Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
itsonlyme wrote: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the fisheries policy of the European Union (EU). It sets quotas for which member states are allowed to catch what amounts of each type of fish, as well as encouraging the fishing industry by various market interventions.
Pretty sure the UK doesn't set the Quotas, regardless of what you think you've pointed out
The UK gets given its allocation of the total quota byt the EU (which was pointed out earlier to be quite favourable to the UK compared to France).
Which is against the idea that the quota is nothing to do with the EU isn't, the total number of fish that can be fished is still set my the EU (which as you favourable towards the French) which was my original point. However while some of the blame can be blamed at the hands of the government, some can still be laid at the feet of the EU which is clearly favouring other EU countries.
Except it isn't favouring other EU countries. You're wrong.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Another poster was kind enough to provide a document with the quotas, guess what? The only fish that favoured us are Haddock, mackerel and lobster, so sadly, no, I'm not wrong. Lets just hope we hurry up out of the corrupt EU before those insane liberals destroy the country with their naive few of the world and failed experiment that was multiculturalism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/19 17:23:32
Herzlos wrote: That's because there's no-one else to vote for.
UKIP and labour are both in total disarray.
I had this naive hope that after June 23rd, the Tories and Labour would collapse, and new political parties, which better reflect our post-BREXIT landscape, would emerge from the ashes.
Who knows, maybe they will...
Labour seems to be pretty much done but i suspect the tories will hang around unless the brexit infighting gets too nasty.
Another poster was kind enough to provide a document with the quotas, guess what? The only fish that favoured us are Haddock, mackerel and lobster, so sadly, no, I'm not wrong. Lets just hope we hurry up out of the corrupt EU before those insane liberals destroy the country with their naive few of the world and failed experiment that was multiculturalism.
Not favouring us does not mean that it is favouring others.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Another poster was kind enough to provide a document with the quotas, guess what? The only fish that favoured us are Haddock, mackerel and lobster, so sadly, no, I'm not wrong. Lets just hope we hurry up out of the corrupt EU before those insane liberals destroy the country with their naive few of the world and failed experiment that was multiculturalism.
Not favouring us does not mean that it is favouring others.
It certainly doesn't instantly mean that in principle, in reality it does favour other countries over us. The EU would of been fine if it had stuck to being a open market rather than trying forcing the globalist agenda of global government down our throats.
itsonlyme wrote: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the fisheries policy of the European Union (EU). It sets quotas for which member states are allowed to catch what amounts of each type of fish, as well as encouraging the fishing industry by various market interventions.
Pretty sure the UK doesn't set the Quotas, regardless of what you think you've pointed out
Find where I said the UK sets the quotas then. I'll wait, but not very long.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I'm not saying anything will magically happen, but having a weaker pound isn't exactly a weakness, it can certainly allow us to increase the trade we already have if the lower price increases demand (which it may well do), we can focus on tourism because of the lower prices of holidays to the UK. Part of this does depend on other trade deals we make with countries outside the EU (such as those within the commonwealth). Asia will always be a issue while it undercuts everyone, we will just have see. But you can't say that our products being cheaper will not make them more attractive to those overseas.
The pound needs to be at a value that balances the needs of all the economy. We can't rely only on manufacturing. Some products may be more attractive but not necessarily all of them. We have very little raw resources in the UK (except coal, granite, the remains of North sea oil and a few others). Other than that we have no raw materials so Iron, Aluminium, oil, gas, rare earth metals and so on all have to be imported. Manufacturers will need these materials and increases in price will inevitably feed through into the final products. If we had raw materials that we had available to us then it would be a different issue, but apart from jam and biscuit making (hardly an economically viable strategy) having a weak £ can be just as bad as having a strong £. You need a balanced £ reflective of the economy at large. Focusing on tourism (I'd also point out that actual tourism expenditure is down according to the August 15 - July 16 figures, even though numbers are up so the benefit of tourism is less than the raw figures suggest) is not going to help vast areas of the Country; it's hardly going to help Hull, Grimsby and any other area where tourism is negligible - it might help certain areas like Cornwall, but putting all your eggs in one basket leaves you susceptible to ever rising and fall of perception of where to holiday.
Finally a very low £ can also be bad news for the local economy. If the £ falls so low that foreign individuals can buy the products at a higher price in £ but still much lower in their lower currency then all this does is drive local prices upwards rapidly. Food would be particularly vulnerable here.
How is it not a EU issue if the quotas are issued by the EU that favor other countries to the point of killing our fishing industry.
As I pointed out the fishing quotas are based on what the EU asks scientists what they believe is sustainable. These are then allocated accordingly. The UK does fairly well out of it apparently because of it's location and being surrounded by the sea. It's not the EU that determines that 6 companies get 80% of the market share. I am not in favour of killing any industry, but I would prefer to deal with the actual problem not the more easier target of blame. Suppose after leaving the EU we did get rid of quotas, then yes the local fishermen with one small trawler would be able to go out no more than twice a day and catch what they want. But the same rules would apply to the big multinational fishing companies as well and they are more than likely to send out every ship in their fleet with multiple crews several times a day. Things may be rosy for a 10-20 years but when the fishing stocks collapse (as evidenced by the grand banks fiasco) then who is it going to hit. The big fleets will just pick up their anchor, make people redundant and move the fleets to better fishing areas. The local fishermen will not have this option; their fishing future will be ruined for at least a generation.
However there is an alternative. You keep the EU fishing quotas to keep things sustainable but you allow single fleet ships of a low hull size (and limited types of nets) unlimited catch twice per day. The big businesses then get the remainder of the allowance that the individual fishermen don't use. Effectively you swap the local fishermen from being given the dregs to being able to catch what they want and you leave the big businesses the remainder (lets say 50%). None of this can be implemented by the EU - it has to come from the UK government as they set the allowances for the companies.
It also put puts money in less pockets, the only person it tends to protect is the interests of big business. I'm puzzled as to why you seem to be defending the slow destruction of our farming industry? I'm sitting here listening to people who have had their livelihood destroyed and farms who have been within families sold and turned into flats, supermarkets (or whatever), yet more of our history destroyed. Yet you seem to think that's ok? No "logically" explanation could defend any such action.
No I am not supportive of getting rid of small family run holdings. But I'm also a realist. The big farms will be able to afford the larger more efficient equipment regardless of Wrexit. Scrapping legislation will make all farm costs cheaper. The risk is that by removing the legislation you allow the bigger farms to push prices so low to the point where the smaller farms simply can't compete because they have higher *relative* overheads. There is no simple solution to this and leaving the EU is not going to help. The best alternative I can see is that small farms need to conglomerate (maybe through the Union) so they can better defend the pressure by supermarkets to drive ever lower prices so they can maintain their margins.
itsonlyme wrote: Looking at the quota the only things that favour us are Mackerel and Haddock, the reality speaks for itself, whats happened to the fishing industry in the UK? is it booming?
That's simply based on location and where the fish swim. There is little point giving the UK an allowance of Mediterranean fish; the allowances are based on what you would expect in each countries waters. Mackerel and Haddock are common around the UK for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: The problem with suing is that we need to have lost something in order to do it. We can't claim compensation without any damages.
Maybe on the basis that if they were spying on us then that likely slowed down our internet connection we were paying for and hence we weren't getting the advertised service that we were paying for?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Big or small companies be dammed, 70% of Fish stocks in UK waters are allotted to other EU nations.
A somewhat moronic position to be in for an island nation.
Except that fish, being fish generally tend to travel all over the place and don't particularly worry about lines drawn on maps . That's why the UK doesn't all the fish in UK waters as they aren't particularly static; those same fish will move into UK, German, French etc waters. You couldn't give all the countries 100% of what is in their local seas because it effectively means each and every fish is being fished 3 or 4 times. The static shellfish are the only species where fishing rights are more reflective of the numbers in individual regions simply because they don't generally tour the coasts of Europe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
itsonlyme wrote: Lets just hope we hurry up out of the corrupt EU before those insane liberals destroy the country with their naive few of the world and failed experiment that was multiculturalism.
All hail the master race that are the British!!!!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 19:13:06
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
So who was going to stop all the Nordic states and Western Europe from fishing the seas to death then if the EU was not in place? What over political body had the regional power to pull a very large number of nations together, sit them down, point out the damage their doing and get them to agree to a policy to reverse the effect?
An independent treaty between the states? Mayhaps but it would have been far more divisive and far less efficient with state interests getting in the way of what is a major regional issue.
The UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)? Possible it could have achieved a similar successful result to the EU. but policies in the UN tend to be far harder to implement and would likely have still ended up with a less effecient policy as the states have more scope to bully each other to get what they want due to the lack of the binding principles of the Common Market.
The EU fishing policy is not perfect, but I am willing to bet a lot that no other attempts would have been anywhere near as effective.
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
itsonlyme wrote: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the fisheries policy of the European Union (EU). It sets quotas for which member states are allowed to catch what amounts of each type of fish, as well as encouraging the fishing industry by various market interventions.
Pretty sure the UK doesn't set the Quotas, regardless of what you think you've pointed out
Find where I said the UK sets the quotas then. I'll wait, but not very long.
I was implying because the UK doesn't set the quotas and the EU does, the EU's quotas are a big part of the reason we've had the decline in the fishing industry.
The fish quotas were set by an EU parliament committee on which the UK representative was Nigel Farage. By all accounts he hardly ever bothered to turn up and hadn't bothered to read his brief when he did. Consequently the UK's approach to the fishing plan had the same kind of attention to detail, grit, determination and forward thinking as the Leave campaigns's plans for Brexit.
Which are both reasons why we are in this Godawful mess.
Back to the positive prospects, the UK has world-leading companies or competencies in a variety of industries:
Aerospace -- Today's Mars lander (a pan-EU project) contains instrumentation designed by UK science.
Formula One cars and luxury marques (e.g. Jaguar, though these are mostly owned by the Japanese or Indians.)
Computing -- The top chip designer ARM is a British company, (recently bought out by the Japanese.)
Pharmaceuticals
Music
Art
Design
Computer Games
Fashion
Secondary and higher education.
Medicine (partly thanks to the massive resources of the NHS, and our strong education sector.)
Law
Banking (though this depends partly on passporting within the EU)
Insurance (though this depends partly on passporting within the EU)
Heritage and Tourism
Manchester United
The problem for the country as a whole is that a lot of these industries depend largely on international cooperation in terms of migration, projects, import/export deals and so on, and also that they tend to only require relatively small numbers of highly skilled, well-paid workers, or else in the case of tourism need lots of very low paid workers. There isn't a lot there to employ larger numbers of people on decent pay.
Forget the economy Kilkrazy, we've got bigger problems than that to worry about: the Russians are coming!!!!
Half the Russian fleet is sailing past the UK on it's way to Syria for the final assault on Aleppo,
and the Royal Navy, with it's 14 admirals and two rowing boats, is escorting them!
To be honest, it's a been a shameful episode, because the Russian fleet was spotted by Norway's spy planes, which we no longer have
and as Private Eye revealed last week, a lot of Royal Navy ships need some major repair work due to dodgy engines and systems...
Admiral Nelson must be spinning in his grave...
In this post-BREXIT UK, having a strong Navy and Air Force has to be a major priority for this island nation of ours...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
itsonlyme wrote: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the fisheries policy of the European Union (EU). It sets quotas for which member states are allowed to catch what amounts of each type of fish, as well as encouraging the fishing industry by various market interventions.
Pretty sure the UK doesn't set the Quotas, regardless of what you think you've pointed out
Find where I said the UK sets the quotas then. I'll wait, but not very long.
I was implying because the UK doesn't set the quotas and the EU does, the EU's quotas are a big part of the reason we've had the decline in the fishing industry.
@whirlwind - I'll come to you later :p
That's more to do with the state of current fish stocks than anything else.
The UK has 13% of the (current) EU sea area but gets 30% of total quota (2nd largest), so hardly in a position to feel wronged.
itsonlyme wrote: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the fisheries policy of the European Union (EU). It sets quotas for which member states are allowed to catch what amounts of each type of fish, as well as encouraging the fishing industry by various market interventions.
Pretty sure the UK doesn't set the Quotas, regardless of what you think you've pointed out
Find where I said the UK sets the quotas then. I'll wait, but not very long.
I was implying because the UK doesn't set the quotas and the EU does, the EU's quotas are a big part of the reason we've had the decline in the fishing industry.
@whirlwind - I'll come to you later :p
That's more to do with the state of current fish stocks than anything else.
The UK has 13% of the (current) EU sea area but gets 30% of total quota (2nd largest), so hardly in a position to feel wronged.
Does this factor in fish going abroad? fishing vessels catching fish from UK waters bit not landed within the UK or sold on UK markets?
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a bit difficult to have a great navy if we don't have a great economy to support it.
Both of these should be a priority for the future, but even in the boom days of New Labour, the armed forces were being cut back. It's not always a money problem.
I think the most salient point here though is the lack of spy planes to patrol the North Sea, something we used to have, but as always, the MOD couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The Nimrod got retired how long ago? I can't remember. It was far from a new airframe at the time and the Air Ministry ought to have prepared for replacing it.
We probably should just have bought Orions like everyone else. I have no idea what was decided or why. Gloom.
Alternatively Japan has got the awesome Shin Meiwa flying boat. That would be a cool platform for maritime recon.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Nimrod got retired how long ago? I can't remember. It was far from a new airframe at the time and the Air Ministry ought to have prepared for replacing it.
We probably should just have bought Orions like everyone else. I have no idea what was decided or why. Gloom.
Alternatively Japan has got the awesome Shin Meiwa flying boat. That would be a cool platform for maritime recon.
We don't have this stuff becuase between them, the MoD and BAE systems have plumbed new depths when it comes to incompetence and military procurement.
You probably already know that most defence projects are over budget and behind schedule and that BAE systems exists purely to create the illusion that the UK has a thriving defence industry when in reality, a few people make millions off the tax payer to keep this gravy train going...
'Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military' by Lewis Page, is a book I'd recommend if you want to see how bad things really are in the UK military and the MoD when it comes to defence spending.
The money wasted makes my blood boil
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
t’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) time again, in which we follow the new custom of making all defence policy shortly after an election without debate – thereby humanely relieving ministers of any need to justify their actions.
Things are dire in the Armed Forces. The RAF is down to embarrassingly few operational bombers and has no submarine-hunting planes at all. The Army is yet again stripping itself of soldiers. The Navy is shortly to receive aircraft carriers, but they can carry only vertical-lift jets. We used to have some of those, but we got rid of them in the last SDSR. We will have to buy the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter instead, which is new, complicated and cripplingly expensive.
So our defences are rickety: yet there’s no prospect of any big spending increases. Indeed, George Osborne has asked for further cuts to be made. Nor is there any prospect now of the MoD managing to avoid replacing Trident – much as it would corporately like to.
So that’s it then: Britain’s just a third-class power. And yet our defence budget is the fifth biggest in the world. It’s around the same as that of France, and France has a proper aircraft carrier – complete with planes. France also has hundreds of operational strike jets, not scores; it has maritime-patrol planes; its army may soon have twice as many soldiers as ours.
Why don’t we have all that?
The answer is, mostly, the British defence industry. Dominated by BAE Systems, our arms industry is lamentably inefficient. Its products are often horrifyingly expensive. They require parts and technical support not only from the US but other nations too – we gain no independence by purchasing “British-made” kit like the Eurofighter. (The Eurofighter cannot be sold without American permission as it is full of US technology.) If, instead, we simply bought off the shelf, mostly from America, we could easily afford powerful forces.
Cost overruns have consequences that are more than financial. Recently it turned out that fitting catapults to our new carriers was going to have a dramatic effect on their cost – even though the option to add catapults was specified before they were designed.
As a result, the catapults were cancelled. This wrecked the Navy’s plan to lease American F-18 catapult jets cheaply. F-18s are capable and inexpensive to run, so once we had some, we’d have used them for everything. The aged Tornado would have disappeared early, and nobody would have bothered using Eurofighters for anything. As a result, BAE Systems would have missed out on many billions in support and upgrades.
So BAE must have been very happy when the shipyards submitted their enormous quote for fitting catapults. It won’t have been a surprise, though – BAE owns the shipyards.
The defence industry aside, the existence of the three services also has a drastic effect on costs. There isn’t that much disputed territory between the Army and the Navy, but both are continually battling the RAF. If the Army and the Navy were allowed their own aircraft without having to worry about the RAF, they would both become an awful lot more powerful and capable and we could stop wasting money on tanks, frigates and manned deep-penetration bombing.
The fact is that most military aviation could – and should – have been automated long ago. The Army and Navy would be willing to actually do this; less so the RAF, obviously, which is run by pilots.
So the way ahead is clear. Let most of the UK arms businesses go to the wall. Yes, there would be job losses but we get those anyway – BAE has been steadily shedding its British workforce for a long time. We should break up the RAF and distribute the useful parts between the Army and Navy.
As to kit specifics, we should send our new carriers overseas to have catapults fitted. We should lease a fleet of F-18s. We can pay for this using the Tornado and Eurofighter budgets, having scrapped most or all of those planes.
We should expand our fleet of “Reaper” strike drones, and get many more Tomahawk cruise missiles. We could get some tailhook F-35C stealth jets down the road, but it would probably be better to wait for an unmanned successor.
We should cancel our order for A400M European transport planes, and buy more C-17s and C-130s cheaply from the US.
The Navy should not be allowed its new frigates: instead it should purchase basic ships to act as floating bases for helicopters, Marines and Tomahawk missiles. The Army should likewise move away from tanks and artillery, and towards integrated air support. If the soldiers really feel a need for Apache helicopters once they have F-18s and Reapers, we could replace them: but we should buy straight from Boeing this time, rather than a job-creation scheme in Yeovilton.
If you really don’t want to close down the RAF, then fair enough – we can probably postpone that for a while. But the really important thing is to stop using the defence procurement budget as an industrial subsidy, and start using it for defence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 10:47:53
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The son of God, Jesus Christ, has returned to Earth and he wants a judge to stop the eviction of independence campaigners camped outside the Scottish Parliament, a court has heard.
Mr Christ has instructed members of the Sovereign Indigenous Peoples of Scotland to remain outside the Parliament so they can continue their “spiritual” vigil.
Jesus, who many people believe to be the saviour of humanity, has told the group to oppose the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s attempts to remove them.
Campaigner Richard McFarlane told the Court of Session on Tuesday that he had spoken to Jesus.
He told judge Lord Turnbull that Jesus – who is said to have risen from the dead after being crucified in controversial circumstances – also told them the indy camp wants the Stone of Destiny.
The court heard how the stone would be used in a “Coronation” ceremony for Christ.
Mr McFarlane said: “We have spoken to Jesus who is here for his Second Coming and he would like you to stop this if you can please.
“If it is in your power could you please leave the indie camp alone? Christ is here on his second coming.
“We are having a spiritual vigil. We want to be free of debt and free of war. So if you can stop this, please do.”
Mr McFarlane’s claims were made during a procedural hearing. The campaigners are currently fighting the Corporate Body’s attempts to have their camp removed from the Scottish Parliament’s grounds.
The camp was set up on the Parliamentary estate in November 2015 with the Indy campers citing the devolution era Democracy for Scotland vigil as inspiration.
The corporate body wants the group to be removed saying they are taking up space without permission and could be compromising the political neutrality of the area.
During proceedings, Lord Turnbull rebuked Mr McFarlane for not sticking to legal points and for making “philosophical” and “spiritual” arguments that couldn’t be properly examined by the court.
which has some golden moments that'll almost have you wish for cameras in court :
"Mr McFarlane says the UK authorities have known of Christ's return since 1998. Stopping #IndyCamp case only way to stop WW3 and fracking"
"Mr McFarlane says #IndyCamp trial could have been settled if we'd got the Queen in as a witness. This also would have ended poverty"
"Mr McFarlane rises to support the motion to halt. He says an affidavit from Christ has "gone missing" so court doesn't have "all the facts""
"Been handed a copy of a letter from the JAH group to court saying Christ has given them exemption from paying any costs w/r to IndyCamp case"
"You'll think I'm making this up, but there is a man who appears to be dressed as Jesus in the courtroom. It's not the usual one though (JAH)"
"The chap tells me that he is in fact Christ, and has info on a USB stick that can prove it. The JAH group ask him about the Stone of Destiny"
"So we actually have two competing Christs here in court. The new one also backs independence, and wants to lodge some evidence of his own"
stirring stuff eh ? !
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
There's an awful lot of speculation (and frankly, libel) in the above paragraph article.
That being said, I concur that the RAF has outlived its usefulness. When Britain was under air siege and conducting mass offensive bombing runs, there was a definite need for a dedicated co-ordinated air control. That requirement has long since expired. We do not have the dedicated land-based missile stations, nuclear arms carrying aircraft, dedicated stealth aircraft, or space programs that would otherwise potentially justify it.
But the vested interests and sentiment to the name will never permit it to be folded back into the other services. Never.
Ketara wrote: There's an awful lot of speculation (and frankly, libel) in the above paragraph article.
That being said, I concur that the RAF has outlived its usefulness. When Britain was under air siege and conducting mass offensive bombing runs, there was a definite need for a dedicated co-ordinated air control. That requirement has long since expired. We do not have the dedicated land-based missile stations, nuclear arms carrying aircraft, dedicated stealth aircraft, or space programs that would otherwise potentially justify it.
But the vested interests and sentiment to the name will never permit it to be folded back into the other services. Never.
The Dam Busters is one of my all time favourite films, and I love the Spitfire, so yeah, I'd hate to see the RAF go as well, but I don't think we need it anymore either... So we're in agreement there.
As for libel, if this article was libel, I'm sure a lawyer would have said by now, and to the best of my knowledge, that's not the case.
What do you think of the comparison to the French military? I think it's a good comparison given our relative size and wealth to each other, and I think it's shameful that the French seem to do more than us with the same sort of military budget.
Getting this image of the French guy in the Holy Grail laughing at us.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It would be sad to see the RAF go. But what does the air force do that long range missiles cannot? We might as well go full turtle and just build lots of missile sites in case we need to blow things up or get attacked.
But we do need to fix our navy, because that is quite important. Especially as our nuclear force is naval based.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
I'm a stickler for tradition and I'd hate to see the RAF disbanded but needs must...and we don't really need it anymore. It would probably be better in the long run to disband it and bring back separate army and navy air corps.
The navy has got to be fixed and fixed asap. Without a navy we're stuck.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm a stickler for tradition and I'd hate to see the RAF disbanded but needs must...and we don't really need it anymore. It would probably be better in the long run to disband it and bring back separate army and navy air corps.
The navy has got to be fixed and fixed asap. Without a navy we're stuck.
As always, the Daily Mail response to the Russian Navy sailing past Britain is calm, measured, and balanced
Problem is, with the North Sea and the English Channel being international waters, the Russians are well within their rights to sail past...
But yes, the Navy needs fixed. I'm in agreement with you there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: It would be sad to see the RAF go. But what does the air force do that long range missiles cannot? We might as well go full turtle and just build lots of missile sites in case we need to blow things up or get attacked.
But we do need to fix our navy, because that is quite important. Especially as our nuclear force is naval based.
It's naval based in Scotland! It's ok for you, you're not a target, I am!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 13:12:00
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ketara wrote: There's an awful lot of speculation (and frankly, libel) in the above paragraph article.
That being said, I concur that the RAF has outlived its usefulness. When Britain was under air siege and conducting mass offensive bombing runs, there was a definite need for a dedicated co-ordinated air control. That requirement has long since expired. We do not have the dedicated land-based missile stations, nuclear arms carrying aircraft, dedicated stealth aircraft, or space programs that would otherwise potentially justify it.
But the vested interests and sentiment to the name will never permit it to be folded back into the other services. Never.
The Dam Busters is one of my all time favourite films, and I love the Spitfire, so yeah, I'd hate to see the RAF go as well, but I don't think we need it anymore either... So we're in agreement there.
As for libel, if this article was libel, I'm sure a lawyer would have said by now, and to the best of my knowledge, that's not the case.
What do you think of the comparison to the French military? I think it's a good comparison given our relative size and wealth to each other, and I think it's shameful that the French seem to do more than us with the same sort of military budget.
Getting this image of the French guy in the Holy Grail laughing at us.
Libel is a slightly dodgy area where defence contracting is concerned, because in order to prove somebody's assertions that you overcharged or suchlike untrue, you have to publish a great deal of confidential top secret data in the courts. As it's the government that makes orders instead of the press, it's simply far more convenient to just ignore it. Most people who write about these sorts of things for the normal media (instead of trade publications) are just two bit journalists with an awful lot of opinion, and little data or knowledge to back it up, after all. They'll be writing opinions on Kim Kardashian's behind and Treasury policy two hours later. It would be a waste of time to even acknowledge it, let alone summon them to court.
The French have had equally savage defence cuts to us. The PA2 carrier was never built, and they were relying on British capacity for the design even then to cut costs. The Suffren class submarines are no better than the Astute class and a good ten years behind ours in construction time. The Mistral class is quite nice, and outnumbers the direct RN equivalents (Ocean and the Albion class), but they have to fulfill roles we have the RFA kitted out for (the Bay class, Point class, etc); once those are taken into account we have substantially more lift and supply capacity than them.
They have a handful (four or five) more destroyers, but half of their ones are literally half the displacement of ours. Technically, our destroyers are so big now, it would be more accurate to call them cruisers, but such is modern terminology. We've roughly equivalent frigate numbers and classes. We have quite a few more light vessels (mine countermeasures, patrol ships, auxiliary ships, etc) generally.
All said and done, our Navy is larger and more capable than the French one.
. That's why the 
