BBC's Science & Environment Section (aka climate propaganda) section of the website today:

"Climate change: Sea ice loss linked to spread of deadly virus
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50333627

[For the umpteenth time, even though there are still weeks to go:]

"This Matters: Is this the 'climate election'?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50352748/this-matters-is-this-the-climate-election

"Do you think politics is just people playing games? Then this is the show for you.

Every week This Matters looks into what is really going on in this election and how it will actually affect real people.

This time we ask: Are we having our first climate change election? Find out how your vote could affect the planet’s future."

"Scottish Greens say climate 'most pressing' election issue"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50334765

"How do you stop flooding?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25929644

[Innocuous, and topical, at first glance, but inevitably the article contains this:]

"Flooding has always been an occasional part of life in such areas, but experts warn that climate change is worsening the situation.

In early 2019, Environment Agency chairwoman Emma Howard Boyd said that some communities might even have to move entirely. She suggested that spending on flood management would need to be raised to £1bn a year.

"We can't win a war against water by building away climate change with infinitely high flood defences," she said.

Researchers have also warned that coastal areas in Northern Europe are also at higher risk of flooding in the coming years because of rising temperatures."

SITD: In answer to your first post, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was - afaik - a one-on-one conflict. Other nations were so detached that there was even a degree of "tourism" to watch proceedings, especially English folk.

M. Courtney: Switzerland's policy of neutrality did not work against Napoleon who occupied and looted it.

With regard to the NATO/European army question, why re-invent the wheel? Even if the US did pull out suddenly, NATO has a long-standing organisation and command structure in place. Also it has a broader base than the EU as it includes Turkey and some countries which are semi-detached from the EU. Lastly, it's my limited understanding that it is not so much at the beck and call of politicians whereas a European army would answer to Brussels.

Thanks for reminding us tomo. In fact it was misnamed 28gate, 30 people attended the BBC'c notorious 2006 seminar.
In its June 2007 publication, “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”, the BBC Trust stated that it had held a high level seminar and consulted the “best scientific experts” before it had abandoned impartiality when reporting on climate change.

http://www.johnbridcut.com/documents/seesaw_to_wagon_wheel_report.pdf

In fact the 30 “best scientific experts” were nothing of the sort. The catastrophic failure of the BBC to report in an unbiased way on climate change for over 12 years is having appalling consequences. The BBC tried to suppress the names of the people in the list below, spending a considerable amount of licence fee payers' money so doing in the courts, only for it to emerge after it had won its case that the BBC had already published the list of attendees before it realised how stupid and dishonest it made the BBC look.

In case the BBC has forgotten the names and descriptions of their "best scientific experts", here they are: Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant Trevor Evans, US Embassy Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation Claire Foster, Church of England Saleemul Huq, IIED Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund Matthew Farrow, CBI Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs Joe Smith, The Open University Mark Galloway, Director, IBT Anita Neville, E3G Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

M Courtney
Fair point, but Switzerland has been neutral for 400 years, and the place where dictators and corrupt politicians and businesspersons hide their ill-gotten gains. The money is a very big insurance policy.

I don't think the UK falls into either category.

Sweden was neutral for a couple of hundred years, but in the late 20th century is technically not neutral. The reason for going neutral was territory loss in the Napoleonic Wars, the Second World War tested the concept of neutrality pretty far in Sweden's case.

So for a nation with global interests and no history of neutrality going it alone is impractical and hellishly expensive. In all the claims of money being thrown round by Boris and Corbyn I've seen nothing about defence or any clamour from outside Westminster for an increase in military spending.

So it seems to me there are two choices, take your chances as a poorly defended island or become the Welsh Archers or Scottish Infantry in a joint European Defense force. There's not really a middle way.