Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

You're like the ex that gives everything to the new lover when they refused to do so for the ex

[mongers]

Yeah, if you're going to kowtow the EU is right there. And there generally more trustworthy.

 

You should be the UK foreign secretary.

[mongers]

Why do you always have to pick the US?

The UK is a domestic abuse victim, they just keep hoping against hope.

[Tamas]

Teh Special Relationship! Which I didn't know existed until I came to live here because I have never ever heard any American mention it ever. But still!

[The Minsky Moment]

The keep your head down and exploit opportunities policy works great until someone tips off Trump on how nice it would be to "own" Diego Garcia, or the Caymans/Bermuda/BVI.  It's not easy living in the shadow of the GULF OF AMERICA

[HVC]

The keep your head down and exploit opportunities policy works great until someone tips off Trump on how nice it would be to "own" Diego Garcia, or the Caymans/Bermuda/BVI.  It's not easy living in the shadow of the GULF OF AMERICA

Gibraltar would make a nice forward base.

[HVC]

Yeah, if you're going to kowtow the EU is right there. And there generally more trustworthy.

 

You should be the UK foreign secretary.

I'd be tempted but I'd have to consider how my appointment would effect the bat population.

[mongers]

Yeah, if you're going to kowtow the EU is right there. And there generally more trustworthy.

 

You should be the UK foreign secretary.

I'd be tempted but I'd have to consider how my appointment would effect the bat population.

So you're ant-bat and so not batty?

[Barrister]

Yeah, if you're going to kowtow the EU is right there. And there generally more trustworthy.

 

You should be the UK foreign secretary.

I'd be tempted but I'd have to consider how my appointment would effect the bat population.

 

[Sheilbh]

Why do you always have to pick the US?

Because we've not spent the last nine years building alternatives.

Wherever you look we are incredibly reliant on the US. I get VM's point on divergent views on the nukes - but even if they are "independent" we do not have the logistical infrastructure or anti-submarine forces to actually operate them as an independent deterrent. The same goes for the air carrier (I believe some of the technical build is also dependent on US programs too)  - we've built a carrier but halved the support fleet for logistics and protecting it. The same is in the army which is (and the last government even deepened this) incredibly focused on counter-insurgeny. Our entire defence infrastructure is based on use being a partner of the Americans acting against a rogue state (or as over Israel during the war) and subsequent "nation-building" - because that kept us relevant with the Americans, but also it was a European partner backing them in their wars which might hopefully keep them caring about Europe. It is not designed to defend ourselves, far less meet our obligations in helping defend Europe. I've no idea on the intelligence services but I'd expect the integration there is even deeper.

Plus the economic pressure the US can put us under - for example as Trump did over Huawei, which is why the UK is way behind everyone else on 5G. Huawei was the provider of 5G infrastructure for the UK despite US opposition that pressure become very intense under Trump and we had to give in - which is why we're actually having to remove all the 5G infrastructure we'd built (should be finished by 2027).

If we'd spent the last 9 years working with European partners to build an alternative, or preparing for a "very well then, alone" world maybe we could take a different stance. But we didn't, so I think we have an absolute dependency on the US. I think it's wishful thinking to behave otherwise - and dangerous.

Edit: And I don't think it's just Britain. Politics has consequences and we've had almost a decade since the first Trump shock with repeated incidents causing lots of think pieces on how "Europe must wake up". And we've done....not enough. Now we need to take the consequences of trying to keep a relationship with the US - or someone calling Europe's bluff on defence. We talk about the Baltics - but what would happen if you had the Baltics, plus sabotage of sub-sea infrastructure, plus a state (or non-state group) making European energy imports from the Middle East even more difficult. And what would happen if it became clear Europe couldn't actually deal with that.

Edit: This goes even for the idea of European troops in Ukraine (either now or post-war). Macron speaking to the FT said this is "far-fetched" and he's right. All European countries would rely on the US for enabling (especially air lift and logistics), air defence, intel etc. We literally do not have the capability to do that (again, a choice) - it's also the stuff some in the Trump administration say the US needs to focus in the Pacific.  In more positive news, reports today that Starmer is apparently preparing to overrule the Treasury and increase defence spending, Which is good - especially because I've read exasperated quotes from lots of Eastern European and Nordic diplomats complaining that the current government has been going around Europe talking about their commitment and the need to support Ukraine etc while also explaining that they can't increase defence spending.

Yeah, if you're going to kowtow the EU is right there. And there generally more trustworthy.

The EU is not a realistic alternative. It's not a security power even in Europe - that's the big problem.

The keep your head down and exploit opportunities policy works great until someone tips off Trump on how nice it would be to "own" Diego Garcia, or the Caymans/Bermuda/BVI.  It's not easy living in the shadow of the GULF OF AMERICA

I'm surprised Trump hasn't kicked off about Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands - especially as Rubio had before he became Secretary of State. We are doing a deal with Mauritius where we will return the Chagos Islands to them with a 99 year lease and paying them £18 billion for it (which will be front-loaded). That's starting to pick up politically, largely because of the £18 billion cost at a time when there may be another round of tax rises or spending cuts.

Most people have no idea about the Caymans etc - I don't think they know there's still quasi-colonial territories we technically have security control (and obligations) over. In all honesty I'm not really sure anyone would care. I don't really think they matter to the British government - the only overseas territory that really kind of does is probably the Falklands because it was recently fought over.

I'd be tempted but I'd have to consider how my appointment would effect the bat population.

We could always build a bat dome around you?

[HVC]

  Would that give me vampire powers? They cool kind, not the glittery kind


Also, the answer to "we're too entangled with an unreliable partner" being get more entangled seems wrong to me, but what do I know

[Sheilbh]

Also, the answer to "we're too entangled with an unreliable partner" being get more entangled seems wrong to me, but what do I know

Oh I'm not saying get more entangled. We absolutely should be trying to build an alternative whatever that is.

Until then we need to proceed with that vulnerability in mind. We can't sort of turn Trump wanting to leave NATO into a self-fulfilling prophecy because we don't like him - and we're not American. They can have a fuck-up President we still need to work with them. And the more we can maintain the appearances and forms of friendship and alliance the less likely it is that another hostile power will try to test it. If we give the appearance of breach and rupture to much that's just inviting everyone else in the world to probe it.

[Savonarola]

So did any railways get built for this 500 million?

At least in the US we seem to build things. Sure they are usually way over budget and take twice as long as we planned but something gets built.

That's rail for you; but Monger's post said these were feasibility studies, not funded projects.  The next step (at least in a North American system) would be a call for bids from rail suppliers once they decided which projects they wanted to pursue.

Edit:  And then the contract would be awarded and then construction would begin; which would be way over budget and delayed for several years. 

[Barrister]

So did any railways get built for this 500 million?

At least in the US we seem to build things. Sure they are usually way over budget and take twice as long as we planned but something gets built.

That's rail for you; but Monger's post said these were feasibility studies, not funded projects.  The next step (at least in a North American system) would be a call for bids from rail suppliers once they decided which projects they wanted to pursue.

Edit:  And then the contract would be awarded and then construction would begin; which would be way over budget and delayed for several years. 

So just to be clear - $500 mil for feasibility studies?

[Savonarola]

So just to be clear - $500 mil for feasibility studies?

Of course not $500 million just for feasibility studies; it's £500 million   

 

The article says feasibility studies, business plans and designs.  In the systems I've worked on the contractors designs and business plans would be very high level and it would be up to the suppliers to put together the detailed design and business plans as part of their bid.  It could be different in the United Kingdom, I've never worked on a project there.

To be fair there are about 30 projects listed in Monger's post.  Most of them look minor, and a lot of them are restorations, so they should already have a great deal of information on the projects, but I really don't know that for sure.