h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

With respect, that's naive. The US are effectively excluded from most large defence contracts in the UK & France. Remember the Nimrod AWACs programme? Billions spent on a poor copy of an existing US solution. Similarly the Eurofighter and the current botched carrier project. These contracts are awarded on the basis of political expediency, not cost-effectiveness and certainly not in line with what the armed forces ask for. The only way US firms make any headway is when they are forced to allow European companies to have a slice of the pie, as in the current deal to allow BAE to participate in the VSTOL aircraft project.

Any EU army trying to operate independently of NATO (& hence the US) would need to make a huge investment in logistics, especially helicopters and medium range transport planes. Not unsurprisingly, Airbus have just unveiled such a plane. It's inferior in every respect to existing US planes, but the RAF has been forced to acquire them.

>> The US are effectively excluded from most large defence contracts in the UK & France. <<

Apologies for the length of this post, but that's not really true. US companies lead lots of the *big* defence programmes - JSF, Trident, Tomahawk, Apache, Chinook, AMRAAM, E3... I could go on. For openly competitive contracts, yes I'm sure that politics plays a huge part - the government has to weigh value for money against maintaining a UK industrial base, the cost to the state when companies go under etc etc. BUT ... the process is fairly transparent and the MoD must be able to justify the decision to the losing bidders. And sometimes contracts DO go to US-based companies; I have worked with some of them.

Occasionally, the MoD lets contracts on the basis that they must have a certain 'UK' content. That means the contract is as likely to go to General Dynamics, Raytheon or Boeing as it is BAES, providing the requisite percentage of work is done in the UK. The location of a company's head office is irrelevant.

>> Remember the Nimrod AWACs programme? Billions spent on a poor copy of an existing US solution. <<

And when it failed, they simply *bought* the US solution, off the shelf. Hardly excluding them.

>> Similarly the Eurofighter and the current botched carrier project. <<

As I remember, Eurofighter was developed from square one as a European collaborative effort, deliberately intended to compete with the US F/A18 (which didn't meet RAF requirements). Shipbuilding is something of a special case: there are so few new build programmes that they have to be very careful to keep the shipyards in business. There are good strategic reasons for this as well as economic, and it's a fairly universal policy - how many US Navy ships were built in Europe for example?

>> The only way US firms make any headway is when they are forced to allow European companies to have a slice of the pie, as in the current deal to allow BAE to participate in the VSTOL aircraft project. <<

Doesn't count; JSF was always meant to be a collaborative effort. Hence the 'J'

>> Any EU army trying to operate independently of NATO (& hence the US) would need to make a huge investment in logistics, especially helicopters and medium range transport planes. Not unsurprisingly, Airbus have just unveiled such a plane. It's inferior in every respect to existing US planes, but the RAF has been forced to acquire them. <<

This sounds like Daily Mail "Government screws up yet another major defence contract" sensationalism to me. The A400M was designed specifically to meet RAF requirements, so it's hard to see how it's inferior to the US alternatives. In any case, if the US alternatives in question are C130s, C17s or Chinooks, then we're already using them. From the RAFs own website:

"The aircraft (C17) is a declared part of the UK’s Joint Rapid Reaction Force"

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/c17aglobemaster.cfm

>So talk of a Euro army is really just manoevring to get out of NATO. If anything kept war out of Europe post WWII, it wasn't the EU - it was NATO. Why ditch something that works? Seems to me it's just an expensive way to thumb noses at the US.

The purpose of a Euro-army isn't to stop wars between EU states. I think it's fair to say that that's impossible now because the EU states are so economically interdependent. Also, NATO didn't stop another war between the European "great powers", that was the changing political situation; it removed the clout of Germany whose imperialistic ambitions had been a major factor in two previous wars; it also lead to the rise of the Communist USSR which united the non-communist states of Western Europe against a common enemy, NATO was the obvious extention of that (especially as, at the time, the US had acquired a huge amount of political power in Europe).

The purpose of a Euro-army is to give European forces the ability to intervene on the world stage independently of NATO. The US already possesses this power and whilst France and the UK have forces with global reach major interventions would require more force. The US generally acts in its own interests; European and US interests are often very different and it's vital we have our own ability to act in our own interests.

The Polish president has, fortunately, come forward and put the kibosh on Sarkozy's attempted Euro-coup.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2227494/Lisbon-treaty-now-pointless%2C-says-Polish-president.html

RF

Surely the point is that after failing to impose a confederated Europe one way, and having it rejected, they didn't accept that as the will of the people.

Instead they renamed it and shoved it through in a form that didn't require the people to be consulted, it could be decided by the heads of state - who obviously know what they're doing.

But - one little country - that's made more out of Europe than anyone votes against it.

So that's it then.

Nooooooo ! They are going to continue anyway.

It's the old Socialist ideal - we know best, and we're going to do it because its good for you.

England should get out of Europe completely, it's a private club run for the benefit of its bureaucrats. It's an attempt to make a vast socialist state of Europe.

There is really nothing socialist about the EU.

The Commission is very right wing dominated, and all the major member states have right wing or centrist/social democrat governments.

The idea that it is a left wing plot is just bizarre. A business agenda dominated plot, perhaps.

sprout

>an attempt to make a vast socialist state of Europe.

I assume you're meaning "socialist" to mean "something I don't agree with". The EU is not economically socialist in any way, it has a pro-privatisation, free-market agenda (indeed this very fact was part of the reason the Irish voted "no" as I pointed-out in another thread). Look behind all those bureaucrats and you find businessmen.

>The idea that it is a left wing plot is just bizarre. A business agenda dominated plot, perhaps.

To be honest, this "socialist superstate" rubbish is something the rightwing and leftwing media in the UK have cooked-up between themselves to pander to the prejudices of their respective readerships. The "left" media (in general) likes the Union* so it goes-along with the idea that it's a bit socialist in some way (although doesn't actually say how other than the French are involved and they're a bit socialist even though the EU has forced the French to privatise its traditionally state-owned industries); the rightwing media (in general) doesn't like the Union so it goes along with the idea it must be socialist because it wants to get replace the pound and imperial measurements and wants to standardise things across the market (which, of course, they won't call it) because (in my experience) this is what Conservatives associate with leftist thinking. The simple fact is it isn't: it's a confederation of capitalist countries and it has a nakedly pro-privatisation and pro-capitlist agenda.

*I have my own theories about why the Left is pro-Union and the Right anti and it comes down to their respective attitudes to the USA. The right is largely Atlanticist (and in some cases Anglospherist) and would rather we had a similar relationship with North America (many have actively advocated this, despite all the fluff about not liking the EU because of its rules and regulations); the Left on the other hand sees the EU as a counterweight to US power and so supports it and ignores or brushes-aside all the corporatist-capitalist stuff.

I think the main objection to the EU is that it is anti-democratic. This is a trait more commonly associated with the left (state-controlling) than the right (freedom-loving). *That* is why people across Europe dislike the EU.

RF

I'd go along with a couple of those points. I feel I have far more in common with Joe Bloggs in Schenectady than I do with Josef in Kracow or Guiseppe in Milan. Quite apart from the language issues, the cultures are totally different.

The EU is increasingly undemocratic. They're currently (I believe) bringing in rules banning fringe parties from forming coalitions following the success of right-wing parties.

Let's not forget the history of socialism & communism in Europe too. Italy & France have both flirted with the far left and the former Eastern Bloc countries are still socialist by nature. Europe has a history of dictators and totalitarian regimes within living memory. I seriously doubt that a Tito, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini or a Ceucescu could have come to power in the UK.

I think the strategy of keeping Europe at arm's length and using it as a dumping ground for our more odious, inept & corrupt politicians is probably a good one, whilst ensuring we keep good ties with the rest of the world. After all, isn't that what Britain has always been good at? Playing others off against each other to our benefit?

"This is a trait more commonly associated with the left (state-controlling) than the right (freedom-loving). *That* is why people across Europe dislike the EU."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The left is not "state controlling" and the right is not "freedom loving". The terms "left-wing and right-wing" came out of the French revolution when the supporters of the revolution sat on the left of the French parliament whilst the supporters of the old aristocracy sat on the right. Since then, "left" has tended to mean "progressives"; ie those who tend towards ideas that came out of the revolutionary period of the 18th century - the so-called enlightenment ideas whilst the "right" has been associated with those who tend to traditional values with regards to social order, morality and religion and are somewhat hostile to change. In the 20th century, many on the left were attracted to the revolutionary ideas of some in the socialist movement and agitated for extreme social and economic change and were dubbed "extreme-left" or "reds"; they were strongly opposed by militant conservatives, ultranationalists and religious extremists, they were dubbed "extreme-right" or "white" forces. Examples of the former included the Communists, revolutionary socialists and the Anarcho-syndicalists; examples of the latter included the Falangists, French Petainists and the Fascists.

Left and Right are confusing terms in many ways because some ideas have been passed around. For example, 100 years ago a "libertarian" was an anarchistic ultra-leftist whilst now (especially in the USA) it's associated with pro-business capitalists. Similarly, in 19th century Mexico the left was pro free-market whilst the Conservative right was hostile to it because they felt the free-market would upset the old aristocratic order.

The "left is statist, right is anti-statist" notion comes from a very Euro/US-centric reading of postwar politics. Since WWII (indeed, somewhat before that) the left has tended to believing that the state is the best way to achieve social justice whilst the right (not least because the state was largely colonised by leftists) prefers a weaker state and stronger "private" (often meaning corporate) power and influence. However, looked at historically (and even now) the right supports state power when it supports its interests and the left opposes it for the same reasons (as an example look at the American right's support for the Patriot Act and their traditional support for the police, army etc whilst over here look at the opposition to CCTV, 42-days etc etc much of which has come from the left).

Left and Right are crude ways of generalising certain groups and they often confuse. For example, some leftists were attracted to Thatcherism because, whilst they didn't care for her backwardly-Victorian worldview, they were attracted to her radical shakeup of the economic order and "traditional" class system. Similarly, during the Nazi Party's early years the Strasserist faction were attracted to the socialist ideas about state-controlled economy (although were hostile to leftist ideas about its purpose); needless to say Hitler (who detested socialism despite the idiotic ramblings of a few clueless Conservatives) made sure Strasser was one of those who perished in the night of the long knives.

I am enjoying the discussion from over here in the "one remaining superpower". Albeit a superpower whose currency, industry, stock market, etc. are heading into the toilet.

But it would be interesting to see if the fifty U.S. states could agree on a unified country if they started today. My answer: In Your Dreams.

My home state of Texas could not agree with most of its neighboring states (e.g. Oklahoma, my original home state, for football reasons if nothing else). Not to mention New York and California - blue states with no barbeque.

But the Irish are sinking the Euro ship? They would not have been at the top of my list ... and I am part Irish.

"The EU is increasingly undemocratic. They're currently (I believe) bringing in rules banning fringe parties from forming coalitions following the success of right-wing parties."

What "right-wing parties" are we talking about here? Are we talking about mainstream Conservative parties or are we talking about fascist and neo-fascist parties? If the latter, can you maybe think why there might be a good reason to keep them out of power?

"Let's not forget the history of socialism & communism in Europe too. Italy & France have both flirted with the far left"

Britain has "flirted" the the far-left too. Importantly, neither France nor Italy has had a Marxist government and, in both countries, the centre-right are quite firmly in power.

"and the former Eastern Bloc countries are still socialist by nature."

No they're not. More to the point, the European Union (which is what we're talking about here) is pro-capitalism, pro-privatisation and pro-market so if Eastern Europe is so keen to get involved that doesn't really suggest they're desperately socialist does it?

"Europe has a history of dictators and totalitarian regimes within living memory. I seriously doubt that a Tito, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini or a Ceucescu could have come to power in the UK."

Europe also has a long history of political, religious and economic liberty. Lest we forget the dictators came out of the power-struggles and chaos of the collapse of European laissez-faire and, as we now know, they weren't exactly popular. Only the Communist regimes were particularly persistent and they were brought down in popular revolts led by centre-right and centre-left opponents of the Communists; not exactly a way of demonstrating the popularity of those dictatorships.

Zagreb, what point are you arguing here?

RF

>Zagreb, what point are you arguing here?

In which post?

That's kind of my point...you're firing off refutations shot-gun style!

The original post was whether the UK should remain part of the EU, based on the result of the Irish referendum and other European politicians' reactions to that, and their democratic credentials given their statements.

So, are you pro-democracy, or pro-EU? It doesn't appear that you can be both.

RF

Ah, my apologies, you meant post 33.

Basically, SWL seemed to be arguing that there is a political gulf between Britain and the rest of Europe, that France and Italy in particular have strong far-left tendencies on the whole (I'll grant Italy did at one point but not any more) and that Eastern Europe is still "socialist". I was basically arguing "no, no and no".

The irony is, I agree with SWL's analysis that the EU is largely undemocratic. What I disagree with is the underlying reasons for this. The EU is undemocratic because it is largely out of control of European citizens whereas SWL seemed to be arguing that it's nature was because it reflected European politics in some way.

"The original post was whether the UK should remain part of the EU, based on the result of the Irish referendum and other European politicians' reactions to that, and their democratic credentials given their statements."

I think the UK should remain part of the EU and should, at the moment, reject any sort of European constitution because we have not had a full and thorough debate on the subject. I also feel that Britain should push very strongly for a thorough overhaul of the EU in order to strengthen the power of the Parliament and the individual states.

"So, are you pro-democracy, or pro-EU? It doesn't appear that you can be both."

You, personally, believe you can't be both. I'm in favour of an EU that is a loose confederation of nations governed by a European Parliment and a cabinet nominated by it. This is entirely democratic (well, in so much as the current UK setup is democratic) and entirely possible.

Well, it appears to me that the drivers of the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty/Whatever you want to call it care not one hoot for democracy.

And I seem to recall that a lot of Britons fought a world war against a bunch of people who were against democracy, a while back.

It worries me the extent to which leaders of European countries (most of whom are relative newcomers to democracy) are willing to fall back on their old "we know best, now just shut up and get back to your serfing" attittude (you know who they are, and the UK is not exempt from the charge)...and yet it is the most recent converts to democracy - countries whose people literally died to try and achieve it - who are turning out to be the defenders of democracy.

I agree that we should be part of the EU...but I don't agree with going against the democratic will of its people. The UK government, and all other governments, should immediately cease ratification of the Lisbon treaty as it has been irrefutably defeated by the one electorate who were given the opportunity to express its opinion.

RF

>Well, it appears to me that the drivers of the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty/Whatever you want to call it care not one hoot for democracy.

I agree, like I said things need to be shaken up and I think the French and the Irish are doing that. Something I find frustrating about European "Eurosceptics" is that they often make sharp, correct points about the undemocratic nature of the EU as it is and then refuse to try and fix them because they're simply interested in ruining the whole thing and not reforming it.

>And I seem to recall that a lot of Britons fought a world war against a bunch of people who were against democracy, a while back.

Don't be silly. This is not the same scenario and you know it. The EU is a largely-unrepresentative quasi-confederation; it is not a fascist dictatorship aggressively dropping bombs on us and threatening to invade.

>I agree that we should be part of the EU...but I don't agree with going against the democratic will of its people. The UK government, and all other governments, should immediately cease ratification of the Lisbon treaty as it has been irrefutably defeated by the one electorate who were given the opportunity to express its opinion.

Hey, so do I.