- Status
ok
I guess here the same
And with still so many in the UK being veterans, fair enough that there are actual veterans as well in Parliament.
Though seeking new MPs now that actually were on duty in NI during the Troubles seems not really good to me.
We have far less veterans, except people like me, who did their turn in obligatory military service.
ahhh
We have stricter definitions. Veterans are only veterans when they were actually in missions in combat areas. => they amount today to 125,000
We had until 1990 typical 55,000 professionals, 45,000 conscriptions and 160,000 reserve. A part of the technical professionals did service only 6 years to get a technical medium level engineering degree for a civilian career.
Now we have 45,000 professionals.
Adding all those professionals and ex-professionals up to another 125,000 seems fair enough (on the low side even, because of those technicians)
Using 74 year as average age and for ease of calc 1.5 year as average conscription time... we had between 1945-1990, is 45 years, is 30 tranches of 45,000, is 1,350,000 conscription veterans.
In total 1,5 Mio. And at a population of 17 Mio that is 9%.
For UK 2.5 Mio on 67 Mio is 4%.
By UK definitions... you are right
mitsho
Deity
Really? I'm all with you that it shouldn't be held in higher regard than say "firefighter", but serving your country in the military is certainly a good thing. Outside of the "Left", it certainly is still a good thing. In my country in the fifties, it was essential to have been in the military if you wanted a career in politics or the economy. That has changed drastically, nowadays, the service is something you want to avoid. It has been a sharp decline in the last 50 years. This trend certainly takes another trajectory in other countries, but I don't think it will ever be a bad thing. (And btw., Switzerland has at the moment an army with 120k active members, conscription is such a beautifully stupid thing. And no wars, of course, so I wouldn't consider myself a veteran as well...).
Have there been no new developments? I get all my Brexit news from this thread and it seems awfully quiet. (By the way, the article on how the avalanche of Brexit news messes with the algorithms of the stock market (currency trading) wasn't from here, right?)
mitsho
Deity
Sure, that's my point. At one point, our airforce was only able to patrol the skies during office hours (so the French had to help when an aircraft was abducted in 2014 at 6 AM in the morning), but we're spending money to fix that... (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/air-space_swiss-beef-up-air-police-service/44647388)
Lexicus
Deity
One thing that sucks about this Brexit business is if you stop paying attention for three days you're totally lost.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,404
Same thing is true (perhaps moreso?) if you pay attention for 3 days.
Just look at most MPs for proof of that.
I have always been against stopping conscription duty in my country. I think it is important that the culture of the army reflects the general societal culture of the people, to mitigate the risk of a subculture in the army.
On that leftish against military... it's there... but I had never any trouble with talking openly with the leftish up to anarch bunch about my conscription time in my communty volunteer time. There is a big difference between defending your country and real peace keeping actions on the one hand, and dubious foreign country actions on the other hand..
My understanding is that conscription disappeared mainly in our country because of cost cuts of the government. The story that the fall of the wall changed everything only the partial reason. The reduced need to have always fully trained conscripts would also enable to reduce the 14 months for a soldier to 12 months (better fitting between secondary school and the next education) and do the whole process batch wise, synchronised with school years.
Anybody with issues with the army could by the "S-5" procedure get a social duty period instead. When I was in the army in the late 70ies, the stigma and the taboo on that S-5 were not strong anymore and disappeared rapidly. Outside exceptions, no employer cared about that S-5 status anymore.
In today's world I would like at least 50% doing social duty conscription and include female for both choices.
I must add that there were in my time some weird *******s among the professionals, mostly extreme conservative. But *******s are everywhere. And besides all my fellow comrades from all over NL, I did meet many professionals who were very talented in human and social judgment and skills. Learned a lot (besides all the sports, playing billiard, learning to tap beer, etc).
That stockmarket ? no, not here.
Certainly, conscripted army means that the army actually reflects the society, instead of trigger-happy loons ending being the entire serving force.
mitsho
Deity
Oh, don't get me wrong. I learned a lot in my time in the military: to lead, to improvise, to organise and build stuff. It also makes you get to know people you didn't know before. But none of that stuff has to do with defense, so that doesn't seem to be a requirement (for you to profit personally). I just don't feel like it's okay to force people to do that. It might be better to have just a requirement to do x months of voluntary work in an institution. If you want the military as a school for life, it might be better to create a school for life on its own, that's all I'm saying.
As for the military being a mirror of society, the big problem is that you might take the social and gender dimension into account, but it's quite hard to also take the age-dimension into account. At least with the Swiss military, as they need less and less people, the army gets younger and younger while the leading officers get older. So, while young people do stupid things, the leaders will get more and more disconnected from the troops. Letting the militia service last till your 40 doesn't seem like a solution either... Different requirements. I like the Norwegian model, it seems sensible.
But we have now thoroughly derailed this thread, no?
As for the military being a mirror of society, the big problem is that you might take the social and gender dimension into account, but it's quite hard to also take the age-dimension into account. At least with the Swiss military, as they need less and less people, the army gets younger and younger while the leading officers get older. So, while young people do stupid things, the leaders will get more and more disconnected from the troops. Letting the militia service last till your 40 doesn't seem like a solution either... Different requirements. I like the Norwegian model, it seems sensible.
But we have now thoroughly derailed this thread, no?
My dad did National Service in the RAF but it was very class-ridden back then. He was offered a commission at the end of it and they couldn't understand why he refused it but he had a better job outside without expected expenses like mess bills. I'm not sure how much thats changed. When I was in C&E back in the 80s I met a guy who'd left the army for a job in C&E and he said mess bills were still a hefty expense and you didn't get on in the army if you didn't attend the regimental dinners etc. One way of ensuring the officer class still comes from the wealthy (rather like having to do an unpaid pupilship means most barristers come from a wealthy background).
At the Brexit front not much visible is happening
One thing that does not get enough attention I think is the wording "customs union"
If those words do sic come out of the Corbyn-May talks, and come sic in the Political Declaration signed with the EU, it is a customs union as base line, as such named and bound in an international treaty.
What May tries so far is getting a deal that has all kinds of elements of a customs union.
But those are too vague to survive a Brexiteer PM successor of May.
Making things Boris-proof is a thing.
Not only of promises of May on not being as UK obstructive in EU institutions, but also the very essence of the main scenario now discussed between May and Corbyn.
At the Brexit front not much visible is happening
One thing that does not get enough attention I think is the wording "customs union"
If those words do sic come out of the Corbyn-May talks, and come sic in the Political Declaration signed with the EU, it is a customs union as base line, bound in an international treaty.
What May tries so far is getting a deal that has all kinds of elements of a customs union.
But those are too vague to survive a Brexiteer PM successor of May.
Making things Boris-proof is a thing.
Not only of promises of May on not being as UK obstructive in EU institutions, but also the very essence of the main scenario now discussed between May and Corbyn.
Uk parliament is sovereign, as shown with the latest 100 votes on all sorts of stupidity. So signing a customs union can be overruled by the sovereign parliament. Of course Boris isn't the only one who may trigger such a vote, and obviously the next tory leader will be less eu-friendly than May.
I hope it won't be Boris, though. Cause he is ridiculous.
yes,
but if you sign an international treaty with a clauses on duration etc... you are bound as country, and ignoring that because of poltical changes in your Parliament are not recommendable, although Trump does not seem to care about that.
Because the Tories are the 51+ age party, and getting disconnected with the younger generations, the younger Tory candidates are using that argument now against Boris.
It is striking what happened in the UK: over the last 2 years, that age tipping point between Tories and Labour moved 4 years.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Thats, I didn't knew that. The UK was always a professional army country, now that I think of it. Still I'm surprised they had enough soldiers to keep NI under military watch ans still play around in NATO and several wars. The army is smaller now isn't it?
You are aware that the EU has a Customs Union with Turkey? And signed it as far back as 1995? That such a Customs Union does not require Turkey to adopt EU regulations?
What I mean, and I'm providing a stark example of, is that a Customs Union is far removed from what the EU demanded from the UK, at least as far as NI is concerned. It would require the EU to give in quite a lot. It would not solve the "border issue".
The customs union is either one more stupid idea of the parliament, or a cunning plan to allow the EU to back off while pretending not to lose face. Either way May and Corbyn cannot be so ignorant that they don't know this. Nor is Barnier.
Cooper is ignorant, she I can see doing it out of foolishness.
Not really, the media circus moves to some new drama over brexit but the situation didn't change since December except for the slight postponement. This week finally there was some movement.
Last edited:
yes
I am aware of both
Turkey has a sectoral Customs Union. That difference is easily adressed in the wording of a possible EU-UK treaty.
And the Irish border issue has not disappeared with a base level Customs Union.
That's why the Withdrawal document stays key for the EU.
So far the Boris proof level.
And not for nothing Barnier indicated that if it comes to a Customs Union, the EU is willing........... and could have that on the table fast.
I guess, with that negotiation team doing since months already nothing re actual stuff, Barnier has for all likely scenarios completely written out documents in a modular fashion.
- Status
