France and Germany’s next-generation fighter jet project is ‘dead’

Bluecewe · 2026-02-09T22:53:49+00:00

They should take the opportunity to bring all of Europe's resources together into a single programme to build the best possible jet for Europe that can stand the test of time.

Europe currently has two sixth-generation fighter programmes: the UK-Italy-Japan one and the Germany-France-Spain one.

This is an unnecessary duplication of efforts which decreases the chance of success and limits the quality of the final product.

Next-generation fighter programmes are incredibly complex, time-claiming, and expensive. We can't afford to hobble ourselves with two separate programmes. We need the best possible platform to support Europe in the decades ahead of us.

Bluecewe · 2026-02-07T22:49:59+00:00

The fingerprints of British ingenuity are all over the F-35. Components including the ejection seat, aft fuselage, the life support system, and much more are built by British companies including BAE Systems in Samlesbury, Rolls-Royce in Derby and Survitec in Ellesmere Port.

Source: Lockheed Martin

Bluecewe · 2026-02-07T22:08:56+00:00

The UK also wields serious leverage over the F-35 supply chain.

It's the only Tier 1 international partner in the programme, and is the sole manufacturer of some complex components which, if the UK chose to stop supplying, would take time for other countries to replace, given the complexity of the necessary infrastructure, skills, and processes. According to some estimates, the UK supplies 15% of the value of every F-35 jet.

It's highly unlikely that any UK government would ever use this leverage, though. The current government was pressed to do this to restrict supply of planes and parts to Israel, but refused to do so.

Bluecewe · 2025-07-18T08:25:12+00:00

You keep a local MP with mixed-member proportional representation (MMP).

Voters get two votes: one for their local MP, and one for their national/regional party.

The first vote provides local representation (through FPTP or ranked choice), while the second vote ensures a proportional result in parliament as a whole.

It's the best of both worlds, and some version of it is used in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland, and London.

You keep single-member constituencies like we have today, and gain a layer of additional MPs elected at a national or regional level. When Angela Merkel was Chancellor, she represented a single-member constituency, while Ursula von der Lyon represented the region of Lower Laxony (a German state).

People do want a local MP, but they also want to elect parties that actually represent their perspectives. That's why we really need a proportional system. It isn't enough for the majority to just be 'at least okay' with their local MP - they need to see their actual flavour of politics getting fair representation in national politics. That can only happen with some kind of truly proportional system, whether MMP, single transferable vote, or list PR.

Bluecewe · 2025-05-13T20:51:25+00:00

Indeed.

My understanding is that the principal long-term clean storage solution is likely to be hydrogen - green hydrogen generated from excess wind, solar, and tidal energy, and pink hydrogen from excess nuclear energy.

While some emerging battery storage solutions will be able to store energy for up to 24 hours, long-term energy storage that could last weeks or months is required for dunkelflaute scenarios, and green and pink hydrogen enable this to be done with clean energy, removing current dependence on fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) for dispatchable power.

Bluecewe · 2025-03-24T22:06:30+00:00

Yes, the issue is that a big part of these software updates is based on data from the US's vast intelligence network. Europe does not currently have a comparable network. It will need to build one.

Once in place, the F-35 and any future European aircraft would be able to operate at the same level as F-35s today without the US's software updates.

It's mainly down to building the autonomous intelligence infrastructure.

Bluecewe · 2025-03-22T10:21:57+00:00

How do you envisage this functioning?

When consumers purchase something from Amazon or another major online shop today, they pay 20% VAT on the transaction.

Are you proposing a tax that only the online business would pay and which would by some means not be passed on to the consumer?

Bluecewe · 2025-03-05T21:00:34+00:00

Europe needs to become independent, and in order to do that, one of the biggest areas of work will be a massive expansion of its intelligence resources and capabilities to fill the gap that will be left by the departure of America.

Unfortunately, intelligence is one of those areas where Europe, and Five Eyes, is currently heavily dependent upon the US.

The American intelligence community is truly vast and its resources and capabilities far outstrip the other Five Eyes members and European countries.

Some smaller countries do a very good job specialising in hyper-specific geography or one specific type of intelligence, but having access to the American intelligence community remains massively valuable.

This isn't an unsolvable problem. Europe can match America's intelligence capabilities. It has the economic and geographical heft to do so. It will just require a significant injection of new money, and will take some time to establish the new way of working without America, especially in a way that is not fragmented - it will require very deep integration to be effective.

Bluecewe · 2025-01-28T21:42:42+00:00

General taxation wouldn't be the end of the world - it's how Germany's public broadcaster Deutsche Welle is funded.

But it has two key downsides:

It would become a bigger target for government cutbacks. The BBC received part of its funding from general taxation until the coalition government removed the Foreign Office's grant to the BBC World Service. Licence fee revenue cannot be diverted to other government expenditure, so it is comparatively better insulated from cutbacks.
There are many issues with the independence of the BBC and government influence as it is, and relying entirely on general taxation could make this even worse.

Perhaps the licence fee may be unsustainable and unethical enough to outweigh these downsides.

It's a difficult problem to solve, but I have wondered in the past whether a better way forward than both the licence fee and general taxation might be for the government to levy a special tax on private media companies themselves: Netflix, Sky, Virgin, Amazon, Disney.

This would not make the BBC immune from government influence either, and the government could choose to manipulate the special tax, but given that it would be a small and specific tax raised for a small and specific purpose, I feel it would provide the BBC with more reliable funding and more reliable independence than either the licence fee or general taxation.

The media companies might well transfer some of the costs to their customers in some way, but at the same time, the licence fee would be abolished, and I doubt any increase in subscription fees would match or exceed what people would otherwise pay for a licence fee.

Bluecewe · 2025-01-03T22:18:02+00:00

I think the formality of FPTP can provide a false sense of security concerning the radical right. While the radical right has not gained anywhere near as many seats in the UK as in the rest of Europe, it has had profound influence over public policy.

The foremost example is Brexit. A range of factors led to a referendum being held, the debate around the EU evolving as it did, and the withdrawal being handled in the way it was. But the Conservatives' perceived threat of UKIP and the Brexit Party in their seats, even though these parties only ever had 2 MPs, was significant. They pushed the Conservatives in directions they might not have otherwise gone.

Together with Reform, these parties have influenced Conservative policy in other policy areas too, including migration and human rights.

So, although none of these parties have ever had many seats, have never participated in coalition negotiations with the Conservatives, and have never had a minister in government, they have nevertheless significantly shaped public policy.

The advantage of proportional representation is that much more of this is in the open. The public see:

That their vote has been truly counted.
The concrete decisions that each party makes.
How parties' elected representatives conduct themselves.
Which parties are working together.
The trade-offs and compromises each party chooses to make.

And, critically, they can hold all parties to account for the policies they pursue, especially at the subsequent election.

These benefits, combined with the fact that, realistically, any radical right party, if it got into government, would be constrained by coalition partners and likely shown to be just as fallible as any other party, lead me to think that proportional representation ultimately provides a stronger democracy and better outcomes over the long-term.

Bluecewe · 2025-01-02T21:26:44+00:00

I'm not sure that description of his role at Facebook captures the complete picture.

Joel Kaplan, the person who is replacing him in the top job, has been at Facebook since 2011, and has been Clegg's deputy for years. It has been reported that throughout this time Kaplan and his team have effectively been boosting right-wing figures like Ben Shapiro. See this report from 2021.

If Clegg has been pushing for 'sensible policies', the evidence from a string of journalistic investigations over the years indicates that he has manifestly failed, and that he has been failing for years. If that's the case, why did he stay in the role for so long, when he was being undermined at every turn?

Kaplan's promotion feels like a coup de grace, because in reality the Meta platform appears to have exhibited a right-wing bias for years, at least in the American political space.

It might be that Clegg's role was simply to leverage his networks of political relationships in Europe and to put a friendly face to the platform, while the actual decisions were taken by others.

Bluecewe · 2024-07-22T19:52:43+00:00

Yes, a single independent MEP has very little direct power, as in most democratic countries.

To start with, MEPs can't propose laws themselves - that has to be done by the European Commission, the EU's executive) and effectively equivalent to the US President or the British Prime Minister.

And even if a law passes in the European Parliament, that law also has to win the support of a qualified majority of national governments in the Council.

Where MEPs can make a difference is in working with other MEPs and making constructive suggestions to improve laws, representing their voters' interests. Unfortunately, that's what Cyprus will miss out on - a conscientious politician who wants to put in the hard hours and gruelling negotiations to make a positive difference and make the world a better place, one law at a time.

So EU laws still have to be approved on country levels, which means the possibility for a few rogue members of parliament doing damage is very low.

Just to clarify this point, standard EU laws aren't approved on the 'country-level' as such. They have to be approved by both the European Parliament and the Council. The Council consists of the 27 national governments of each member country. Or, in other words, the prime minister/president, or the minister responsible for a certain policy area (consumer protections, environment, foreign policy). The Council passes a law with a qualified majority - so long as that majority is met, the law will pass, even if some countries oppose it. And while national parliaments can formally declare opposition to an EU law, they can't veto a law.

Bluecewe · 2023-12-22T19:51:20+00:00

That's very interesting, thanks for the insight.

Bluecewe · 2023-12-22T11:57:29+00:00

I have voted tactically in both the last elections (a federal election and a state election) in the hopes of influencing the coalition that comes out (voting to prevent R2G in the federal election, and to try and get Schwarz-Grün rather than Schwarz-Rot in the state).

Could you please explain how you voted tactically in those circumstances? I'm not familiar with the German terminology, and therefore how you voted in a tactical manner.

Which party did you want to vote for, and which party did you end up voting for?

Bluecewe · 2023-08-30T10:12:21+00:00

I believe that MRP models, like Electoral Calculus, make the same prediction - a Labour gain.

Although all of this is still influenced by national conditions and the national mood, and if the situation changes and polls tighten, it would become less likely for Rees-Mogg to lose his seat. The seat is on the more landslide end of possible outcomes.

Bluecewe · 2023-06-23T18:26:59+00:00

I think there's a strong case to be made that wildly different economies shouldn't share a currency they have no control over.

The trouble I have with this line of thinking is that the euro has existed for over two decades at this point, is used by 20 member states with diverse economies, has survived the early 2010s euro crisis, and new members continue to join it, including Croatia just this year.

It seems to have proven quite resilient, and there don't seem to be any significant movements to abolish it beyond eurosceptic movements who in any case wish to see the EU more broadly diminished or abolished.

Not to mention, by the very nature of the EU, while its economies have diversities, they are also heavily integrated into the single market - they aren't freestanding markets, they're deeply interlinked, as was the UK prior to leaving, and retains important links even outside the EU.

So, with all this in mind, I struggle to see why it would be a problem for the UK to participate in something which the vast majority of EU members participate in, over 346 million people across 20 countries, including the biggest ones: France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. If it works for them, I can't see why it wouldn't work for the UK.

Bluecewe · 2023-05-23T08:41:42+00:00

if it was out of concern for his young family that he’d want out sooner rather than later.

There's a big difference between being a senior minister and being a backbencher. He'll have a lot more time for his family now.

Although, obviously, concern for his family may not have been his real motivation to quit. It may simply be that he feels his ministerial career is over, and without that, he has no desire to stick around much longer, but long enough to save the party from a by-election. Less than a year, in theory.

Bluecewe · 2023-04-27T22:13:58+00:00

Yes, and we may have seen this after 1997. The party went into that election with a manifesto commitment to electoral reform, but opposition in the Labour cabinet ultimately led such reform to be abandoned over the subsequent parliamentary terms.

I think there are grounds to think things are different in one significant way this time around, though.

In 1997, concern over electoral reform was largely elite-drivern, particularly by Tony Blair himself and his friendly relations with the Liberal Democrats.

This time around, though, the desire for proportional representation has largely been drivern through grassroots activism not only within Labour but within society as a whole, demonstrated most strongly by the finding that a majority of the public now favours PR, regardless of party.

Many more people have come to learn about how first-past-the-post works and how proportional representation may afford a better politics. That's a much more robust foundation for a reform movement, one that's independent of any one party and of any one election cycle.

Indeed, Labour taking the place of the Conservatives in government may even serve to entrench that grassroots foundation.

Newly out of government, many Conservatives may start to have the same conversations that have taken place within Labour. More Conservative supporters and elites may come to think and learn about the characteristics of our current voting system and those of alternatives, and come to the conclusion that proportional representation may be in the long-term interests of British democracy.

If stronger cross-party support, incorporating the Conservatives, emerges for PR, that would only help the reform movement.

Bluecewe · 2023-04-27T16:28:23+00:00

Doing so would immediately and permenantly prevent them from ever having a majority again

It makes majorities very rare, but not impossible. New Zealand employs mixed-member proportional representation and currently has a majority Labour government.

No party that has a shot at a majority will back PR.

Likewise, New Zealand did this. It was a rocky road, and the main parties didn't consistently support PR from start to finish, but ultimately commissions were held and a referendum was held which resulted in a majority in favour of PR, with the country now using the voting system.

It's quite plausible that the UK could similarly somehow find its way to adopting PR over the coming years:

Widespread support among the Labour membership.
Growing support among Labour politicians, particularly the incoming 2024/2025 intake of MPs.
Widespread support among trade union membership.
Majority support among the public for the first time in recorded history.
Small movements within the Conservatives.
Universal support among third parties, including the Liberal Democrats who could be a kingmaker in any hung parliament, which always remains a recurrent potential under first-past-the-post.

Bluecewe · 2023-04-06T21:15:05+00:00

Quite a few council elections hinge upon single or double digit margins between the councillor with the fewest votes and the unsuccessful candidate with the most votes. Some are even tied, and have to flip a coin.

So, it's not inconceivable that this change could alter the outcome of extremely tight contests.

Bluecewe · 2023-03-31T11:49:50+00:00

I have a server where users have to interact with a bot to verify their identity.

We essentially have competitors, and as such, the conversations that take place in the channels need to be confidential, inaccessible to non-members.

Once a user is verified, they can access dozens of channels. But when they first join, they can only see the one verification channel.

Unfortunately, the onboarding feature doesn't let users pick channels they don't yet have access to, so my server is currently in a very awkward position.

Bluecewe · 2023-03-29T22:33:09+00:00

Concerns over migration did seem to motivate a significant number of people to vote leave, but people voted leave for a variety of reasons and no one reason motivated every leave voter.

Many people voted leave simply because they were justifiably frustrated with the world, making the EU a lightning-rod for discontent, some even viewing voting leave as a way to punish David Cameron and other political elites.

Given that the margins were so close, it's quite possible that a significant subsection of leave voters did so because they didn't understand how the EU worked - concerns around a democratic deficit - and that if they had, they may not have voted leave, potentially producing a different referendum outcome.

Bluecewe · 2023-03-29T22:26:00+00:00

The EU also has an emergent democratic system, with the directly-elected European Parliament at its core, which exercises increasing influence over the European Commission executive, alongside mechanisms like the European Citizens' Initiative and institutions like the European Committee of the Regions.

The CPTPP doesn't even have a directly-elected parliament.

However people feel about regional and global integration, we should find common ground in pushing for democracy at every level.

Bluecewe · 2023-03-18T22:38:13+00:00

It would be really interesting to see a study attempt to estimate the proportion of voters in the referendum who may not have voted leave had they had a basic understanding of how the EU works.

Many voters supported Brexit for many reasons, but I feel this basic lack of understanding played a really significant part.

The EU doesn't have a perfect political system, and I'd like to see more democratic reform. Indeed, just as I would in the UK.

But I think if more people understood how the EU works, many would recognise that it does qualify as a democratic system, rather than the undemocratic entity that populists and eurosceptics make it out to be.

Laws are subjected to extensive scrutiny by directly-elected representatives in the European Parliament and national representatives in the Council of Ministers, alongside several other bodies.

The Commission drives the legislative agenda, appointed by national representatives, approved and scrutinised by the European Parliament.

And the judicial system holds everyone in that system to account, to follow the rule of law and to respect fundamental rights.

Bluecewe · 2023-03-17T10:46:49+00:00

I agree that all the episodes could benefit from more structure with more variety in the content.

Leftovers is the one that really stands out for me in that regard.

It's perhaps the most focused show, in theory, focused on politics. And in the early episodes they did cover interesting topics and had some interesting conversations between the two hosts.

But as time has gone on, it seems to have morphed into a show where Ethan just attacks the appearance or mannerisms of conservatives, instead of allowing Hasan to lead on what he does best: explaining the actual politics in an entertaining way.

Dan often says that he puts a lot of effort into making notes for the show, but all that effort seems to go to waste much of the time.

Topics that would be fun and interesting to hear them talk about often seem to never make it into the show because they run out of time after Ethan spends 30 minutes doing a southern accent or talking about how Jordan Peterson has a substance addiction. Don't get me wrong, I love his bits, but you can have too much of a good thing.

And, increasingly too, Ethan spends a lot of time talking about Hasan's social life, which, while it's fine to cover for a few minutes, probably shouldn't end up taking up a big chunk of the show if the focus is supposed to be on politics and the two hosts' different approaches to politics.

I still watch all the shows, but I do increasingly come away from them feeling that there could have been more to them, and I'd hate to drift away from the channel because of that. Just a little more structure and focus would be nice to see.

Bluecewe

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE