Comments on post #3428622

@79248cm/s on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-03-02T00:08:48-05:00

ithekro said:

...

It isn't so much the UK can't negotiate well anymore, but that like I said in my previous comments, the EU needs to retaliate in order to avoid the existential risk Brexit poses to them. UK has nothing to offer the EU unless they compromise on Brexit which would be counter productive for the UK. The EU similarly has nothing to offer back to the UK, except by creating something to offer by taking it away, trying to block trade to their members (ironically the very thing the EU was originally was supposed to be ideologically against). The EU's current strategy is to propagate the image of a dysfunctional UK because of leaving the EU and attempt to negotiate deals that effectively pull the UK under the EU's thumbs. The EU has spent a lot of resources campaigning in the UK to push for a soft Brexit or effectively none. That has not worked to actually change public opinion for the most part. The media has worked hard to paint a picture of post-EU UK being depressed despite actual financial growth since the first vote.

The whole myth of the reduced bargaining power outside the EU contradicts the whole reason for Brexit existing in the first place. Brexit only became a thing because the actions of the EU stopped representing the members which lead to several disagreeable events. The idea that the UK had more influence in world politics with the EU was little more than the EU using their membership's collective influence for the EU's agendas, which did not always reflect the member's intent. This is highlighted largely in part by the failure of the Euro which encompasses almost all of core issues the EU struggles with. The Euro is one of the major chains of the EU, threatening a financial panic for any who attempt to leave it, but at the same time causing dependency burdens on each nation's economy. The refugee crisis was largely promoted as the cause, but I think it was more of a trigger than the the sole fundamental issue.

@ithekro on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-03-01T03:12:48-05:00

The EU is pretty much up for a hard Brexit at this point because the UK doesn't seem to even know how to negotiate anything anymore. There is like what, a month left for negotiations before the deadline. Article 50 has already be called. The EU pretty much has to let the UK go, and for all the muck that's happened since the vote, they are probably going to be better off for letting the UK go. Spain will almost certainly make a bid for Gibraltar afterwards. Scotland might try to leave the UK and rejoin the EU on their own terms. Ireland will be a mess (no surprise there) due to the Ireland/North Ireland border being the other land border between the EU and UK.

The UK is also been unable to negotiate with Japan due to diplomatic incompetence over Brexit.

@79248cm/s on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-03-01T03:00:13-05:00

Alceister said:
...

The dissolution of an empire is by default bilateral in all instances, involving that of the imperial country and the dependent state. That isn't novel. The reduction of their sphere of influence is a loss of ambition no matter how you look at it. Consent with a result alone doesn't equate to ambition. That is what I mean by saying they lost of it and passed the torch to the EU. Not a loss by coercion as you say, but still a loss by choice with a hope of a manageable model to match their lowered levels of aspiration.

The EU was a lot more short sighted IMO than Brexit. On paper it sounds good with free trade, mostly unrestricted travel, linked diplomacy, and equal voice. While I suppose the concept was to mimic the United States, it fails because it is a conglomerate of "independent" nations, unlike the US where states do not view themselves as an independent entity from other states or the federal government. The American states are divisions of jurisdiction, not allegiance. Consequentially members of the EU risk the loss of a great deal of their sovereignty which has reduced value to the collective survival. Performance failures of one member, brings down the others. This would not be an issue if say members of EU were fine with sacrificing their country for the survival of another EU member. However, I don't think there is anyone in there who perceives that kind of unity with fellow members. EU is great for the lower performing nations, but not for the more successful ones. If the EU was put on a micro-scale and utilized among individuals like say a homeowners association, I doubt anyone would ever agree to it. It just has very bad terms for the average self-sufficient individual.

Personally I do not believe the EU will allow the UK to leave. I may be wrong, but there is far too much power at stake for them to just take it sitting down. Brexit is an existential threat to the concept of their organization and even if they do leave on paper, the EU will do all they can to punish the UK for defecting. Not that such actions would be unprecedented, after all that is just politics. Retaliation is to be expected. However there are many silly claims about the dangers of Brexit like claiming a destruction of the UK's economy for decades to come. If leaving such an organization is so damaging for a member (which previously got along fine as an independent), you have to wonder if the organization actually empowered the nation, or just enslaved it through dependency with only a promise of prosperity.

Saladofstones said:

As far as American-British relationships, a key thing that I noticed throughout history is that America can be rather fickle.

Definitely. A big part of that is like Alciester said, because we have two different ideologies in this country. It does make things difficult as far as foreign policy involving other countries too. There are people I worked with that we were chummy with, I go back home and then leave the US again a few years later to return only to find they are classified as "bad actors" and we are prohibited from communicating with them. Then sometime later we are best friends with them again. The back and forth flip in foreign policy and even loyalties is dangerous for America (as well as those who help us out), but it won't end until the people back home come to a consensus as to what they want for America (or if they even want America to exist).

@ithekro on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-28T23:15:29-05:00

Despite both speaking English (though I'm certain the British would disagree that the Americans speak English correctly), the Americans and British were not on the best of terms until at least the end of the First World War, and certainly by the Second World War. Even as late at the First World War, it was a possibility that American could go to war with the United Kingdom. Post war, it was even suggested that the next war would be an economic one between the Americans and British over trade routes and such, and the Navies of both countries tried to outpace each other. A race the British could not afford after the Great War, and one the American citizens could care less about. Thus the Washington Treaty.

By the Second World War, it became basically unthinkable to be at war with the United Kingdom anymore for Americans. And its stayed like that ever since. One of the few countries the Americans can't imagine fighting for any reason. The only other countries like that that I can think of right now is Australia and New Zealand. Partly because they are a long ways away, but also the Americans get along well with them in general. Americans get along well with Canadians as well, but there is always that jest of making them into northern states.

@Alceister on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-28T22:44:29-05:00

Saladofstones said:

I didn't mean to single you or anyone else out, just pointing out that people apply narratives that don't reflect what went into the events themselves.

I would say that a bigger problem, though, with de Gaulle was his incredibly belligerent attitude towards everyone. He, alone, poisoned French-American relations to the point that we still have a lingering animosity with each other and plenty of French Surrender jokes. There is also the matter of him doing things like requiring NATO convinces have French military escort, attempting to strike deals with the Soviets directly as if they were equal powers (which went nowhere since the Soviets felt he had nothing to back his rhetoric up). In fairness, as a Belgian, I will say that he did point out that Belgium isn't a real country, which is true.

As far as American-British relationships, a key thing that I noticed throughout history is that America can be rather fickle.

De Gaulle was a difficult person to work with, but it's not like it was entirely without justification, some of which stretches back to the Second World War. Despite trying to puff up Free France as a government-in-exile, neither Churchill nor Roosevelt really saw him as the legitimate representative of France. They made numerous attempts to replace him with someone more agreeable. They went behind his back to cut a deal with Admiral Darlan in North Africa. This never really improved as time went on.

As for American fickleness, a lot of it comes down to domestic politics. That's just about all I will say on the topic.

@Saladofstones on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-28T12:02:53-05:00

Alceister said:

Feel free to correct me. I will readily admit that my knowledge of Cold War history is rather inexact, but I am working off a few facts:

- British Empire being financially drained and dependent on American economic aid in the post-war period.

- Mutual distrust between de Gaulle and Truman and lack of other continental allies driving UK and US closer together.

- Much of the post-war world economic order being shaped by British and American economists.

Of course, this relationship was rather fraught and as the Suez Crisis would prove, was rather unequal.

In any case, I am mostly directing this to 79248cm/s by pointing out that the UK had compromised with another power long before the EU had formed.

I didn't mean to single you or anyone else out, just pointing out that people apply narratives that don't reflect what went into the events themselves.

I would say that a bigger problem, though, with de Gaulle was his incredibly belligerent attitude towards everyone. He, alone, poisoned French-American relations to the point that we still have a lingering animosity with each other and plenty of French Surrender jokes. There is also the matter of him doing things like requiring NATO convinces have French military escort, attempting to strike deals with the Soviets directly as if they were equal powers (which went nowhere since the Soviets felt he had nothing to back his rhetoric up). In fairness, as a Belgian, I will say that he did point out that Belgium isn't a real country, which is true.

As far as American-British relationships, a key thing that I noticed throughout history is that America can be rather fickle.

@Alceister on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-28T00:16:21-05:00

79248cm/s said:

Well that is exactly what I mean by losing ambition. Rather than adhering to the concept of their empire, they decided to fold back for the reasons you listed.

It is true that it started happening long before the EU. I don't deny that. But as we stand today, the resulting arbiter of globalization is pretty much the EU which has a very inmate control over the countries participating in it, much like the empire once did. Britain is supposedly trying to leave, but I doubt they ever will be allowed to by the EU. There is a lot of money being pushed to sway the public opinion because of the EU ever lets anyone leave, they will loose much of their control in a domino effect. That is the problem when you relinquish sovereignty, you no longer truly own your country, your nations interests are now the collective interests of foreigners, and rarely will anyone ever want to lose control.

The point I was making is that this is not a unilateral cession of power. In both cases, it was negotiated. The UK made conscious decisions to compromise with both the United States and later, the EU. They had weighed the pros and cons in the process of making concessions. This was not so much the case with Brexit, which was short-sighted to say the least.

And for the record, the UK is being permitted to leave. If the UK stays, that's all well and good. If the UK leaves however, both will suffer from the loss of economic integration but the loudest voice against further political integration (including the creation of a unified military command) is no longer present. It may set a precedent for leaving the EU, but the fact that Brexit has provoked so much social and political upheaval well before its actual finalization and implementation has meant that any other country will think twice before leaving.

@79248cm/s on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T23:50:11-05:00

Alceister said:
...

Well that is exactly what I mean by losing ambition. Rather than adhering to the concept of their empire, they decided to fold back for the reasons you listed.

It is true that it started happening long before the EU. I don't deny that. But as we stand today, the resulting arbiter of globalization is pretty much the EU which has a very inmate control over the countries participating in it, much like the empire once did. Britain is supposedly trying to leave, but I doubt they ever will be allowed to by the EU. There is a lot of money being pushed to sway the public opinion because of the EU ever lets anyone leave, they will lose much of their control in a domino effect. That is the problem when you relinquish sovereignty, you no longer truly own your country, your nations interests are now the collective interests of foreigners, and rarely will anyone ever want to lose control.

Saladofstones said:

Its not so much losing ambition as much as burning it as fuel to stop a current threat, and settling into the new Europe that was just wrought.

Well that is losing ambition. The mindset of an empire isn't to relinquish territory to pay of debts to another country, but to maintain control if not to expand in order to keep more wealth/resources from coming in.

As you said in another comment, the design of the empire was not sustainable and so rather than modifying their policy to keep what they fought for, they just decided to let it go and attempt a newer method of globalization in hopes it would bring in the same benefits without the same costs.

@Alceister on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T23:00:58-05:00

Saladofstones said:

A political narrative in this day and age that is not congruent with the facts? I find that hard to believe.

Feel free to correct me. I will readily admit that my knowledge of Cold War history is rather inexact, but I am working off a few facts:

- British Empire being financially drained and dependent on American economic aid in the post-war period.

- Mutual distrust between de Gaulle and Truman and lack of other continental allies driving UK and US closer together.

- Much of the post-war world economic order being shaped by British and American economists.

Of course, this relationship was rather fraught and as the Suez Crisis would prove, was rather unequal.

In any case, I am mostly directing this to 79248cm/s by pointing out that the UK had compromised with another power long before the EU had formed.

@Saladofstones on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T20:02:49-05:00

Alceister said:

The UK relinquished it to the United States first in order to protect their remaining interests and to write off debts, hoping for a more favourable relationship vis-a-vis the rest of Europe.

The EU thing happened a fair bit later, and did not involve relinquishing so much as compromises on both sides.

A political narrative in this day and age that is not congruent with the facts? I find that hard to believe.

@Alceister on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T17:13:56-05:00

79248cm/s said:

I think it is more that they relinquished the throne to a foreign conglomerate via the EU. If one country loses ambition, someone, somewhere, will want to rule the world.

The UK relinquished it to the United States first in order to protect their remaining interests and to write off debts, hoping for a more favourable relationship vis-a-vis the rest of Europe.

The EU thing happened a fair bit later, and did not involve relinquishing so much as compromises on both sides.

@ithekro on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T14:27:04-05:00

A_Lurker said:

Are the new carriers the kind that have that ramp at the end? That almost every non-American carrier has because catapults are too expensive to maintain (or something along those lines)?

...

Googled it, the QEs have ramps. If you are investing 6.1 billion pounds into a program for ships that have a unit cost of 3 billion pounds apiece, how much will adding CATOBAR capabilities add to the final price.

They intend to use F-35s, so they shouldn't need catapults. They were going to designed it with cats, but with the F-35 they figured they didn't need it, and when with the ramps like previous British carriers.

@sanitaeter on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T14:20:32-05:00

Saladofstones said:

They lost it after World War 2 when they went bankrupt and began losing their colonies, and thus their economy. Its not so much losing ambition as much as burning it as fuel to stop a current threat, and settling into the new Europe that was just wrought.

And NOW they are leaving the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit ), completely shooting themselves in the foot!

@A_Lurker on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T14:09:52-05:00

ithekro said:

So its Europeans picking on Europeans. So situation normal.

It should be noted that HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) is back (as an modern aircraft carrier) and is the largest warship the British have every built. Sistership, Prince of Wales (R09), will be completed in a year or two.

Are the new carriers the kind that have that ramp at the end? That almost every non-American carrier has because catapults are too expensive to maintain (or something along those lines)?

...

Googled it, the QEs have ramps. If you are investing 6.1 billion pounds into a program for ships that have a unit cost of 3 billion pounds apiece, how much will adding CATOBAR capabilities add to the final price.

@NNescio on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T03:03:31-05:00

ithekro said:

So its Europeans picking on Europeans. So situation normal.

It should be noted that HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) is back (as an modern aircraft carrier) and is the largest warship the British have every built. Sistership, Prince of Wales (R09), will be completed in a year or two.

More like "sonship", heh.

(Yes, all the HMS QEs are named officially named after QE I, and the latest incarnation even has the Tudor crest and all, but naming the second ship of the same class "Prince of Wales" is definitely an overt 'joke' somebody in the RN found funny.)

@ithekro on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T02:38:43-05:00

So its Europeans picking on Europeans. So situation normal.

It should be noted that HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) is back (as an modern aircraft carrier) and is the largest warship the British have every built. Sistership, Prince of Wales (R09), will be completed in a year or two.

@Saladofstones on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T02:37:50-05:00

trees said:

Not really. Decolonization was a concept in British politics back in WW1, and the only reason it took until the 50s to start was because the process was being held up... pretty much just by Churchill. It says something that one of the Civil Service's biggest frustrations with the man was they believed they could have gotten India to stay with the Empire AND be more heavily involved with the war had Churchill allowed them to offer India dominion status from the start.

While I do think that Churchill held up the process, I think India splitting from the empire was a foregone conclusion. Even without the massacre that tipped the scales, I think it would have been a case like Algeria where the cost of maintaining the colony as an unequal vassal was unsustainable and the idea of fully integrating unconscionable (that De Gaulle ran on the platform of keeping Algeria and then cutting it lose nearly lead to all hell breaking lose) that it was a losing attempt either way.

@Spawnage_Loong on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T02:19:25-05:00

.musouka said:

That reminds me, vaguely remember there being some material where Neptune complained about people not too familiar with the series would think Neptunia was her actual name.

Kinda want to find it now, was it a bonus voice line, from an official manga, or one of the anthologies?

I think it's a bonus voice line from Megadimension Nep VII.

@Krugger on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T01:40:42-05:00

The Cold War is heating up once more

@trees on post #3428622 (hibiki, verniy, warspite, gangut, and tashkent (kantai collection and 1 more) drawn by ido_(teketeke))

2019-02-27T00:34:02-05:00

Saladofstones said:

They lost it after World War 2 when they went bankrupt and began losing their colonies, and thus their economy. Its not so much losing ambition as much as burning it as fuel to stop a current threat, and settling into the new Europe that was just wrought.

Not really. Decolonization was a concept in British politics back in WW1, and the only reason it took until the 50s to start was because the process was being held up... pretty much just by Churchill. It says something that one of the Civil Service's biggest frustrations with the man was they believed they could have gotten India to stay with the Empire AND be more heavily involved with the war had Churchill allowed them to offer India dominion status from the start.