Defence Green Paper

#1
To kick off the discussion

Its time for Private Tough Choices and Admiral Efficiency Savings to get on parade...

Download from here

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/A...ations/TheDefenceGreenPaper2010Discussion.htm




Key questions are

Given that domestic security cannot be separated from international security, where should we set the balance between focusing on our territory and region and engaging threats at a distance?

What approach should we take if we employ the Armed Forces to address threats at distance?

What contribution should the Armed Forces make in ensuring security and contributing to resilience within the UK?

How could we more effectively employ the Armed Forces in support of wider efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen international stability?

Do our current international defence and security relationships require rebalancing in the longer term?
Should we further integrate our forces with those of key allies and partners?

To what extent and in what areas should we continue to refocus our current efforts on Afghanistan?
 
#2
The Green Paper is setting out the stall for the future.

Defence of the realm is arguably the most important task of of Parliament.

Why then have our elected representatives de-camped for lunch leaving acres of empty green leather in the House?
 
#3
Herrumph said:
The Green Paper is setting out the stall for the future.

Defence of the realm is arguably the most important task of of Parliament.

Why then have our elected representatives de-camped for lunch leaving acres of empty green leather in the House?
Because the slimey thieving ***** don't care.
As long as they get their slice of the financila pie at the country's expense nothing else matters to them.
 
#4
Page 32 para4.3
Our current relationships are mutually
reinforcing. NATO remains the cornerstone
of our security. However, as Europeans,
we must take greater responsibility for
our security together
Wow, so we are no longer British but now Europeans. Even the MOD are selling our national identity
 
#5
Mr_d said:
Page 32 para4.3
Our current relationships are mutually
reinforcing. NATO remains the cornerstone
of our security. However, as Europeans,
we must take greater responsibility for
our security together
Wow, so we are no longer British but now Europeans. Even the MOD are selling our national identity
To be fair, they're way behind the rest of the Government... typical MOD really!
 
#6
we seem to have given up the ability
to act on are own as too expensive.
so get into bed with euros or uncle sam. :x

personally I prefer the euro approach as we'd be allies rather than lackays
 
#7
I just counted 6 MPs on the Government benches inluding 'Opeless Bob on his feet.

There may be a few sleeping in the corners that I couldn't see. Opposition benches a little bit better.

Shameful
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#8
So, given that there will be an election by the early summer - and an SDR afterwards - what is the point of this paper?

Is it to feed the SDR?
 
#9
It's a discussion paper - that's the purpose of Green Papers.

It's by no means an indication of future policy, and of course it's sensible to start the discussion as soon as possible.
 
#10
Herrumph said:
I just counted 6 MPs on the Government benches inluding 'Opeless Bob on his feet.

There may be a few sleeping in the corners that I couldn't see. Opposition benches a little bit better.

Shameful


There are over 640 MP's

I count 8 Labour MP's
 
#11
Sorry but this Green Paper is a load of Bolloxs. This could have been written anytime in the last 15-20 years, its full of waffle. When does anything change? We need to spend more of our GDP on Defence making it a priority, at the same time we need make the most use of the money we spend, the second point is the killer as we seem totally incapable of knowing what kit we need, what kit to buy and then actually making a decision any buying it. The UOR route seems to work ther best. A need is identifies and a solution found and puchased. With everything else we just seem to go round and around in circles and don't actually get anywhere, take FRES for example. What a complete and utter waste of time and money. If we had bought the Boxer as originally intended it would not have been so bad, its not perfect but probably good enough. We have the new Ranger vehicle from Universal Engineering, seems to tick most if not all the boxes. I think this can certainly do what is needed for COIN and probably most of what the Boxer or Piranha was goinf to do for the FRES Utility. Stop navel contemplating and order something.

As with the Snatch replacement, lets get something ordered ASAP. The ocelot seems to fit the bill, lets order the bloody thing, not have a debate about it and waster x million quid.
 
#12
I plan on writing to my MP asking why he was too busy to attend.
 
#14
Salvador said:
We need to spend more of our GDP on Defence making it a priority,
Why? We could just as equally cease operating as a global force and allocate the resource elsewhere.
 
#15
I thought the HOC was a gentleman's club whereby if one side had 8 members in the the other side said ok we'll only have 8 in as well?
As for the Paper in question, IMHO, it is all smoke and mirrors to disguise the fact that they want our armed forces to be predominately EUFOR. I think nearly all pollys of every persuasion look on the Armed Forces as at the best keeping the dole queues down and at the worst their personal protection when it all goes pear shaped. Very little to do with sovereignty in their self-centred minds.
 
#16
Next RSM's parade of the Royal Mohair Cardigans :

"French speakers....... wait for it....... wait for it............two paces to the front..................... MARCH.
 
#17
The lack of MP's may be explained by the cross party co-operation in the production of the Green paper. The main opposition parties were represented in this process by what could be called their defence specialists, such as Nicholas Soames for the Tories.

A Green paper is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "(in the UK) a preliminary report of government proposals published to stimulate discussion."

I would be more worried if my MP did not attend a debate on a white paper which has firm proposals.

I listened to the debate and whilst the opposition did its job of scoring points against the Governmnet in general and the PM in particular, there did seem to be almost universal agreement that the Secretary of State had done a good job on this paper, at least as a first step to a wider defence review.
 
#18
meridian said:
Herrumph said:
I just counted 6 MPs on the Government benches inluding 'Opeless Bob on his feet.

There may be a few sleeping in the corners that I couldn't see. Opposition benches a little bit better.

Shameful


There are over 640 MP's

I count 8 Labour MP's
Ah yes, this is what the MPs of all colours think of our Armed forces, the worse thing is they didn't fail to attend, they went to Primeministers questions and bugged out for lunch, I watched it live, they couldn't get out of there fast enough.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads