiently both to encourage workers to stay in the industry somewhat longer, and persuade some people to rejoin the industry, then that's all to the good.

People obviously demonstrate that they place a considerable value on being able to spend their nights at home, in their own bed, with their friends and family -- if you can make a living you consider reasonable driving locally for Uber, or as a local delivery driver, then I would think you'd be much more prepared to consider returning to the job if you didn't have to put up with the current conditions.

I think the just-in-time delivery model we've become used to isn't sustainable, because even a job when you work long hours driving for Amazon having to piss in a bottle but you get to go home at night to your family and friends, and to sleep your own bed at night and take a shower in the morning, is preferable to one where you spend long hours driving a HGV long distances having to piss in a bottle and also having to crap in a bucket, and to sleep in your cab for days on end, and you work irregular hours and are often called back to work at very short notice to spend days away.

The system is broken, and if it ends up being to be fixed so that people stay in the job long enough for newly qualified drivers reliably enter and remain in the business long enough that they are sufficient qualified drivers entering the industry to keep numbers up, then that's a good thing.

Eventually everything will stabilise and if that means higher prices and smaller product ranges in the UK or elsewhere, then that's what it means.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

This guy was destined from birth to report on panic buying of petrol.

.