Defence under a Corbyn Government
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...risk-ngcz92szz
In a controversial intervention Alexander Downer, a former foreign minister and until 18 months ago Australia’s high commissioner to London, warned that a Corbyn government would force a reassessment of the security relationship between the two countries. Addressing the National Press Club in Canberra on Brexit, Australia’s longest-serving foreign minister said that Mr Corbyn and those around him were “unsympathetic to and hostile to western interests”.
He said if Mr Corbyn became prime minister, the sharing of intelligence with the UK through Five Eyes — the intelligence-gathering alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States — would be reduced. “We would substantially wind it back. We would have to be very careful what sort of intelligence we shared with the [UK] government, we would have to be very careful because of the foreign policy stance of Jeremy Corbyn and the cohorts around him,” Mr Downer said......
Election 2019: Australia fears Jeremy Corbyn security risk
Australia’s former envoy to London has warned that Canberra would severely limit intelligence-sharing with the United Kingdom if Jeremy Corbyn wins the general election.In a controversial intervention Alexander Downer, a former foreign minister and until 18 months ago Australia’s high commissioner to London, warned that a Corbyn government would force a reassessment of the security relationship between the two countries. Addressing the National Press Club in Canberra on Brexit, Australia’s longest-serving foreign minister said that Mr Corbyn and those around him were “unsympathetic to and hostile to western interests”.
He said if Mr Corbyn became prime minister, the sharing of intelligence with the UK through Five Eyes — the intelligence-gathering alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the United States — would be reduced. “We would substantially wind it back. We would have to be very careful what sort of intelligence we shared with the [UK] government, we would have to be very careful because of the foreign policy stance of Jeremy Corbyn and the cohorts around him,” Mr Downer said......
I see Lord Bramall has died - he was no supporter of Trident.
Thread Starter
Lord Bramall like one of his predecessors, Lord Carver, may have been against the nuclear deterrent, but they both genuinely supported a strong conventional defence. I'm not sure where either stood on Tactical nuclear weapons? One of the problems with the defence debate today is the media obsession with the renewal of Trident. This is narrow and misleading, what is never looked at is what a Corbyn government would do regarding the current general military posture and the direction its headed in. What would be his response to any military threat recognised by the US, Germany and France? He and McDonnell have already stated they aim to end our relations with the US over such things as defence cooperation and seek stronger ties elsewhere. I think they are acting according to type and are extremely dangerous!
FB
FB
FB - I hold no brief whatsoever for Corbyn but I find your conclusion as to his being 'extremely dangerous' a little puzzling in the context of 'military threat recognised by the US' Given recent military events in the Middle East, I would consider the US manoeuvring to be both extremely dangerous AND difficult to comprehend. Perhaps defining 'extremely dangerous' is more dependent on political leanings than logical assessment?
There really are some extraordinary memory dysfunctions demonstrated on this forum! Possibly age-related and certainly politically driven. We (the UK, that is) appear to have become a nation unable to think for itself and to rely more and more on repetitive hyperbole from the increasingly partisan media - with their latest 'bon mots' and bile spread to the unwitting by such as ORAC - not a single original thought or argument included. Is it really so difficult to analyse what is put before us and, reach conclusions based on actual experience rather than regurgitating the latest brain-wash output from wherever?
The memory dysfunction in relation to our impeccable and civilised behaviour in the world ? Well, start with a 'Day in Gibraltar' and proceed via NI and the 'odd' unacknowledged activities at a Scottish airport in support of our closest ally's investigation techniques ... which Government provided that support? Pure as the driven snow? Could be that someone left a yellow patch or two!!
The memory dysfunction in relation to our impeccable and civilised behaviour in the world ? Well, start with a 'Day in Gibraltar' and proceed via NI and the 'odd' unacknowledged activities at a Scottish airport in support of our closest ally's investigation techniques ... which Government provided that support? Pure as the driven snow? Could be that someone left a yellow patch or two!!
Thread Starter
Cornish Jack,
I imagine it is all a matter of how things are relative, who would you have as a close ally other than the States? I fully appreciate the concerns about the USA and how it has behaved in recent years. Recent being the last 60 or more. As someone who would like your countrymen and your government to think for themselves, itself more, then you're likely opposed to any further handing over of thinking to the European Union. I simply point out that Corbyn and McDonnell have been reported to have stated their intention to distance themselves from the USA if they form a government, if the media are misreporting them then fair enough, but the only attack on the media is that they are picking on Corbyn, not quite the same thing as misreporting.
Macron and Verhofstadt are also openly seeking to hold the USA at arms length because of Trump. For a start, he won't be there forever, in fact there is a small chance he won't be president much after Christmas. However long he remains, it would be, indeed, extreme folly to burn bridges with the USA. Especially as once we leave the EU, 80% of NATO expenditure will come from outside of the EU. Just what the hell they think they're about with the 'EU Army' is interesting if nothing else. Something else Corbyn is opposed to, he's opposed to the EU army, in fact anything that goes bang, unless its in the hands of a terrorist group or opposed state. His words by the way, not the Daily Mail's.
FB
I imagine it is all a matter of how things are relative, who would you have as a close ally other than the States? I fully appreciate the concerns about the USA and how it has behaved in recent years. Recent being the last 60 or more. As someone who would like your countrymen and your government to think for themselves, itself more, then you're likely opposed to any further handing over of thinking to the European Union. I simply point out that Corbyn and McDonnell have been reported to have stated their intention to distance themselves from the USA if they form a government, if the media are misreporting them then fair enough, but the only attack on the media is that they are picking on Corbyn, not quite the same thing as misreporting.
Macron and Verhofstadt are also openly seeking to hold the USA at arms length because of Trump. For a start, he won't be there forever, in fact there is a small chance he won't be president much after Christmas. However long he remains, it would be, indeed, extreme folly to burn bridges with the USA. Especially as once we leave the EU, 80% of NATO expenditure will come from outside of the EU. Just what the hell they think they're about with the 'EU Army' is interesting if nothing else. Something else Corbyn is opposed to, he's opposed to the EU army, in fact anything that goes bang, unless its in the hands of a terrorist group or opposed state. His words by the way, not the Daily Mail's.
FB
FB - Interesting take on the present situation and the differing political reactions to it - not least the dichotomy between your views of two of the major 'players' , Corbyn and Trump. One is the de facto Commander-in-Chief and the other , (if in a majority Government) would be dependent on advice from his Top Brass. We have had more than enough evidence of the total unreliability of one who holds office as against the strongly held views of the other. Actuality as against forecast ? Ingrained antipathy as against reasoned argument?
As regards attitude to the US, it is historical as far as the French are concerned, dating from the post WW2 Vietnam and the American's attempts to interfere in French Colonial affairs, culminating in Dien Bien Phu. Long time ago, long memories!!
The so-called EU army is the latest iteration of the French dislike of having to rely on an 'ally' they deeply distrust, as with nuclear weapons - again, memories of US 'interference in French 'areas of interest' in the ME and N Africa during and after WW2. The Brits dislike of the idea would have been better presented from inside the EU Parliament rather than whingeing from a position of no influence and even less importance.
'Burning bridges with the US' ? We are (so we are constantly harangued about) leaving the EU to become a 'Sovereign State' again - whatever that supposedly means. As such, our position of huge importance in the World will, undoubtedly, have our 'oldest ally' offering terms of trade and support which will ensure that even Corbyn will welcome them with open arms ... No???
This forum is a place where opinions can be expressed. The old Service 'saw' that "opinions are like fundamental orifices, everyone has one" is a truism with the possible rider that constipation (of reasoned, logical thought) can make the output unreliable - and unpleasant!
As regards attitude to the US, it is historical as far as the French are concerned, dating from the post WW2 Vietnam and the American's attempts to interfere in French Colonial affairs, culminating in Dien Bien Phu. Long time ago, long memories!!
The so-called EU army is the latest iteration of the French dislike of having to rely on an 'ally' they deeply distrust, as with nuclear weapons - again, memories of US 'interference in French 'areas of interest' in the ME and N Africa during and after WW2. The Brits dislike of the idea would have been better presented from inside the EU Parliament rather than whingeing from a position of no influence and even less importance.
'Burning bridges with the US' ? We are (so we are constantly harangued about) leaving the EU to become a 'Sovereign State' again - whatever that supposedly means. As such, our position of huge importance in the World will, undoubtedly, have our 'oldest ally' offering terms of trade and support which will ensure that even Corbyn will welcome them with open arms ... No???
This forum is a place where opinions can be expressed. The old Service 'saw' that "opinions are like fundamental orifices, everyone has one" is a truism with the possible rider that constipation (of reasoned, logical thought) can make the output unreliable - and unpleasant!
Gentleman Aviator
France didn't seem to mind US "interference" in 1916 and 1944......
One is also reminded of Lyndon Johnson's alleged remark in 1966 when CdG asked that all US servicemen leave France...
LBJ: "Does that include the 60 000 buried there....?"
One is also reminded of Lyndon Johnson's alleged remark in 1966 when CdG asked that all US servicemen leave France...
LBJ: "Does that include the 60 000 buried there....?"
Thread Starter
Cornish Jack,
Your point about a reasoned argument from within the EU as opposed to whingeing from the side lines without any influence is a typical remain position. The whole point of leaving the EU, and for what its worth I'm not entirely sure its good idea or not, I can't determine who's an absolute fibber and who isn't. So I don't know if Tusk is right to forecast, with seeming certainty, our second rate status once we leave. I understand his native Poland is a third rate country within the EU, the largest net receiver, to our being the second largest net contributor in 2017. Or is their something in the dynamic of those figures which drives is enmity toward the UK leaving. What made me want to leave alas, was a remainer of good reputation.
Lord Heseltine said in 2015, it was inevitable we would join the Euro.. Now is it an example or feature of our strength and fortitude to submit to a foreign currency? I understand the EU can do what it likes with its titular 'Army' I trust meaning an EU Air Force and Navy as well, once we're out we should no longer be any more interested in their plans than the USA. But given the disparity, yes I know almost all US funded, between what the EU sets aside for defence budgeting, as a whole, and how much of NATO is currently funded and by who, leaves the EU with great big thumping headache of an expense, if their EU Army is going to relieve NATO.
FB
Your point about a reasoned argument from within the EU as opposed to whingeing from the side lines without any influence is a typical remain position. The whole point of leaving the EU, and for what its worth I'm not entirely sure its good idea or not, I can't determine who's an absolute fibber and who isn't. So I don't know if Tusk is right to forecast, with seeming certainty, our second rate status once we leave. I understand his native Poland is a third rate country within the EU, the largest net receiver, to our being the second largest net contributor in 2017. Or is their something in the dynamic of those figures which drives is enmity toward the UK leaving. What made me want to leave alas, was a remainer of good reputation.
Lord Heseltine said in 2015, it was inevitable we would join the Euro.. Now is it an example or feature of our strength and fortitude to submit to a foreign currency? I understand the EU can do what it likes with its titular 'Army' I trust meaning an EU Air Force and Navy as well, once we're out we should no longer be any more interested in their plans than the USA. But given the disparity, yes I know almost all US funded, between what the EU sets aside for defence budgeting, as a whole, and how much of NATO is currently funded and by who, leaves the EU with great big thumping headache of an expense, if their EU Army is going to relieve NATO.
FB
I can't determine who's an absolute fibber and who isn't.#
Precisely! - couldn't agree more!
The problem, as I see it, is simply commonsense as against unsupported optimism. Particularly in an aviation forum, I would not expect to find contributors advocating leaving a fully operating , if slightly costly, aircraft in order to experiment with a new, untried model which relies on untested component manufacturers and relying for major input (engines?) on the vagaries of a producer who has demonstrated a cavalier attitude to best practice! Today's news of another unasked-for visit does nothing to reassure me of the motives of one side of the campaign!
My major gripe about so much of the comment in these postings is the demonstrable lack of examination of the 'issues', presenting, instead, the unswerving devotion to the well-worn platitudes of our 'Leaders@
Precisely! - couldn't agree more!
The problem, as I see it, is simply commonsense as against unsupported optimism. Particularly in an aviation forum, I would not expect to find contributors advocating leaving a fully operating , if slightly costly, aircraft in order to experiment with a new, untried model which relies on untested component manufacturers and relying for major input (engines?) on the vagaries of a producer who has demonstrated a cavalier attitude to best practice! Today's news of another unasked-for visit does nothing to reassure me of the motives of one side of the campaign!
My major gripe about so much of the comment in these postings is the demonstrable lack of examination of the 'issues', presenting, instead, the unswerving devotion to the well-worn platitudes of our 'Leaders@
The problem with a deterrent force is that it's impossible to prove if it is working or if it ever worked.
Fact - the UK V-Bomber/Polaris/Trident has been in service for around 70 years.
Fact - the UK has never been invaded nor been in a major war in that time.
Theory - the two are 100% connected.
Problem - lots of other things have been in place defence -wise over the last 60 years - membership of NATO for example - which may also have stopped a serious war.
Dilemma - if the UK scraps its deterrent force does this mean it is more likely to be in a major war going forward? It could be that it WAS a major item. or it could be that it wasn't but MIGHT be if the USA decides to disengage going forward. Or maybe it is a total waste of time or money.
A college lecturer of mine used to compare this sort of debate to the Aztecs absolute belief that if they didn't sacrifice people the world would end. It's easy to say "stop it" but it's seen as a terminal risk by those involved in policy and they know who'll be held responsible if they are wrong.
It's a matter of judgement and balance - personally I believe it probably isn't a real deterrent and it is a major distorting factor in UK military finance and procurement - but I can see why so many people go for the status quo.
It's not a "flag-waving" or a "flag-burning" issue TBH - it's a honest difference in strategy and belief - that can only be solved in a democracy by the elected politicians - whoever they are.
Fact - the UK V-Bomber/Polaris/Trident has been in service for around 70 years.
Fact - the UK has never been invaded nor been in a major war in that time.
Theory - the two are 100% connected.
Problem - lots of other things have been in place defence -wise over the last 60 years - membership of NATO for example - which may also have stopped a serious war.
Dilemma - if the UK scraps its deterrent force does this mean it is more likely to be in a major war going forward? It could be that it WAS a major item. or it could be that it wasn't but MIGHT be if the USA decides to disengage going forward. Or maybe it is a total waste of time or money.
A college lecturer of mine used to compare this sort of debate to the Aztecs absolute belief that if they didn't sacrifice people the world would end. It's easy to say "stop it" but it's seen as a terminal risk by those involved in policy and they know who'll be held responsible if they are wrong.
It's a matter of judgement and balance - personally I believe it probably isn't a real deterrent and it is a major distorting factor in UK military finance and procurement - but I can see why so many people go for the status quo.
It's not a "flag-waving" or a "flag-burning" issue TBH - it's a honest difference in strategy and belief - that can only be solved in a democracy by the elected politicians - whoever they are.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Cornish Jack:
[QUOTE Particularly in an aviation forum, I would not expect to find contributors advocating leaving a fully operating , if slightly costly, aircraft in order to experiment with a new, untried model which relies on untested component manufacturers and relying for major input (engines?) on the vagaries of a producer who has demonstrated a cavalier attitude to best practice!][/QUOTE]
At first glance I thought you were referring to that European collaborative abomination that is the A400M but then I realized it was just a metaphor!
[QUOTE Particularly in an aviation forum, I would not expect to find contributors advocating leaving a fully operating , if slightly costly, aircraft in order to experiment with a new, untried model which relies on untested component manufacturers and relying for major input (engines?) on the vagaries of a producer who has demonstrated a cavalier attitude to best practice!][/QUOTE]
At first glance I thought you were referring to that European collaborative abomination that is the A400M but then I realized it was just a metaphor!
Just had a bottle of wine and a revelation came to me; under a Corbyn Government and the scrapping of Trident, etc means more money for the troops! Go on strike for a 50 % pay rise and t&c’s like Tube workers. A Labour government could be the best thing that happened for the armed forces! Best not to ask how the defence of the Realm pans out though.