Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

Just heard the Channel 4 News senior news correspondent say of Starmer's Thursday meeting with Trump:

"Keir Starmer will on Thursday cast today's policy jewels at the President's feet and hope they catch his eye"


(casting pearls before swine?)

[Valmy]

2016 was a brilliant time for the UK to turn it's back on Europe and go all out to become the USA's little brother.

[mongers]

2016 was a brilliant time for the UK to turn it's back on Europe and go all out to become the USA's little brother.

And possibly helped to boost nascent Trumpism?

[Sheilbh]

And possibly helped to boost nascent Trumpism?

Britain (and, indeed, Brexit) doesn't matter that much. But I think the same forces driving one politically were also big factors in the other - and the same goes for the challenge to the "mainstream" across European politics.

Although I'd say peak UK as USA's little brother was Blair and Brown (and again I think part of the vote for Trump and Brexit were reactions against the adventurism of that era).

[Neil]

No. Time to invest in independent systems that are interoperable with the French.

Isn't the lesson here that you can't depend on another country, and that Britain must develop a fully independent deterrent?  After all, France has gone fascist before.

[Sheilbh]

President Le Pen is a worry and a very real possibility.

But I think there's a difference between aspiring for interoperable systems and dependence (and I think there's zero chance the French would ever accept anything that could reduce their independence). We shouldn't stop trying to work with like-minded countries around the world, including on defence - I think we need to do that more (and that includes continuing to try to work with the US).

[crazy canuck]

You said like minded. In what way is the US currently like minded?

[mongers]

Maybe we should boost spending on the plans to get airborne again, one of the two still running Vulcan bombers? 

I'm sure Aldermaston could dust off some 'Red Beard*' designs in order to equip them?



* my made up name for one of the pre-US assist designs of UK A-bombs. As I can't be arsed to look up the wiki. 

[Valmy]

You said like minded. In what way is the US currently like minded?

Well we are like minded with Tommy Robinson. If the UK really wants to work with the US, they should probably make him PM.

[crazy canuck]

You said like minded. In what way is the US currently like minded?

Well we are like minded with Tommy Robinson. If the UK really wants to work with the US, they should probably make him PM.

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Any outline given on what this increased spending actually means?
A lot of places it could be spent. Some more useful than others.
I'm hoping a lot goes into domestic manufacturing.
And let's not be splashing it on tanks and big ships please.

I was listening to PM yesterday and some defence fellow was on, he said that the cost of our nuclear deterrent had gone from £5bn in 2019 to an expected £10bn in 2025. The 0.2% is roughly £6bn so we will need a lot more to get anywhere.

Not sure why the deterrent now costs so much more, maintenance of ageing equipment perhaps    ?

[Sheilbh]

I was listening to PM yesterday and some defence fellow was on, he said that the cost of our nuclear deterrent had gone from £5bn in 2019 to an expected £10bn in 2025. The 0.2% is roughly £6bn so we will need a lot more to get anywhere.

Not sure why the deterrent now costs so much more, maintenance of ageing equipment perhaps    ?

I'm not sure but saw this. My suspicion is that this is part of it - I can well imagine (for budgetary/Treasury purposes) equipment being with the wider defence procurement budget, nothing specific for decommissioning etc:

Prior to 2023, annual in-service costs, which also included the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the Nuclear Warhead Sustainment Capability Programme, basing, decommissioning and disposals, were estimated at 6% of the defence budget (£3 billion for 2022/23). In 2023 the decision was taken to bring all nuclear-related programmes and expenditure, including in-service running costs of the deterrent, under one heading: the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE), and to ringfence it within the MOD budget. In doing so, direct comparisons of in-service costs are no longer possible.