Who elected this clown ?

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

I think the island pays enough for our defence without the use of our island for Saudi bombers. Unless of course we are getting money back. We will be paying enough for climate change without extra pollution in our sky. They have been using our tiny dot of an island. Do they not have enough room to train in their huge country?

it’s time it was stopped.

Is it Saudi bombers or Saudi pilots being trained by the RAF? Subtle, but distinct difference. 

If you start to pick at the UK's relationship with many states, you swiftly depart from any kind of idealogical or ethical imperatives, but international treaties, political allegiances, trade agreements and armaments agreements. 

There are no clean hands in all of that and we will quickly be swiped to one side by a big dirty hand should we protest. 

 

[HeliX]

37 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So, if we withdraw our contribution to the club, what do you think will happen?

Will it remove the protection of a British passport, the consular assistance abroad, the right of free travel within the CTA? I don't know the answer, but I suspect withdrawing the contribution will have more impact on our day to day lives than just having a flotilla sail our way should Putin invade. Would we still have the protection of the Crown?

We pay plenty to the UK in other agreements without the military one. And we send some of our young into their armed forces, which is all the contribution that should be necessary on that front.

[quilp]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yes but they had no intention of defending the Channel Islands. Instead they evacuated the women and children in a huge logistical exercise and then left the rest to fend for themselves. It’s exactly what they’d do to us in similar circumstances. 

You are correct, and many similar evacuations were also carried out from cities around the UK deemed to be at risk. The Channel Islands, through their proximity to Europe came under the umbrella. It wasn't exactly unique to those Islands.

What choice did the British have? The BEF were already stretched in France and Belgium. The battle over Britain, the war in the Middle East were all looming. The Luftwaffe had air superiority in that area with their airfields in France. The resources to fight a defensive war on those Islands would come at the expense of defending Britain, Europe and elsewhere. An unfortunate but wholly correct tactical decision had to be made; the futility and costly consequences of a large scale British military response was realised in short order. I would say Germany foresaw all this, realising how the British would respond in the only way they could, that being, do nothing. Glorious propaganda for the masses back in the Fatherland. The invasion force was already mostly ashore and in control before the Royal Navy could effectively act. It would be a U-boat and Luftwaffe banquet in any case. 

It was the right decision to relinquish those Islands. More Islanders survived the war because of it, and it's worth adding that although it was a generally peaceful and abiding affair amongst a begrudging population, the occupation had serious consequences for Jewish families living there.

It's a slightly wild claim that the Isle of Man would find itself forgotten if found in similar circumstances because It's unlikely any future world war will be fought in similar circumstances.

(Continues for another 94 pages...)

Is there information anywhere breaking-down what we're actually paying for..?

[Gladys]

13 minutes ago, HeliX said:

We pay plenty to the UK in other agreements without the military one. And we send some of our young into their armed forces, which is all the contribution that should be necessary on that front.

The 'other agreements' presumably work in our favour?

As for sending our young into military service, is there conscription, are these young really 'sent', or do they go voluntarily and from choice?  

Some of our young may actually view joining any of the services as a career choice, and one that they are happy to have the opportunity to make. 

As I said above, the payment for defence, in my view, is not payment for anything specific, but a subscription to the club. 

If we want to stop paying, we had better be sure that we no longer want to be in that club and understand the ramifications of being a non-member. 

Let's be sure that we are not conflating two things as inextricable; the use of our airspace (if it is 'ours') by the RAF and the contribution to defence. 

We are, after all, not a sovereign state. 

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

The island will be known as the island that let the use of their land to train pilots who then go on to bomb Yemen civilians. Maybe we are being used as the scapegoat as other places won’t  want the stigma. 
 

 

Do they train exclusively in our airspace?  Do we have the ability to refuse? 

[Passing Time]

5 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

I guess it takes one to know one. What do you seriously think we need defending against? As Amadeus has rightly pointed out, impartiality is our best defence if any were needed.

It strikes me people in favour of this sort of thing are on some kind of ego trip in the same way some people following bullies at school makes them feel important.

 

The first two words of your name suits you to the ground

[Passing Time]

6 hours ago, Amadeus said:

Shouldn’t we avoid any activities related to war in general? Doesn’t matter who want to practice touch and gos or bombing runs. Do it elsewhere. 

Your lot lost one war so don’t tell us how to defend a country

[Passing Time]

5 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

No I think that if the IoM had no defences then maniacs like Putin would just leave us be. History confirms this.

What history?

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

I’m not really sure if they do, and probably don’t have the choice. It still doesn’t sit right with me.

 

No, I can't say it sits right with me either, and I think that, despite the criticism, JW was right to raise it, the Saudi angle that is.  For no other reason than for the debate to be had.  Unfortunately,  he was pretty much shut down by Alf, which I think was a misjudgement and it would have been better to have a full reply and debate rather than the dismissive reply given.

The defence contribution is a different debate and we have already challenged how much we pay compared to the CI, not sure where it got us though. 

 

[A fool and his money.....]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

So, if we withdraw our contribution to the club, what do you think will happen?

Will it remove the protection of a British passport, the consular assistance abroad, the right of free travel within the CTA? I don't know the answer, but I suspect withdrawing the contribution will have more impact on our day to day lives than just having a flotilla sail our way should Putin invade. Would we still have the protection of the Crown?

Consular assistance is another matter, but an Irish passport is stronger than a British one and would certainly give us greater free movement within the EU, would it not be worth exploring all possibilities, might even save a few quid.

Putin has probably never heard of the IoM, any suggestion of him invading here is fanciful paranoia.

Protection of the Crown? What the heck is that?

 

[A fool and his money.....]

22 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The 'other agreements' presumably work in our favour?

As for sending our young into military service, is there conscription, are these young really 'sent', or do they go voluntarily and from choice?  

Some of our young may actually view joining any of the services as a career choice, and one that they are happy to have the opportunity to make. 

As I said above, the payment for defence, in my view, is not payment for anything specific, but a subscription to the club. 

If we want to stop paying, we had better be sure that we no longer want to be in that club and understand the ramifications of being a non-member. 

Let's be sure that we are not conflating two things as inextricable; the use of our airspace (if it is 'ours') by the RAF and the contribution to defence. 

We are, after all, not a sovereign state. 

So why are we paying millions for defence? Supporting military services we have no democratic control over. 

[A fool and his money.....]

19 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

The first two words of your name suits you to the ground

 

18 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

Your lot lost one war so don’t tell us how to defend a country

More rational reasons for us to continue paying millions for defence against enemies that don't exist.

[Gladys]

Just now, A fool and his money..... said:

Consular assistance is another matter, but an Irish passport is stronger than a British one and would certainly give us greater free movement within the EU, would it not be worth exploring all possibilities, might even save a few quid.

Putin has probably never heard of the IoM, any suggestion of him invading here is fanciful paranoia.

Protection of the Crown? What the heck is that?

 

I already have an Irish passport, one of the few advantages of being born in the island of Ireland.  Never used it though.

The protection of the Crown is the request on the first page of the passport.  You may be dismissive, but in extreme circumstances, it also gives a possible route to a higher authority and intervention  should our government completely lose the plot.  Never been done to our benefit, I think, but hypothetically it is there. 

[A fool and his money.....]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

No, I can't say it sits right with me either, and I think that, despite the criticism, JW was right to raise it, the Saudi angle that is.  For no other reason than for the debate to be had.  Unfortunately,  he was pretty much shut down by Alf, which I think was a misjudgement and it would have been better to have a full reply and debate rather than the dismissive reply given.

The defence contribution is a different debate and we have already challenged how much we pay compared to the CI, not sure where it got us though. 

 

I completely agree. Although have we challenged the defence contribution? I think it was reported in the UK press and picked up by the local press, there may even have been a question in Tynwald, but as I remember it was given the shut down treatment by David Ashford.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Manx17 said:

Yes John should of got a straight answer. With Alf shutting him down just leaves more questions as to why. I think the island deserves to know the truth. As our leader he didn’t handle it very well. 

Agreed.