All of this week I have been keeping an eagle-eye on the development of the Anglo-French defence treaty with ever growing interest. Then finally on Wednesday it was staring out at me from the front of my morning newspaper, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy posing for what surely must have been confirmation that the treaty was pressing ahead.

The HMS Ark Royal- Could the Royal Navy's flagship become shared?

I have a mixture of feelings on the whole issue. For those of you who don’t know what the treaty is suspected to entail, quite simply it will be be Britain and France taking armed forces alliance to a level never really seen before during peacetime. “This consists of such things sharing two aircraft carriers, one from each country, to even such high level army regiments such as the SAS being shared.

My immediate concern was due to this sharing. Let’s face it, the French aren’t really the greatest military race this planet has even seen are they? They didn’t even have time to dust off the ‘welcome’ mat before they had surrendered to the Third Reich. How can the French army compare to that of Britain, which is renowned for being very well trained if not very large. The Royal Air Force survived and won its stripes in the Battle of Britain and “so much” is quite deservedly “owed to so few”. Our Navy is and has been for the long period of around three centuries one of the most dominant powers on the sea in the world, whereas a Frenchman’s idea of Naval assault probably involves a Parisian waitress and a bath. France has seemingly a vast amount more to benefit from this deal than us.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the French, and my second main concern is that of misinterpretation. I think that Wednesday’s  Matt cartoon perfectly illustrates this. The cartoon showed an aircraft carrier with two crashed jet planes on the right and a dotted line down the middle of the landing platform. On one side of the runway it had ‘tenez la droit’ or ‘keep right’, whereas on the other end was written keep left. During any military alliance there always has been and always will be a very high risk of mistranslation (why do you think the ‘special’ alliance so special?!) and with the SAS under a Frenchman’s control or vice-versa this risk is magnified. We as a country linguistically are about as skilled as a socially inept hedgehog, many people can’t even speak their own language correctly. I am surprised that Matt even thought it was worth it jotting down the brief extract of French on his aircraft carrier. Mistranslation and the need for translation will cause problems at the top all the way down the ranks, and will end up slowing the whole of the armed forces down.

Having only explored these negative factors so far, I don’t even think that the treaty is even a bad idea. I really don’t believe that in today’s society one needs to have a considerably sized army, but a well equipped one. This treaty will just mean that Britain and France will look after each other’s interests, which can only increase both armies effectiveness. In an age of restriction and too many cartoons of oversized axes I think that this deal is not only very clever, but also very necessary. Overall I think that Cameron and Sarkozy have got this one right, even if on the latter’s part it is a last attempt at political survival.

David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, the two main perpetrators of the treaty.

These words have been bandied about recently by members of parties from all sides. Labour in particular has taken up the torch, pushing truly to warn against the damage the austerity package could do. They simply refer to the looming threat of a second period in which the economy recedes.

The evidence that this is not likely to take place lies in a spread of areas: firstly, both the conservatives and liberal democrats believe that this will not be the outcome, secondly, the aftershocks of the recession, such as the bailout of a regional bank in Spain (CajaSur), are simply that, aftershocks. A third point of discussion argues that there is no likelihood of us ever defaulting, and so simply no need for the markets to go into freefall. Others might argue that as the market is a prediction device, rather than a reactor to current events these things will not affect it.

Political forces like Vince Cable, and similarly trusted politicians, may however, be able to encourage people to spend regardless and at least not to worry, though how effective this may be remains to be seen. It is difficult to evaluate the worth of this side of the argument, as the state of our economy is so precarious, and the papers do little to advocate the worth of such measures.

However the evidence for the contrary is perhaps more persuasive. It rests on a number of factors ; The recent bailout of the aforementioned Spanish bank, which comes amidst rising turbulence in the European Union, which includes Angela Merkel’s weakening support in Germany, France’s threat to leave the Euro (which would have truly catastrophic affects for everyone), and the Greek bailout. Not to mention that new worries have been extended on the subject of Spain’s economic situation by the IMF. All of these weaken their respective exchange rate, and as members of the European Union ourselves are likely to lead to bigger payments from us, and certainly a decline in investor confidence here and abroad. Combine this with escalating tensions in North Korea, as they sever ties from South Korea, which has destroyed investor confidence in both countries, as fear of a war looms.

Accompanying this, the sheer scale of debt : 893 billion pounds in Britain alone, and over 10 trillion in America, is horrifying.

Couple this with forthcoming austerity measures from George Osbourne which are likely to induce people to save money out of fear for their jobs and further cuts which may lead to them needing to say transfer their child to private school, or not go on holiday all of which remove money from the economy. He, disliked by many, will find it difficult to sell his cuts, particularly as the 6 billion only just announced have cut money from almost every budget and still found only that sum.

Unfortunately, it is exactly words like austerity that encourage people to save rather than to spend, and considering the pathetic growth rate of the United Kingdom’s economy, 0.3% in Q10, it would be only too easy to return to recession.

What do you think? Comment Below

1982: Thatcher is in power, Brezhnev is about to die, and nuclear disarmament talks between the two world superpowers have broken down because of what the USA (ironically) views as an illegal war in Afghanistan. Students protest against nuclear weapons, and are not listened to. People are scared: there seems a very real chance that, at any moment, the world could be blown to pieces by the Russians, who seem to be a lot stronger, more powerful and richer than they actually are. People talk about “Mutually Assured Destruction”: the USA and the USSR combined have more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over and over and over again. And Britain’s nuclear weapons system, Polaris, is about to need decommissioning.

So, Thatcher commissions Trident, a system of four submarines each carrying sixteen nuclear missiles, which in turn carry three nuclear warheads which can be deployed separately, once the missile is in space. These are intercontinental ballistic missiles: they’re basically top of the range, and we’re told that we need them – as a deterrent. They offer a good return on the investment, as they are expected to last thirty years and prevent nuclear war, we are told.

However, they come to fruition only in 1994, when the USSR has collapsed, and the great threat appears to have vanished. The Cold War has ended, because one side has crumpled, and the USA is not going to “nuke” Britain any time soon.

So, why do we need them?

That question is highly relevant today, as a great debate is taking place as to whether the Trident system should be re-commissioned or replaced. The new government seems a little confused, as do most of the population. The cost of a replacement for Trident, at present, is estimated at £97bn over its thirty year life time – when the current system won’t have to be decommissioned until at least 2024, if it lives out its lifespan. With a deficit the size of ours, I would argue that it would make a lot more sense not to replace them at all. Think about the cuts the government is currently having to decide upon; and then think how many fewer they’d have to commit to when they didn’t have the immediate need for £25bn to kick-start the process.

But if only it were simply the cost that people object to :  the morality of a nuclear deterrent at all is debatable. While some will argue that if it stops someone bombing us it’s worth it, many others point to the events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to the 1980s fear of a nuclear winter, where the whole planet could be wiped out.

Does it really make sense to have these just to stop someone else using them against us? Or is it just MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction)?  Resulting in all the other nuclear powers in the world priming to fight for their allies, with the destruction of the northern hemisphere at the very least, as portrayed in Nevil Shute’s 1950s classic ‘On The Beach’, utterly assured. And, with comparatively few nations with known nuclear weapons, does it really make sense to try to deter them? Especially when the majority (the NATO share, France, the USA, Israel) are our allies?

Yet, one of the opposing arguments is that North Korea and Iran are working on uranium enrichment and testing, with Iran having just agreed a deal to send their uranium off to Turkey and Brazil to be enriched and stored, and with North Korea stepping up their efforts by testing different types of missiles.

However there is also the legal argument : many suggest that under international law, nuclear weapons are actually not allowed. They’re in breach of the Geneva Convention, Hague Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, back in 1970, the UK signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, legally obliging us to pursue nuclear disarmament.

There is no simple answer to the nuclear weapons question: both sides of the argument hold a good deal of truth, and, especially with North Korea and Iran testing weapons as we speak, it would be foolish to dismiss the idea of a nuclear deterrent – but, the Cold War is over. All that remains to ask, in my opinion, is, is an outdated, expensive, and potentially illegal system really still necessary?

by Amy Claire Thompson

Everyone from Dara O’Brian to Irish Prime minister have had  their say. The Irish FA call for a replay, while the BBC employed one of their journalists yesterday with the single job of collecting the ire and anger of the nation and putting it into text . Calls for a reply are sadly immaterial, no such game would ever take place and this irks the Irish even more. Here is the incident:

The sense of injustice is hard felt in Ireland. Damian Duff has been howling to anyone that will listen that the result was rigged from the start. The seeding system that pitted Ireland against France was apparently an attempt by FIFA to save the big nations like Portugal (featurung world’s best player, Cristiano Ronaldo) and France from crashing out. How can small nations hope to move forward and develop at grass-roots if they have no national heroes to idolise?

This parody song neatly summarises the thoughts of the country:

Crystal Castles are undeniably an outstanding band! It could be argued however that Kap Bambino were the starting point of the entire New Rave mashed, mixed and generally messed up noises genre. So who is the best, CCs or Kap?

Well Castle Crystals have stormed onto the scene, but not only have they produced their own amazing music but have blown people away with their awesome remixes. the White Lies remix was absolutely astounding and they seem to have a knack for making already good songs even more amazing!  Crystal Castles came to the UK  in one big wave, having already broken America and their native Canada.  Their sucess could be down to the amazing job the Canadian government do by subsidising Canadian music, to try and disassociate Bryan Adams from their own music history. They were asked to play on Skins (Channel 4) which opened them up to a vast amount of British teens. they are a must listen!

Crystal Castles – Vanished youtube

White Lies – Death (Crystal Castles remix)

Now Kap Bambino ahve been around for a long time, based in France they have never really been huge and only relatively big new rave fans have come across them. Kap Bambino have a funkier sound which is more childlike and faster. Hugely popular in France they have little sucess elsewhere, but this has not taken away from their music, they still create incredible tunes. One of my favourite tunes by them has to be Hey! an amazing song with a funny video.

Kap Bambino – Hey! youtube

So who is the best? It’s gotta be Crystal Castles although they may have been influenced by Kap Bambino they have surpassed them with ease. Not to say Kap Bambino are bad, like Girls Aloud, but Crystal Castles are just better! Their music is so easy to dance to, and their live presence is incredible. Crystal Castles have maintained a low profile when their private lives are concerned and for that i completely respect them. Let’s just hope that up coming artists can follow their example and sell out for the money.

Rugby pin-up Johnny Wilkinson kicked 16 points as Toulon became the first team to beat English Rich boys (on a rugby scale) Saracens, 31-23 in the challenge cup. No doubt new director of rugby Brendan Venter will be furious at the manner of the defeat , as am I: Once upon a time the same fly-half was promoting blighty in the Guniness Premiership. He has now switched allegiances along with a horde of highly sought after Englishmen to cross the channel.

Injury plagued Wilkinson says  ”Right now, I feel like I am making a big decision, and it is a big decision, which is getting easier and easier the more time I spend with these guys.” He feels the move has reignited his flagging career and now looks set to make his return to the national side alongside Shane Geraghty (strongly advocated by Northampton boss Jim Mallinder.) However in my opinion the move was money incentivised – how else can you explain it after England coach Martin Johnson said he was reluctant to pick these foreign based players?

Other players in the burgeoning league include Wasps pair James Haskell and Tom Palmer who have left behind their Wycombe roots for the more exotic shores of Paris and Stade Francais (pictured here in their questionable kit)…they claim to be rugby players?

To complete the set, Brive have captured the signing of Steve Thompson and Rickey Flutey to join Andy Goode. For what Thompson lacks in aesthetics he makes up in muscle while Flutey brings some New Zealand Flair to Europe.

All the while we miss out on this and have to settle for an ageing Steve Borthwick at an ageing Vicarage road on a sodden Wednesday night. Then again, maybe they’re on to something?