Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The economic angle also doesn't make any sense for Bush politically because of his donor base.  Investment banks and insurance companies are his big donors.  And most, if not all, of them have large operations in London.  That's to say nothing of the damage that would be done to American shareholders -- whether wealthy individuals or pensioners or whatever other group -- because of the resulting losses in profit, and at a time when people were being hit quite hard already.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu May 10th, 2007 at 11:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only angle I see as making any sense is  this is all done to keep the UK's seat on the security council. There is a push to give Germany and Japan Permanent membership, or to loose the British and French seats and replace them with a European Seat. If this were to happen then the UK would suffer  a blowto its self image. At the moment the UK has its permanent seat on the grounds that it is one of the Five major neuclear powers, however for a large period of time it has been buying its neuclear weapons in. The only countries that replacement weapons could be brought from are the US , every other country would really be discounted for political reasons. Can you imagine how mad the eurosceptics would go if the UK bought its neuclear crak from France? So the UK's status rested on on Keeping the US happy, and George Is just about vindictive enough that he would ban the UK from ever buying neucs from the USA ever again if they had turned him down.

then the Blair government would have been faced with groveling to the French government and that would never have done.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 09:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK could also develop its own nuclear program. Supposedly Iran can have a nuke in one year, so why can't the UK?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If we built it ourselves, do you have any idea how overpriced, rubbish and late it would be?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 11:40:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I do, yes.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 11:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Looking at the majority of projects that have been made in the last 20 years, you could take the cost of the US version, and treble it for the cost of a UK version,  so roughly an excess 40 billion pounds.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 12:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe it could be funded by bonds. Or an LLP.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 01:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or an interest-only, negative-equity mortgage.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 04:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True. But the Iranians are short of even OUR level of management "competence".

They couldn't build a bomb in five years, even if all sanctions were dropped tomorrow and they went shopping at "Centrifuges 'r us"

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 11:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Really?  Short of the country that digs random holes in its streets and doesn't touch them for six months (if even then) for no apparent reason?  You're not giving Britain enough credit for its incompetence, Chris.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 12:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are pretty good at incompetence, I grant you.

Pretty good at creativity though: you have to be creative to be idle.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 04:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
overpriced, rubbish and late

...only to be referred to as "Stability & Growth" after June 27th.  Enjoy it while you can, ceebs. ;)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun May 13th, 2007 at 12:52:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That, too, would be foolish, though.  It would amount to kicking off one of the two permanent members who are close allies.  (Bush can talk about looking into Putie-Pu's soul all he likes, but France and Britain are the only serious allies on the council.)  And it, too, would sent shockwaves through both Britain and America.

As for buying nukes from France, I suspect the eurosceptic crowd would rather buy them from France than not buy them at all.

Can the US even kick countries off the council?  I have no idea what the protocol is for that at the UN.  If so, and if the US was going to threaten Britain with it, why did the Bushies not kick France, Russia and China off?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody can kick countries off the council, though apparently the General Assembly could decide at one point that it was Mainland China and not Taiwan that represented "China" and so the UNSC seat changed hands (and Taiwan lost its UN membership)
From the 1960s onwards, nations friendly to the PRC, led by Albania, moved an annual resolution in the General Assembly to transfer China's seat at the UN from the ROC to the PRC. Every year the United States was able to assemble a majority of votes to block this resolution. But the admission of newly independent developing nations in the 1960s gradually turned the General Assembly from being Western-dominated to being dominated by countries sympathetic to Beijing. In addition, the desire of the Nixon administration to improve relations with China to counterbalance the Soviet Union reduced American willingness to support the ROC.

As a result of these trends, on October 25, 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the General Assembly, withdrawing recognition of the ROC as the legitimate government of China, and recognising the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. China received support from two-thirds of all United Nations' members and the complete unanimous approval by the Security Council excluding the ROC.

The Resolution declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations." Because this resolution was on an issue of credentials rather than one of membership, it was possible to bypass the Security Council where the United States and the ROC could have used their vetoes.

Thus, ROC was expelled from UN.



Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 11th, 2007 at 10:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series