There is much huffing and puffing about a proposal to share with the French one of the aircraft carriers currently being built for the Royal Navy. This is being described as "barking mad" by military experts, a quote taken from the naïve Commander John Muxworthy, who thinks that the plan would jeopardise the UK's military independence and place security of the nation in the hands of France, our oldest enemy. An MoD insider is also cited as saying that: "We could find ourselves in a very difficult situation if we wanted to carry out an operation using the French carrier, and it was blocked by politicians in Paris."

View full article here

Placing the security of the nation into the hands of a foreign government (especially a traditional enemy) is of course barking mad... I would contend that it borders on the barking mad to hand that role to modern "government" at all. However I would suggest that it is not the government that is barking mad, rather it is us (man on Clapham omnibus).

The most heavily armed nation on the earth (per capita) as I understand it is Switzerland... With Iraq running close behind, and I am sure Afghanistan must be up there somewhere. What I am referring to here is real defence... The defence of ordinary citizen's interests.

It is no accident that in the UK and increasingly in other similarly governed nations, that ordinary folk are not permitted to bear arms, either in the way that Swiss citizens do, under lock and key in the cellars of their houses and apartment blocks, managed by the citizenry who are all trained and ready to use them should the need arise, or in the way that Iraqis and Afghanis have traditionally employed them, on a seemingly ad-hoc basis. It is no accident that our own trained armed forces are usually deployed overseas... I seem to remember that Harold Wislon was very worried about the possibility of a coup d'etat! What I am suggesting is that it would seem to me that we are being deliberately exposed by our so-called government for their own reasons and benefit.

Interesting to note that our governments are now walking away from Iraq, after ten years, having achieved one thing, they have removed the only (admittedly insane) Iraqi, that seems to have been able to keep relative peace amongst a tribal and warlike people.

I would wager that attacking the concept of personal defence, which has been going on fairly forcefully since the late 1950's, is a deliberate attack on democracy, which has now virtually disappeared from this nation, it is now more of a beauty pageant amongst one contingent of the government and another.

Our governments have their own strategies and policies which on the whole do not include defending the interests of a nation's citizenry, rather they exist purely to defend and further the interests of their fascist structures... The unholy trinity of government (and its associated bureaucracy), the large multinational corporations and the banks which keep the wheels oiled.

It's the funny thing about so much of this Euro nonsense that, in isolation, it actually makes sense. Considering just the Rafale it makes sense to purchase that over the more costly alternatives (it would have made sense to purchase it instead of the Eurofighter with its concrete radar). Obviously sharing carriers doesn't make sense, unless you're in a situation where it does...

It's frustrating. As a combined whole the EU makes no sense, but many little pieces seems quite logical enough for them to niggle us to death.

And that's how they do it. On the face of it, the Rafale does make sense (although so does the F-18). It is cheaper and common equipment would make it easier to operate together, which isn't such a bad thing now and again. And there is also sense in having a capability independent of the Septics ... you never known, we might want to sack Washington once more. But the political price for all this is totally unacceptable ... and therein lies the rub. We are being offered a bill of goods but no one is telling us the real price (not that they are actually hiding it!).

So why the hell do we bother to call them the Royal navy??

For the same reason we have a Queen's Speech ... to fool the plebs (and the media).

There is a massive difference (imo) between interoperability and interdependence. We were sold the former but will get the latter. NATO is about interoperability. The EU Rapid Reaction Farce is about interdependence.

Rafales can be launched from US carriers and the F-18 can be launched from the French one. That is interoperability. Sharing carriers is interdependence. Given the interdependence movement from Major onwards that you highlight why have we faffed about with the jump jet F35? It would make our carriers useless for French aircraft and their carriers all but useless for 'ours'. A long game to con voters and bounce the RN into getting bog standard carriers due to 'cost constraints' or just pie in the sky procurement again? As long as procurement remains wasteful and disjointed the case for greater integration is sustained. It is a very expensive way of achieving what our 'betters' surely know would see them not get re-elected if they had simply announced a speedy euro-military integration and slashed the MoD budget.

Such integration with Europe would be okay if we actually threw our weight around like the others do but our leaders never do. Foreign leaders exploit their national interest to promote their self interest - they make themselves popular. Our leaders just shirk their responsibilities to us and make themselves unpopular.

Another quality posting Dr North. I wonder how many commentators will remember all the way back to the last era of Tory wets and how they sowed the seeds of this agreement?

Three main parties, one elite. And we as mere serfs powerless to prevent their juvenile and dangerous games.

To lie to the Americans. Bet your boots on a Rafael deal coming soon. This explains why the French apparently over-paid for the Carrier plans.

Nice, extremely sound distinction ... and they are trying to sell the latter under the guise of the former.



Thanks ... I suspect it is very few ... and not many will enjoy being told that Cameron is simply continuing Major's policy. What was it, "at the heart of Europe"?

Yep, a one party state alright.

I have a question, if a xenophobe is a fear or hatred or foreign people, what is a fear or hatred of your own people?

government.

When will someone start the campaign 'We Want our Country Back'? With a blitz on Facebook and all the other networking sites we could stir the living dead. Get a few high profile people on board including politicians who are EU-sceptics and get the ball rolling. We need a march through London. I'll be there but am not very forthright and my charisma and organisational skills are lacking so would not be good Leader material .

Like me, you have dreams too And that's all they are dreams, can you imagine the useless articles that make up the majority of the public being more concerned with wanting their country back than what's on TV.