Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Admiral Yi]

Virtue signalling is one thing, but if there's a potential armed conflict between European countries and the US, the degree to which you're dependent on US military infrastructure influences you ability to chart an independent course.

Then perhaps the UK government assessed the probability of armed conflict with the US as negligible.

[Jacob]

Then perhaps the UK government assessed the probability of armed conflict with the US as negligible.

Indeed. It appears that the UK still has a high level of trust in their special relationship they have with the US, and that they are confident that the US is going to continue being an ally to European countries.

[Sheilbh]

Indeed. It appears that the UK still has a high level of trust in their special relationship they have with the US, and that they are confident that the US is going to continue being an ally to European countries.

As I say the French intelligence agencies have just renewed and expanded their contract with Palantir.

I don't think it's an assessment of the relationship or trust in the US. I think it's an assessment of the fact that (1) there's no real alternative provider for a useful service and (2) we are profoundly weak and utterly dependent on the US (for security, the economy and an awful lot of tech). I think France and Germany and others are making the same assessment which is why, especially on Ukraine, they're continuing to focus on working with Ukraine and trying to diminish the threat from Russia and China.

I think they will also be judged on how rapidly and seriously they build up alternatives and reduce our dependency. But ultimately the peace dividend is very popular and I see very little appetite from our leaders to confront the public with that and the fact that we may need to spend less on other areas in order to build ourselves up in a harder power, transactional world.

[mongers]

Farage has been surprisingly quiet over the US world domination plan.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it's an assessment of the relationship or trust in the US. I think it's an assessment of the fact that (1) there's no real alternative provider for a useful service and (2) we are profoundly weak and utterly dependent on the US (for security, the economy and an awful lot of tech). I think France and Germany and others are making the same assessment which is why, especially on Ukraine, they're continuing to focus on working with Ukraine and trying to diminish the threat from Russia and China.

It has to include an assessment of the relationship.  No country in their right mind signs a long term service contract with a company of a country they will soon be at war with.

[HVC]

I don't think it's an assessment of the relationship or trust in the US. I think it's an assessment of the fact that (1) there's no real alternative provider for a useful service and (2) we are profoundly weak and utterly dependent on the US (for security, the economy and an awful lot of tech). I think France and Germany and others are making the same assessment which is why, especially on Ukraine, they're continuing to focus on working with Ukraine and trying to diminish the threat from Russia and China.

It has to include an assessment of the relationship.  No country in their right mind signs a long term service contract with a company of a country they will soon be at war with.

Not even to buy time? If there no current alternative is there really an option?

[Admiral Yi]

Not even to buy time? If there no current alternative is there really an option?

Like surrendering the Sudetenland bought time?  I don't see how contracting with Palantir does that.

[HVC]

Not even to buy time? If there no current alternative is there really an option?

Like surrendering the Sudetenland bought time?  I don't see how contracting with Palantir does that.

I don't think surrendering the Sudetenland provided an opportunity and time to create an alternative Sudetenland, but I guess it's possible

Not saying that europe is creating an alternative (which would be the smart thing to do) but if there really is no current alternative like sheilbh says then signing a contract until such an alternative becomes available would be something a country in their right mind would do even if they believe they might be at war in the future, would it not?

[HisMajestyBOB]

They say misery loves company but doesn't hearten me much to see the complacency and incompetence of the Democrats in the face of an existantial threat seems to be a political phenomenon throughout the western world for non extremist political parties.

No kidding. I can't even enjoy books about WW2 now because I keep thinking about the contrast between leaders then and now. Churchill didn't say he was "monitoring the situation" when Hitler invaded Poland.

[Jacob]

Admiral Yi - the UK may have judged that the likelihood of the US engaging in armed conflict with a Wuropean country, but the White House is discussing it as an option according to the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg1jg8xkmo

The White House said on Tuesday: "The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief's disposal."

[Duque de Bragança]

Do you have a non-Twitter version?

I could not find one but there is the Figaro article, which links to X, but it should display without having to go there. Please tell me if it works:

https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/raciste-soutien-de-l-extreme-droite-trumpiste-lfi-vent-debout-contre-un-dessin-de-charlie-hebdo-caricaturant-melenchon-en-maduro-20260106

[The Minsky Moment]

Virtue signalling is one thing, but if there's a potential armed conflict between European countries and the US, the degree to which you're dependent on US military infrastructure influences you ability to chart an independent course.

Then perhaps the UK government assessed the probability of armed conflict with the US as negligible.

The UK Brexited and put all its marbles in the US basket.  They are pretty much stuck and their only short-term option is large quantities of hopium.

Also I think the discussion is still conceiving of the US as a "normal country" in how it runs its foreign affairs.  It's not.  It's being run cosa nostra style as a family business/protection racket. Palantir may have its world HQ in the US and be run by Americans but they are a private corporation interesting in making money.  They are allied to Trump and have been paying him off.  So as an outside country, if you are concerned about US hostility, one potential leverage point is to sign a big contract with Palantir so that Alex Karp will influence Trump your way, NVIDIA style.

[Admiral Yi]

The UK Brexited and put all its marbles in the US basket.  They are pretty much stuck and their only short-term option is large quantities of hopium.

Also I think the discussion is still conceiving of the US as a "normal country" in how it runs its foreign affairs.  It's not.  It's being run cosa nostra style as a family business/protection racket. Palantir may have its world HQ in the US and be run by Americans but they are a private corporation interesting in making money.  They are allied to Trump and have been paying him off.  So as an outside country, if you are concerned about US hostility, one potential leverage point is to sign a big contract with Palantir so that Alex Karp will influence Trump your way, NVIDIA style.

I don't understand your logic.  The majority of countries in the world are not members of the EU.  Are all their marbles also in the US basket?

[Tamas]

How many countries are in the UKs geographic situation who deliberately avoid a customs union with the EU? Can't be that many. I can think of... zero?

[The Minsky Moment]

The word "and" was intended to denote two distinct (though related) ideas in the same sentence.