But Friedrich Merz cautions such a move could not replace the US’s existing protective shield over Europe
  • aaron@infosec.pub
    67·
    11 hours ago

    I doesn’t look like us Brits can completely break with the US in military or intelligence terms, at least for the time being (if not foreseeable future). But closer military co-operation with the rest of Europe clearly has to happen, assuming maintenance of our nuclear capability isn’t completely reliant upon, or tied up with the US.

    Late edit (after a few people upvoted this post) - given the disgraceful way the EU treated the UK during brexit negotiations this sharing of nuclear weapons should come at significant economic cost to EU countries that might want it. I mean, the alternative, a UK aligned to the US and Russia, military bases and nuclear weapons ready, full of US bases, puts the shitty way EU countries were happy to deal with the UK into a bit of perspective.

    The Chinese are going to build their biggest embassy in Europe in London about half a mile or so from the US embassy. I’d guess the UK will continue trying to play a mediating role.

    • MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      61·
      8 hours ago

      Just curious from an American here -

      Why should the EU have treated the UK better during brexit? It was clear at the time that they were weakening Europe and themselves on the back of things like immigrant fear stoked by far right and Russian propaganda.

      The people of the UK that voted leave or didn’t bother to vote fucked themselves didn’t they?

      • aaron@infosec.pub
        11·
        24 minutes ago

        Edit - these posts will get downvoted. If only you could downvote reality away, eh?

        They did everything they could to weaken the UK. To punish the UK for deciding to leave the EU.

        No quarter given.

        But the reason people voted to leave the EU was the importation of cheap Eastern European labour that was used to undermine pay and conditions for British workers of every origin. Saying brexit was the result of ‘Russian interference’ is as reductionist as saying ‘Hilary’s emails’ was why people voted Trump in first time around.

        The BBC and others framed the debate as EU ‘liberalism’ (is that social or economic liberalism? Because political liberalism is the soft-and-fuzzy glove covering the hard-and-ruthless fist) v. something xenophobic.

        The reality on the ground was far more complex. Like in the US, the stories of poor people harmed by political liberalism were ignored. They still are being, hence Trump 2, and the rise of Reform in the UK. As long as they are ignored the Reform party will continue a rise to power and you will see a UK split from EU countries further anyway. Here I am just describing the most extreme possible version of that.

        It might not sound like it but I would rather the UK have closer ties to Europe, including freedom of movement. But that is a different story to wanting closer ties with the monolithic, corporatist EU who harmed UK workers. You can’t have freedom of movement without adequate protection of worker’s pay and conditions. The EU did the opposite, harming workers for the benefit of corporations.

        But ok, I am very happy to agree to disagree on all of the above.

        If it was reasonable for the EU to treat the UK badly over brexit, then it is more than reasonable for the UK to give no quarter back now that Germany are asking for the protection of our nuclear weapons.

        Now, to some degree the UK is going to remain aligned with the US. Our military and intelligence capabilities seem to be very much intertwined. The alternative for the EU, a UK completely aligned with the US, Russia, and a friend of China, is the alternative to the EU winding back the harm they have intentionally caused the UK.

        Perhaps they should have been reasonable when the UK decided to leave the EU.

      • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
        6·
        5 hours ago

        They shouldn’t. The “No” campaign ran flat-out lies about what Britain would be able to get out of negotiations, claiming we “hold all the cards”. We did not.

        • aaron@infosec.pub
          12·
          33 seconds ago

          Edit - these posts will get downvoted. If only you could downvote reality away, eh?

          Well clearly we did hold cards. The very post you replied to has pointed out exactly the cards we held, and still hold.

          What I will say is remainers (including the UK government charged with managing the negotiations) weakened the UK’s bargaining position just like your attitude would weaken the UK’s position going forward.

          But this isn’t a brexit argument, that is a long-resolved issue.

          This is about the UK’s relationship with the EU. And notice I say EU, not Europe. I read media reports conflating the EU with Europe every week. Even this week talking of EU countries creating a ‘European Army’: well if they are going to define Europe as ‘EU countries’ (a corporatist takeover of the continent, if you like lol and most certainly something that I have read week in and week out, in corporate/billionaire owned/‘mainstream’ media and on subreddits alike, for years) so be it. Why wouldn’t we maintain our special relationship with the US, and lean towards Russia, while maintaining our friendly relationship with China, given that the UK has been redefined out of Europe?

          You reap what you sow.

          Now if the EU wants the protection of our nuclear weapons, or even if they simply don’t want a UK to maintain the special relationship with the US, then they demonstrate how the have significantly changed their attitude towards the UK on an ongoing basis and they redefine the EU’s power in Europe, and they pay economically.