Britannia to rule the waves after Brexit

[MHz]

. . while still giving the UK full access to the EU market due to its still being a full EU member-state.

I wouldn't bet the rest of the EU is going to accept that. The odds are high that the EU will cease to be and it will revert to individual Nation with something like NAFTA becoming the equalizer. That could benefit most Nations in areas like sanctions on Russia where a country loses benefits that do not affect some other Nations.

No, it is a really big reason why they retire steam turbine powered ships that were built in the 1950's that have steamed a million miles. Luck is not the issue. It is a near certainty that something will fail right away.

The high pressure steam that steam turbine engines use in their first stage is 900°F. It is a colourless gas, at that temperature and it doles out instant death. It requires that boilers and steam lines in tip-top condition.

That sounds like nuclear power to do the heating rather than some form of oil or gas. (not saying that is entirely bad in ships and it might be a solution for cities rather than one nuclear plant servicing 10 cities, or whatever the count actually is)

 

[Blackleaf]

I doubt it. But I am thinking along the lines of a modern propulsion system, Electronics, Sanitation systems as well as the condition of the hull. The largest boat I worked on was 120 ft and that was an expensive refit on a much younger hull. And that was just power.

I'm not too bothered about the costs anyway. It won't be the taxpayer paying for it.

I think Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson's plan is to recommission the current Royal Yacht Britannia and any costs would be paid for by private donations.

If that fails, the contingency plan is to build a new royal yacht - something envisaged in 2012, but nothing seems to have come of it yet - again, paid for by private donations.

 

[MHz]

I'm not too bothered about the costs anyway. It won't be the taxpayer paying for it.

I think Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson's plan is to recommission the current Royal Yacht Britannia and any costs would be paid for by private donations.

Let me guess, a tax deductible donation and your name gets put into a list that gets favors granted from the 'elite' Politicians.

 

[Blackleaf]

Let me guess, a tax deductible donation and your name gets put into a list that gets favors granted from the 'elite' Politicians.

I hope so, because then I'd make a contribution. I'm desperate to mingle in Royal and upper class. They're my sort of people.

 

[MHz]

Apparently they don't think the same about you or that would already be happening. Just saying you might be as low on the Totem-pole as 'we' are. (that never changes no matter what in case you still have any delusions about what your station is in this life)

 

[Curious Cdn]

I wouldn't bet the rest of the EU is going to accept that. The odds are high that the EU will cease to be and it will revert to individual Nation with something like NAFTA becoming the equalizer. That could benefit most Nations in areas like sanctions on Russia where a country loses benefits that do not affect some other Nations.


That sounds like nuclear power to do the heating rather than some form of oil or gas. (not saying that is entirely bad in ships and it might be a solution for cities rather than one nuclear plant servicing 10 cities, or whatever the count actually is)

The technology to superheat steam by burning oil goes right back to the nineteenth century. Until the advent of our 280 class destroyers and current frigates, All of our warships (and just about everone else's) were powered by steam turbine heated with oil. Nuclear power plants are essentially the same technology, replacing the boiler with an "atomic" boiler.

The Royal Navy likely does not not have any more steamers left. Perhaps, there is an oiler of two still around but I doubt it. The last big Royal Navy war ships with steam turbine engines might be the Harrier Carriers. Our last steamers were the HMCS Protecteur and Preserver, just decommissioned a couple of years ago.

Jellicoe's fleet at Jutland and the Titanic were both powered by the same Parsons geared turbines. Back then, this was seriously high, advanced technology.

 

[MHz]

I realize how they did it in the past but that would not be applicable to a new breed of ships as it would require too much oil and the range would be severely limited and the weight would reduce the ships capacity to carry other goods.

 

[Curious Cdn]

I realize how they did it in the past but that would not be applicable to a new breed of ships as it would require too much oil and the range would be severely limited and the weight would reduce the ships capacity to carry other goods.

Warships switched to gas turbine engines in the early 1970's, which are aviation jet engines strapped down to become stationary power plants.The Canadian 280 New Tribal Class was the first all gas turbine warship in the world, btw. The old steamers burned "bunker" fuel, which is the tarry crap at the bottm of a petroleum fractioning tank after the good stuff has been drawn off. It is cheap, cheap but not at all clean. Turbines burn a higher fraction ... "stove oil" which is around Kerosene.

It takes four or so hours from lighting the boilers on a steam turbine ship to being able to move anywhere. It takes that long to get enough pressure up in the system. A gas turbine ship can go full speed only ninety seconds after starting a cold engine. Big difference for a weapons system.

Unfortunately, all of those sexy, fast gas turbine destroyers were (and still are) fuel sucking monsters and just as they came into vogue, the Arabs tightened the noose on our petroleum supplies. Gas turgines are stiil pretty much kings but they are not cheap to run and they need re-supply, a lot.

The latest ships (our Frigates are a good example) have two different means of propulsion: gas turbines, when it's time to fight and very efficient but slower diesels, when they want to roam the world. Consequently, as long as the skipper doesn't want to water ski, those ships have riduculuosly long ranges. Both engines burn the same fuel.

The Americans and Russians both experimented with nuclear in smaller surface warships and both gave it up.... American carriers, various submarines and Russian icebreakers, only.

 

[MHz]

The is an oil glut rather than a scarcity which means there is no shortage unless a pipeline fails.

GAS PRICES JUMP TO NEARLY $5.00 PER GALLON IN ATLANTA… |

 

[Curious Cdn]

The is an oil glut rather than a scarcity which means there is no shortage unless a pipeline fails.

GAS PRICES JUMP TO NEARLY $5.00 PER GALLON IN ATLANTA… |

Oil still costs three or four times more for petroleum than it did in 1969, when the gas turbine came into style.

I used to fill up Dad"s Chrysler Newport for $0.45 an Imperial gallon when I first started driving in tbe early Seventies. That is about one tenth in today's currency so, adjusting for currency degradation, it is probably around three times the absolute cost, today.

 

[MHz]

That is about the same as the high-test my '57 Chev used. 2 tanks a day but it was as fast as a 440 6-pak, and no tickets back then.

 

[Bar Sinister]

A weak pound will help British exporters and manufacturers.

A drop in house prices will help many people - particularly young, first-time buyers - afford to buy their new homes.

Actually you might want to watch the program. It is available for streaming on the BBC website. One of the interesting facts discussed in to the program was the number of foreign buyers acquiring property in London due to the drop in the value of the pound. And the foreign buyers are not just buying up expensive housing they are also acquiring properties aimed at the average buyer.

On another note it will be interesting to see who Britain plans to trade with considering the rest of the world is busy entering into multiple trade agreements. Canada for example is currently involved in entering into such an agreement with the EU.

 

[Danbones]

I wonder if Muslims are buying up the cheap properties, and also of course, the nice cheap weapons that are exported

 

[Blackleaf]

Actually you might want to watch the program. It is available for streaming on the BBC website. One of the interesting facts discussed in to the program was the number of foreign buyers acquiring property in London due to the drop in the value of the pound. And the foreign buyers are not just buying up expensive housing they are also acquiring properties aimed at the average buyer.

I don't watch BBC current affairs programmes. They have a left-wing, pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-Islam, pro-gay, pro-multiculturalism, anti-British, anti-Brexit, anti-Ukip, anti-English slant to them. Not my cup of tea at all.

On another note it will be interesting to see who Britain plans to trade with considering the rest of the world is busy entering into multiple trade agreements. Canada for example is currently involved in entering into such an agreement with the EU.

And it's taken years and years for Canada to get anywhere close to getting a trade deal with the economically sclerotic, corrupt and anti-democratic EU, because the EU is notoriously slow and cumbersome at securing trade deals. The Chinese were annoyed with the EU because of how long it's taking to secure a trade deal with them, so they were happy when Britain voted for Brexit as they know they'll be able to secure a trade deal with Britain much faster.

But whilst Canada desperately seeks to do a trade deal with an economically declining entity, the EU is becoming less and less important to Britain each year as a trade destination. Each year that passes, Britain does even less trade with the EU. Britain's trade with the US is, however, increasing - even though we don't, and never have, have a trade agreement with it.

 

[Walter]

The Post-Brexit Boom is Baffling Elites
https://mises.org/blog/post-brexit-boom-baffling-elites

 

[Bar Sinister]

I don't watch BBC current affairs programmes. They have a left-wing, pro-EU, pro-immigration, pro-Islam, pro-gay, pro-multiculturalism, anti-British, anti-Brexit, anti-Ukip, anti-English slant to them. Not my cup of tea at all.

And it's taken years and years for Canada to get anywhere close to getting a trade deal with the economically sclerotic, corrupt and anti-democratic EU, because the EU is notoriously slow and cumbersome at securing trade deals. The Chinese were annoyed with the EU because of how long it's taking to secure a trade deal with them, so they were happy when Britain voted for Brexit as they know they'll be able to secure a trade deal with Britain much faster.

But whilst Canada desperately seeks to do a trade deal with an economically declining entity, the EU is becoming less and less important to Britain each year as a trade destination. Each year that passes, Britain does even less trade with the EU. Britain's trade with the US is, however, increasing - even though we don't, and never have, have a trade agreement with it.

The fact that you don't watch one of the acknowledged leaders in global journalism certainly helps to explain your lack of knowledge on some issues. And no, Canada is not desperate for an EU trade deal it is simply following the rest of the world in becoming part of global trading organizations. In the last several decades Canada has entered into a number of such deals. The alternative is to be on the outside looking in as the Brits might eventually learn.

 

[Blackleaf]

The fact that you don't watch one of the acknowledged leaders in global journalism certainly helps to explain your lack of knowledge on some issues. And no, Canada is not desperate for an EU trade deal it is simply following the rest of the world in becoming part of global trading organizations. In the last several decades Canada has entered into a number of such deals. The alternative is to be on the outside looking in as the Brits might eventually learn.

I've noticed that Canada isn't actually intending on JOINING the EU. Merely trading with the EU - which Britain does - and being in it are two completely different things. Why doesn't Canada actually JOIN the EU if you all thing it's so good?

 

[Machjo]

I've noticed that Canada isn't actually intending on JOINING the EU. Merely trading with the EU - which Britain does - and being in it are two completely different things. Why doesn't Canada actually JOIN the EU if you all thing it's so good?

Firstly, Canada cannot join the EU as per the EU's own rules. A part of the state needs to be in the EU for that state to join the EU.

Secondly, Canada's geographical reality is radically different from the UK's. For the UK to leave the EU (which you have not yet even begun to do) will be as devastating to the UK economy as it would be for Canada to leave NAFTA. In the same way, the UK joining NAFTA would benefit the UK about as much as Canada joining the EU.

In the real world, businesses do consider shipping costs, and transatlantic shipping is far more expensive than to trade between the UK and France or Ontario and New York State.

For Canada to leave NAFTA to join the EU would be about as stupid as the UK leaving the EU to join NAFTA.

Now don't get me wrong. the freer the trade between states worldwide, the better, but the most advantaged trade agreements are with neighbouring states due to transportation costs. So yes, it's in Canada's interest to promote free trade with the EU, but not at the expense of Canada-US trade. We might not like US protectionism, but whether we like it or not, the US holds the cards here. Sure the US hurts itself through its protectionism, but what choice do we have.

I dislike EU protectionism too, but for the UK to leave the EU given its geographical dependence on the EU for trade is just stupid.

Just as it makes more sence for Canada to remain in NAFTA while trying to talk some sense into the US, it makes more sense for the UK to remain in the EU while trying to talk some sense into it.

I suppose one possibility would be to change the EU's rules to arename it the Trans-Atlantic Union (TAU). That way, Canada and the US, as members of the EU, could also try to pull it more towards freer trade. But since the US is also a very protectionist state (and even Canada to a degree unfortunately), that might not likely happen.

Perhaps the best-caase scenario for the UK would be to unilaterally drop its tariffs as a second-best option besides joining the EU.

If Canadians were stupid enough to vote to leave NAFTA, I'd probably propose that Canada unilaterally drop its tariffs as a second-best option, though I admit that would merely lessen the pain of leaving NAFTA.

 

[Blackleaf]

Firstly, Canada cannot join the EU as per the EU's own rules. A part of the state needs to be in the EU for that state to join the EU.

Secondly, Canada's geographical reality is radically different from the UK's. For the UK to leave the EU (which you have not yet even begun to do) will be as devastating to the UK economy as it would be for Canada to leave NAFTA. In the same way, the UK joining NAFTA would benefit the UK about as much as Canada joining the EU.

In the real world, businesses do consider shipping costs, and transatlantic shipping is far more expensive than to trade between the UK and France or Ontario and New York State.

For Canada to leave NAFTA to join the EU would be about as stupid as the UK leaving the EU to join NAFTA.

Now don't get me wrong. the freer the trade between states worldwide, the better, but the most advantaged trade agreements are with neighbouring states due to transportation costs. So yes, it's in Canada's interest to promote free trade with the EU, but not at the expense of Canada-US trade. We might not like US protectionism, but whether we like it or not, the US holds the cards here. Sure the US hurts itself through its protectionism, but what choice do we have.

I dislike EU protectionism too, but for the UK to leave the EU given its geographical dependence on the EU for trade is just stupid.

Just as it makes more sence for Canada to remain in NAFTA while trying to talk some sense into the US, it makes more sense for the UK to remain in the EU while trying to talk some sense into it.

I suppose one possibility would be to change the EU's rules to arename it the Trans-Atlantic Union (TAU). That way, Canada and the US, as members of the EU, could also try to pull it more towards freer trade. But since the US is also a very protectionist state (and even Canada to a degree unfortunately), that might not likely happen.

Perhaps the best-caase scenario for the UK would be to unilaterally drop its tariffs as a second-best option besides joining the EU.

If Canadians were stupid enough to vote to leave NAFTA, I'd probably propose that Canada unilaterally drop its tariffs as a second-best option, though I admit that would merely lessen the pain of leaving NAFTA.

 

[Machjo]

Oh, I'm sorry Blackleaf, I didn't mean to make you cry by presenting such ugly facts to you.