Slogan of military exercise

Reference News Network1October 28 reported that in the past, the national medical service system was often praised as the pride of Britain. Everyone living in Britain can enjoy their medical services without having to pay all the fees.

Now, Ian Higginson, deputy dean of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: "The emergency department of the National Health Service is facing one of the most challenging periods in history."

Emily Bauer, a general practitioner in northwest England, made a depressing assessment of the current situation of the national health service system. She told reporters: "I think the national medical service system is not only in crisis, it has experienced a crisis, and now it has completely collapsed."

▲ In 2020, a slogan was displayed at Wembley Stadium in London, England, thanking the National Health Service for its efforts in fighting the COVID-19 epidemic. Figure/Xinhua News Agency

According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Chief Executive of the National Health Service pointed out that the surge of COVID-19 and flu cases in winter brought great pressure to the medical system. To make matters worse, in this difficult winter, British hospital and ambulance workers launched a rare strike, and nurses went on strike for the first time in a hundred years. At a time when the inflation rate in Britain is soaring, nurses are demanding higher wages. According to an article in the Financial Times, health sector leaders are increasingly worried that the national medical service system, which is already under great pressure, will be affected cumulatively.

On the 7th, British Prime Minister Sunak called for "bold and radical" actions to reform the national medical system in crisis when he held an emergency meeting with the heads of health departments. However, it is extremely difficult to reform this system which has accumulated many years of disadvantages. Previously, successive British prime ministers promised to repair the dilapidated social care system, but the system still failed completely.

First of all, it is difficult to get the funds needed to invest in the British medical insurance system. According to the British "Guardian" report, before the outbreak of the epidemic, the related expenses in Britain were far behind other major economies, which led to the crumbling of the national medical service system and insufficient preparation.

Secondly, the problems of NHS and social care system in Britain are not only related to money, but also related to cultural, political and structural problems. Narrow political arguments and differences often hinder reform. According to the British "Guardian" report, British political parties have always refused to unite to decide the best way forward, but rejected each other's ideas in order to give their own parties the upper hand. Specific examples include the social care plan put forward by the Labour Party before the 20 10 general election, and other plans abandoned by Theresa May and the Conservative Party in 20 17. The Conservative Party called the Labour Party's plan a "death tax" and May's policy a "dementia tax".

"It is very difficult to reform the health care system," said Dan poulter, a Conservative MP who used to be the Minister of Health. This is a project in 10, but the election cycle in Britain is only five years. Reform is difficult to achieve because any debate about reform always uses politics. " Labour politicians refused to cooperate with the Conservative Party to solve the social security problem. They will privately admit that if they do this, they will lose their most powerful political card-they can attack the National Health Service Conservative Party and Social Security.

Poulter also pointed out the structural defects of the British medical and social care system. At present, this system consists of too many independent parts, and each part must keep its own budget. To some extent, this is a legacy of trying to introduce more business rules into the system.

Because the cost and complexity of reform make politicians cringe, efforts to find financial solutions for social security often encounter endless delays.

Extended reading:

One of China's neighbors opened its door to NATO troops, and many foreign media warned of the danger.

Kishida fumio and Sunak.

/kloc-two countries that declared an alliance against the same country 20 years ago have recently come together historically. One of them is Britain, and the other is a neighbor of China.

This time, the two countries made another big move. The British and Japanese prime ministers signed a military agreement called "century agreement" by the media, allowing each other to station troops on each other's territory. Behind the signing of the agreement, the figure of another western power has quietly emerged.

What does this action of Britain and Japan mean? At least, many international media have read two words: danger!

"/kloc-the most important defense agreement in 0/20 years"

On June 65438+1October 1 1 local time in London, England, visiting Japanese Prime Minister kishida fumio held talks with British Prime Minister Sunak, and the two sides signed the defense agreement "Reciprocal Access Agreement".

Foreign media have noticed that this is the first and most important defense agreement signed by Japan and European countries for more than a century. The last time the two countries signed such an agreement can be traced back to 1902.

The main purpose of this agreement is to "promote the joint training between the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the British army, so that the troops can communicate smoothly". It is mentioned that the two sides allow each other to station troops, and the British army can be stationed on Japanese territory and the Japanese army can also be stationed in the UK. The two sides also allow "joint defense when any country is attacked." Foreign media pointed out that this is similar to the agreement signed with the United States and Australia.

Japan and Britain signed a "significant" defense agreement. Image source: Qatar Al Jazeera report screenshot

The British government believes that this agreement will help consolidate its commitment to "Indo-Pacific region" and enable the British and Japanese armed forces to "plan and launch larger and more complex military exercises and military deployments".

In order to strengthen defense cooperation, the two countries have previously concluded the Agreement on Intelligence Protection, which can exchange confidential information, and the Agreement on Mutual Provision of Goods and Services, which can accommodate goods and services.

What are the benefits of signing an agreement between the two countries?

Shortly after the beginning of 2023, Japanese Prime Minister kishida fumio started his first trip to Europe and America, and visited France, Italy and Britain nonstop. Of these three countries, only British Prime Minister Sunak signed such a defense agreement with Kishida.

All the way to Europe, kishida fumio must have carefully planned and achieved "results", so why did Japan sign an agreement with Britain?

As a defeated country in World War II, Japan is required to limit its military strength to the scope of defense, and its military aspect is totally dependent on the United States. At present, there are more than 50,000 American troops stationed in Japan, and American soldiers often get into trouble and offend the public. However, the Japanese government not only accepted the garrison, but also paid a huge "protection fee" according to the cost-sharing agreement of the US troops stationed in Japan. It is reported that in the five years from 2022, Japan will bear the cost of about/kloc-0.05 billion yen, an average annual increase of about/kloc-0.05 billion yen over the previous year.

The British "Financial Times" believes that Japanese military leaders are increasingly aware that long-term dependence on Washington has put Japan in a weak position in developing military technology. Therefore, the country decided to strengthen cooperation in weapons and military technology with Britain, the closest ally of the United States, which will not be opposed by the United States.

Japan is really not an ordinary country. In recent years, its military trend has become more and more worrying. The army of one NATO country is not enough, and another NATO country is needed.

Britain can gain more benefits. The article by Qatar Al Jazeera gives Britain three goals:

First of all, Britain and Japan signed a defense agreement, which is in line with the new British military doctrine expressed in the vision of "global Britain" after Britain left the European Union.

In this idea, Britain found a defensive card called "Pacific Transfer Strategy". Before military cooperation with Japan in the Pacific Ocean, Britain, the United States and Australia reached a "trilateral security partnership" aimed at building nuclear submarines to monitor the Pacific Ocean and "forming a deterrent weapon against China's actions in the region".

The Ocuss Agreement will allow Britain to acquire military bases in the Pacific Ocean and transfer its navy and nuclear fleet to Japanese ports.

Secondly, Japan has decided to increase its military budget to $31500 million in the next five years, an increase of 57%, which is a "budget that fascinates Britain". Therefore, Britain is eager to reach a huge deal with the Japanese army.

Third, in the next four years, the famous British eurofighter typhoon will retire. To this end, Britain has allocated a budget of more than 2 billion pounds to develop the latest aircraft in the world together with Japan and Italy, which needs the help of Japanese manufacturing technology.

The British military said that the project will be able to produce the latest, fastest and most powerful fighters known in the world. The analysis pointed out that this may be the reason why Britain and Japan seek to "ensure air superiority." Because "facing China, the air force is very important to Japan". As for London, it is to maintain "the dominant position of fighters in front of Russia."

The BBC also pointed out that it is meaningful for Britain, Japan and Italy to jointly develop the sixth generation fighter and aim at the "Indo-Pacific region".

Aiming at "Indo-Pacific", the ability is questioned.

In fact, when it comes to "Indo-Pacific region", we know that behind the signing of the agreement between Japan and Britain, there is no need for a country to promote it-the United States, which continues to dominate the "Indo-Pacific strategy".

Don't forget, these G7 countries visited by Kishida still have "dual identities", and they are all NATO members.

"Let the British army ranked fifth in the world join hands with the Japanese army ranked eighth in the world. Without the support of the United States, it would be impossible to sign this agreement, "said Al Jazeera web analytics.

The United States led the G7 countries and NATO member countries to stir up trouble in the Indo-Pacific region, and Japan entered the role to actively cooperate with the drama of "unity", which was both garrison and defense cooperation, opening the door for more NATO troops. This plot should not be easy to guess.

Japan's * * news agency even more bluntly pointed out that this move by Japan and Britain is aimed at "the rise of China" and deepening security cooperation.

However, regarding the defense cooperation between Britain and Japan, The Times questioned its own country, thinking that "the United States is the guarantor of deterring China", can the existence of dozens or hundreds of British soldiers and military equipment change Japan's "confrontation with China"?

"Defense cooperation between countries concerned should be conducive to enhancing mutual understanding, trust and cooperation among countries, and should not create imaginary enemies, let alone introduce the old thinking of group confrontation into the Asia-Pacific region." China Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a regular press conference.

"Asia-Pacific is a highland for peaceful development, not an arena for geopolitical games. China is a partner of all countries and is not a challenge for any country. " Wang Wenbin stressed.