Can monarchs pick any rental name, or have to use one of their various christian names, even if not their primary one?
Because I'm sick of all these George's and Edward's. And think of poor Henry's - they had before we had any george's, and none since. And what of Stephen? Doesn't sound like a kingly name at all they have avoided it ever since.
I'd go with Cnut, Aethelstan or something Scottish.
The regnal name Charles chooses should be something that accurately reflects the population of the United Kingdom.
So he should go for King Mohammed
Well Charlie did want to be the defender or faith rather than defender of the faith. Post it on Twitter, maybe some UKIP heads will explode!
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back...
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades. (Don't get me started on our battlefield armoured capacity...) We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
The carriers and their capabilities are oft-visited topics on here. Like many things, it's all Labours fault. ?Hoon? said that they had decided to go without CATOBAR (catapult and traps), but the carriers were being designed so they could be retrofitted with them later.
Years later, when the F35B project looked risky, and the carriers had been designed, the coalition went to BAE and asked them to look into fitting CATOBAR. It turns out the requirement for retrofitting the equipment had not been worked on for years, and there were many issues. AIUI lack of electrical power, deck heights and available spaces were two major ones.
Hoon really was disastrous for the military.
Not entirely. Cameron ought to have bitten the bullet and ordered cats despite the cost (which is dwarfed by the F35 risk). And defence procurement ineptitude long predates Hoon, who was admittedly a standout in that respect.
It is interesting that Winston Churchill gave a running commentary on World War II to King George VI but Theresa May is unable to give a running commentary to the Queen on Brexit.
Now I normally disagree with you about Mrs May but I found that shocking (if the reports are correct). Dangerously close to Lèse-majesté I'd have thought.
I could have understood if Mrs May had said 'Brexit is going to be very complex' but this really jarred
'The Queen and the duke were said to have been looking forward to hearing more about Mrs May’s thoughts on Brexit. This may have included insights into her selections for the cabinet, including the appointment of Boris Johnson as foreign secretary.
However, both were said to have been left disappointed, a source said.'
I wonder if Mrs May got star struck?
Or perhaps she doesn't have a clue apart from Brexit means Brexit.
It comes right back to that Nick Robinson quote. When she was HS he was offered to interview her many times. In the end he refused because, he said, he came out of the interview knowing nothing more than he had known when he went in.
A brief survey of recent Tory Party literature was as illuminating.
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
If he says he's going to do something then it's best to consider the possibility that he might actually do it. I don't have the resources to ponder a probability cloud of what he might do.
Incidentally, was that "House of Cards" clip the right one? The Charles-avatar was in the second series.
Rather embarrassingly, we might end up with no choice, the F35B not being close to active service for a while yet and at the whim of the US, whose navy constitute the vast majority of the ordered planes.
John Redwood, sadly, does not understand what "WTO rules" means.
Whether or not he does understand them, I am interested to know where his argument falls down around his references to WTO rules?
Whereas I realise that you think Brexit is a good thing, you've got to admit that if it's reached the point of "it's OK: John Redwood has a plan", then things have gone horribly wrong...
No, not at all. It reminded me I used to read Redwood's blog quite regularly, and probably should do again. He writes very clearly and cogently on economic matters - though it has to be said he doesn't begin or end his blogs very well, they seem to just stop rather than conclude.
RCS dismissed his statements on WTO rules, but either didn't see or didn't wish to answer my follow up question about what Redwood actually said that was wrong, so as far as I am concerned Redwood's comments still stand.
As for it being a plan, it isn't a plan. It is an argument that Britain's negotiating position is strong, which as a net loser both in trade and in funding arrangements currently, should be obvious.
It is a great pity that Redwood isn't in the Government. It's one of the signs that her conversion to Brexit may be a facade in my opinion. Of the Brexiteers she has on board, I only really have time for Davis. Liam Fox is on his last chance and will never make serious waves. Boris' views flap about like a windsock and he depends on May entirely to keep him as Foreign Sec.
I disagree, but thank you for the thoughtful reply
One of many reasons that prison is not the best place for petty criminals. There is a a recurrent theme of feckless youths being jailed, then radicalised inside.
The Islamist gang can be very useful protection inside, and sometimes give the feckless angry drifter a cause. Prison is a very dangerous place indeed.
As an aside, I'm planning to do a thread in the new year about Fidei Defensor and Brexit.
I mean there's history of England breaking with Rome being excommunicated and losing some privileges and titles and our Parliament just giving back those privileges and titles.
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Game
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.
It's possible but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion yet - it may just be shower thoughts.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Game
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.
It's possible but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion yet - it may just be shower thoughts.
He may act the fool but he is anything but , his thoughts are planned even if not the best ideas in the world.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
'Let us assume charges in January, I'd assume a trial around April/May time, trial shouldn't take that long, assuming a conviction, a by-election writ moved in June, by election in September?'
If a by election writ is moved in June the by election would take place circa 4 weeks later!
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.
Plus if drones were refused permission for a fly past of the control tower, they would obey orders.
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.
Drone landing on a carrier would be a bit tricky wouldn't it?
Given they are communicated to via satellite there is some serious lag in their input.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
Surely the future of combat aviation is drones, and the Fleet Air Arm should convert to Helicopters and drones?
HMS Ocean has been one of our most useful ships in recent times, as well as one of the cheapest.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
Which doesn't mean it was impossible. Given the ridiculous expense of carriers, having ones which don't work is stupid.
Rcs' drone suggestion isn't ridiculous, but again pushes the problem into the long grass (and might still require cats) - especially if you're considering air to air capability.
No, not at all. It reminded me I used to read Redwood's blog quite regularly, and probably should do again. He writes very clearly and cogently on economic matters - though it has to be said he doesn't begin or end his blogs very well, they seem to just stop rather than conclude.
RCS dismissed his statements on WTO rules, but either didn't see or didn't wish to answer my follow up question about what Redwood actually said that was wrong, so as far as I am concerned Redwood's comments still stand.
As for it being a plan, it isn't a plan. It is an argument that Britain's negotiating position is strong, which as a net loser both in trade and in funding arrangements currently, should be obvious.
It is a great pity that Redwood isn't in the Government. It's one of the signs that her conversion to Brexit may be a facade in my opinion. Of the Brexiteers she has on board, I only really have time for Davis. Liam Fox is on his last chance and will never make serious waves. Boris' views flap about like a windsock and he depends on May entirely to keep him as Foreign Sec.
Hello: briefly, as I need to pick my daughter up.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
Having the USMC on the Queen Elizabeth for the maiden operational cruise in 2021 is immensely depressing. Can it really be that hard to have one squadron operational by then?
John Redwood, sadly, does not understand what "WTO rules" means.
Whether or not he does understand them, I am interested to know where his argument falls down around his references to WTO rules?
Whereas I realise that you think Brexit is a good thing, you've got to admit that if it's reached the point of "it's OK: John Redwood has a plan", then things have gone horribly wrong...
It's one of the signs that her conversion to Brexit may be a facade in my opinion.
That would depend on what you mean by facade I think. She was officially Remain and so publicly on the record that staying in would have been preferable, so unless she says she was lying or mistaken before, the only option open to her is to say she is committed to making Brexit the best Brexit there is, and we shall do fantastically, while conveniently not mentioning she apparently thought we'd do more fantastically within the EU. She's converted to Brexit happening, because it must for her politically let alone democracy, but that doesn't mean her official position from before has been repudiated.
Yes - conversion was the wrong word. 'Avowed determination to make it a success' was more what I wanted to say.
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Game
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.
Drone landing on a carrier would be a bit tricky wouldn't it?
Given they are communicated to via satellite there is some serious lag in their input.
There's no reason why computers on the carrier couldn't take over control and guide them in. There's no worry about the pilot, so there might be other alternative ways to land/recover them too.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
Which doesn't mean it was impossible. Given the ridiculous expense of carriers, having ones which don't work is stupid.
Rcs' drone suggestion isn't ridiculous, but again pushes the problem into the long grass (and might still require cats) - especially if you're considering air to air capability.
I do believe that the end result was a basic level incompatibility with current technology down to the original design.
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.
I like the idea of a drone carrier but there are problems, namely:
* One of the functions of a carrier is to do airspace denial over-the-horizon. Can drones do combat flying (not just air-to-ground) over-the-horizon, in unfriendly waters, in overcast stormy conditions? I don't think there's a drone that could take on, say, a SU27 off the coast of Norway in December. If there is one, tell me. * Is there a V/STOL drone?
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Game
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
You wouldn't need recertification. If a plant (and its plants not drugs that are the issue) has EMA certification then it has it. We would need to put in place a certification process for the UK market (but would suggest we just use the current EMA rules).
On drug approvals, again if a drug is to be sold into Europe it would need EMA approval - and if it has it already it can't be taken away. Going forward MHRA would continue to review drugs for approval in the UK, although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs.
The obvious solution is, of course, to remain inside the EMA and I don't think it is to anyone's benefit to kick us out - not patients, not doctors, not drug companies and not governments*. And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
* Except Sweden who have their eyes on our rapporteur business
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
Real Donald Trump Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up ..
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Game
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?
I'm delighted to be a winner not a whiner.
I think you're conflating the ability to win an election with the competence to govern. And the idea that an election (or referendum) win ought to exempt the winner(s) from criticism is a strange one.
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era. So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
Regardless of whether Trump believes what he says (and I think that he's a charmless, narcissistic liar so yes and no) some thought ought to be given to how the Chinese or Russians, to take two pertinent examples, see diplomacy by tweet.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
That was indeed the problem.
None of which excuses Cameron's failure to address the problem. And a simultaneous excoriation of Hoon might have been cathartic.
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
The Israelis received 2 F35's last week. They flew from Italy but were delayed by fog - of all things. I think that this time the Israelis and anyone else have bought a pig in a poke; I cannot see a long life for this plane which has a list of faults as long as your arm even before they get into actual active battle conditions.
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
.
And so take Trump seriously - not literally.
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up ..
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Game
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?
I'm delighted to be a winner not a whiner.
I think you're conflating the ability to win an election with the competence to govern. And the idea that an election (or referendum) win ought to exempt the winner(s) from criticism is a strange one.
No, I'm making fun of someone who moans endlessly.
It's quite common on here and the interwebs to tease others.
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era. So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
Regardless of whether Trump believes what he says (and I think that he's a charmless, narcissistic liar so yes and no) some thought ought to be given to how the Chinese or Russians, to take two pertinent examples, see diplomacy by tweet.
Viewing Trump is easy. He is the biggest loose cannon in world history, pray that you don't take his attention and aims straight at you.
Regardless of whether Trump believes what he says (and I think that he's a charmless, narcissistic liar so yes and no) some thought ought to be given to how the Chinese or Russians, to take two pertinent examples, see diplomacy by tweet.
And they understand it perfectly as I and millions of others do. That you prefer to assume literal understanding as that suits your view is entirely different.
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era. So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
Wishful thinking of Hoonian magnitude.
At least they will build a plane that can fly, unlike Lockheed it seems.
Even the Wright brothers managed to do that with 1900 technology.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
That was indeed the problem.
None of which excuses Cameron's failure to address the problem. And a simultaneous excoriation of Hoon might have been cathartic.
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era. So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
Modern planes are massively complex beasts. It's not just about the airframe: it's about the entire system, from weapons integration to refuelling.
This is worse if you try to treat all planes in a squadron as part of one system, with data being shared: one plane can see a target, whilst another fires its weapons at that target.
Prototype planes can be made fairly cheaply: the JSF project that became the F35 had a competition, with Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin. That competition ended in 2001. Since then there has been the task of turning flying prototypes into a warplane. The P1127 to Harrier took about seven years.
I know a little about radar systems - PESA, AESA etc. Even these are massively expensive to develop if you want to be at the bleeding edge of performance. They're also fascinating if you're a little sad ...
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!
It seems we have a pattern here.
In the West we make weapons that are useless and their only value is scrap value.
So the F-35 and those aircraft carries and destroyers will go straight out of the production line to the scrapyard, just like surplus food in the EU. It's all about subsidizing the sector without producing any value.
The only problem is the F-35 costs it's weight in Gold, literally it's the same price per ounce, but the scrapyard will only pay us for it's cheaper metal.
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.
Drone landing on a carrier would be a bit tricky wouldn't it?
Given they are communicated to via satellite there is some serious lag in their input.
There's no reason why computers on the carrier couldn't take over control and guide them in. There's no worry about the pilot, so there might be other alternative ways to land/recover them too.
If be, as a military planner, moderately worried about a combat system that someone can change the controller of mid operation.
Seriously? I'm pointing out for the nth time why he won and you resort to twaddle ad hom instead.
I do hope you don't bet against my advice.
If you'd read many of my posts, you'd know that I acknowledge how he won. We're discussing governing. If pointing out an apparent deficiency of scepticism is ad hom, then so be it.
And no, I didn't bet on this election, as I recognised that my assessment of his chances was likely to be biased by my absolute contempt for Trump.
...Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin...
I liked the X32. It had vectored thrust and didn't need an additional lift engine. I think it would have worked.
No sane aviator would have flown the X32, and enemy planes would have fallen out of the sky from laughter. It looked terrible.
Worse (from memory): the Lockheed prototypes were pretty much flying shells of a final configuration that has remained more or less the same (*). Boeing admitted the final planes would look very different from the X32. I also think that LM did a test fire of weapons from one prototype.
Basically, LM's X35 was far ahead of Boeing. Though it would be interesting to wonder if we'd be in this mess if Boeing had won the contract.
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."
Sovereign only when it suits Farage and UKIP. If Parliamentary Sovereignty involves legally having to ask MPs to vote on things like A50, then suddenly UKIP don't want it and it is a block on the the "people's" choices.
Modern planes are massively complex beasts. It's not just about the airframe: it's about the entire system, from weapons integration to refuelling.
This is worse if you try to treat all planes in a squadron as part of one system, with data being shared: one plane can see a target, whilst another fires its weapons at that target.
Prototype planes can be made fairly cheaply: the JSF project that became the F35 had a competition, with Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin. That competition ended in 2001. Since then there has been the task of turning flying prototypes into a warplane. The P1127 to Harrier took about seven years.
I know a little about radar systems - PESA, AESA etc. Even these are massively expensive to develop if you want to be at the bleeding edge of performance. They're also fascinating if you're a little sad ...
At this rate of rising defence costs and complexity, which we may have already reached that level, we will only be able to buy a single fighter plane that neither flies or shoots.
Same with tanks and of course ships.
The answer is NO, you don't need to have ever complex systems that don't work and cost too much, you need simplicity that is cheap and does the basics.
You need weapons that work, are cheaper than the enemies defences per unit and can be massed produced.
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!
It seems we have a pattern here.
In the West we make weapons that are useless and their only value is scrap value.
So the F-35 and those aircraft carries and destroyers will go straight out of the production line to the scrapyard, just like surplus food in the EU. It's all about subsidizing the sector without producing any value.
The only problem is the F-35 costs it's weight in Gold, literally it's the same price per ounce, but the scrapyard will only pay us for it's cheaper metal.
"In the West we make weapons that are useless and their only value is scrap value."
Citation required.
The West makes some of the best weapons systems in the world. We don't get everything right, but when 'we' do they can be superlative.
I also like many Russian systems though, especially when you consider they were designed for different missions.
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."
Sovereign only when it suits Farage and UKIP. If Parliamentary Sovereignty involves legally having to ask MPs to vote on things like A50, then suddenly UKIP don't want it and it is a block on the the "people's" choices.
People reading the 2100 version of Wikipedia will look at European immigration policy 1960-2016 in disbelief.
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100? In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations... And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
That was indeed the problem.
None of which excuses Cameron's failure to address the problem. And a simultaneous excoriation of Hoon might have been cathartic.
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!
So cheap ? The long terms costs of the current situation could be a multiple of that. And anyway, the situation was so egregious, arguably we ought to have threatened BAE with voiding the contracts.
When I say next gen Harriers, I mean new computer equipment, old plane. Let's just have something that goes please. Face facts - we're not going to be getting into dog fights are we? We will use these planes to drop things on various warm and sunny parts of the world against people with fairly simple surface to air missiles.
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.
The West makes some of the best weapons systems in the world
I'm not sure that's true any more. Even in the Soviet days they had good subs and planes, but the Putin generation of kit looks really good: who the hell thought they'd do a very-long-range nuclear-tipped torpedo? How do we cope with what is effectively a deniable stealth ICBM? The 21st century Western stuff isn't really scary: drones are nice but are limited.
When I say next gen Harriers, I mean new computer equipment, old plane. Let's just have something that goes please. Face facts - we're not going to be getting into dog fights are we? We will use these planes to drop things on various warm and sunny parts of the world against people with fairly simple surface to air missiles.
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.
Range and payload ? Useless. It would probably cost less to build two new carriers from scratch and buy the Rafale.
When I say next gen Harriers, I mean new computer equipment, old plane. Let's just have something that goes please. Face facts - we're not going to be getting into dog fights are we? We will use these planes to drop things on various warm and sunny parts of the world against people with fairly simple surface to air missiles.
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.
You can't have carriers without air to air capable planes on them. It would be as much of an error as sailing them without anti submarine protection in the fleet.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?
Comments
And defence procurement ineptitude long predates Hoon, who was admittedly a standout in that respect.
TSE get down from the table at once, no dessert until you have done your Latin homework!
Al Jaz
UPDATE: Hijacker says he is "pro-Gaddafi" and is willing to let all 111 passengers leave, but not its seven crew https://t.co/jWD6l4Q027 https://t.co/Yi4ASjGGpD
A brief survey of recent Tory Party literature was as illuminating.
The only Latin plural I'm 100% confident is that the plural of Dominatrix is Dominatrices
Incidentally, was that "House of Cards" clip the right one? The Charles-avatar was in the second series.
The Islamist gang can be very useful protection inside, and sometimes give the feckless angry drifter a cause. Prison is a very dangerous place indeed.
I mean there's history of England breaking with Rome being excommunicated and losing some privileges and titles and our Parliament just giving back those privileges and titles.
It was revoked by the Pope when Henry VIII broke from Rome, but Parliament in 1544 gave him the title of Fidei Defensor of the Anglican Church.
The title was just "Fidei Defensor" - the Anglican Church considering itself THE church, not a new church.
We could have one each for failed asylum seekers, and one for EU deportees.
This post was brought to you in the spirit of a Dickension Victorian Christmas.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncmaIP7lb1c
f("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper{};window.datawrapper["WOKif"]{},window.datawrapper["WOKif"].embedDeltas{"100":763.8,"200":583.8,"300":556.8,"400":529.8,"500":529.8,"600":529.8,"700":529.8,"800":502.79999999999995,"900":502.79999999999995,"1000":502.79999999999995},window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper"),window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["WOKif"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper- a.data["datawrapperheight"])if("WOKif"==b)window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"})
If a by election writ is moved in June the by election would take place circa 4 weeks later!
How Christmas Day TV audiences have declined over the past 30 years, as measured by the most-watched programme. https://t.co/JJvcViR2pS
President-elect Trump announces communication team with Sean Spicer as WH Press Secretary https://t.co/vu1VIvEWxM
Given they are communicated to via satellite there is some serious lag in their input.
HMS Ocean has been one of our most useful ships in recent times, as well as one of the cheapest.
Given the ridiculous expense of carriers, having ones which don't work is stupid.
Rcs' drone suggestion isn't ridiculous, but again pushes the problem into the long grass (and might still require cats) - especially if you're considering air to air capability.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
Video: serious #security incident at #Kazan #airport in #Russia, where a car drove through terminal building
https://t.co/30sO5BOfyQ
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
* One of the functions of a carrier is to do airspace denial over-the-horizon. Can drones do combat flying (not just air-to-ground) over-the-horizon, in unfriendly waters, in overcast stormy conditions? I don't think there's a drone that could take on, say, a SU27 off the coast of Norway in December. If there is one, tell me.
* Is there a V/STOL drone?
Large butterfly nets?
On drug approvals, again if a drug is to be sold into Europe it would need EMA approval - and if it has it already it can't be taken away. Going forward MHRA would continue to review drugs for approval in the UK, although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs.
The obvious solution is, of course, to remain inside the EMA and I don't think it is to anyone's benefit to kick us out - not patients, not doctors, not drug companies and not governments*. And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
* Except Sweden who have their eyes on our rapporteur business
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo
(I think that was another from the late, great Eric Brown)
So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
@viewcode
Regardless of whether Trump believes what he says (and I think that he's a charmless, narcissistic liar so yes and no) some thought ought to be given to how the Chinese or Russians, to take two pertinent examples, see diplomacy by tweet.
And a simultaneous excoriation of Hoon might have been cathartic.
It's quite common on here and the interwebs to tease others.
He is the biggest loose cannon in world history, pray that you don't take his attention and aims straight at you.
Even the Wright brothers managed to do that with 1900 technology.
... as is fanboy/girl ism
This is worse if you try to treat all planes in a squadron as part of one system, with data being shared: one plane can see a target, whilst another fires its weapons at that target.
Prototype planes can be made fairly cheaply: the JSF project that became the F35 had a competition, with Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin. That competition ended in 2001. Since then there has been the task of turning flying prototypes into a warplane. The P1127 to Harrier took about seven years.
I know a little about radar systems - PESA, AESA etc. Even these are massively expensive to develop if you want to be at the bleeding edge of performance. They're also fascinating if you're a little sad ...
I do hope you don't bet against my advice.
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."
In the West we make weapons that are useless and their only value is scrap value.
So the F-35 and those aircraft carries and destroyers will go straight out of the production line to the scrapyard, just like surplus food in the EU.
It's all about subsidizing the sector without producing any value.
The only problem is the F-35 costs it's weight in Gold, literally it's the same price per ounce, but the scrapyard will only pay us for it's cheaper metal.
And no, I didn't bet on this election, as I recognised that my assessment of his chances was likely to be biased by my absolute contempt for Trump.
Worse (from memory): the Lockheed prototypes were pretty much flying shells of a final configuration that has remained more or less the same (*). Boeing admitted the final planes would look very different from the X32. I also think that LM did a test fire of weapons from one prototype.
Basically, LM's X35 was far ahead of Boeing. Though it would be interesting to wonder if we'd be in this mess if Boeing had won the contract.
(*) http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=28
Glad I'm not German.
Same with tanks and of course ships.
The answer is NO, you don't need to have ever complex systems that don't work and cost too much, you need simplicity that is cheap and does the basics.
You need weapons that work, are cheaper than the enemies defences per unit and can be massed produced.
Citation required.
The West makes some of the best weapons systems in the world. We don't get everything right, but when 'we' do they can be superlative.
I also like many Russian systems though, especially when you consider they were designed for different missions.
Of course figuratively he means "Me Trump, Me strong"
Why have we done this to ourselves?
The long terms costs of the current situation could be a multiple of that.
And anyway, the situation was so egregious, arguably we ought to have threatened BAE with voiding the contracts.
But agreed about Hoon and Brown
http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f-32/images/df-sd-03-15738.jpg
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.
If it did then who cares about it's looks.
The thing will fight a war not a beauty contest.
It would probably cost less to build two new carriers from scratch and buy the Rafale.
UK 'living on Fantasy Island' over EU divorce demands
Paul Joseph Watson
Berlin terrorist: "I call on my Muslim brothers everywhere...kill the crusader pigs." #NothingToDoWithIslam https://t.co/hbjlf8ARuY