The Peace of Our Time

Yes, for Simonie, this document was indeed much more "friendly," with the France even generously promising to provide Britain with a huge sum of money after the war to help revive the Britain economy.

Of course, Simonie wasn't a fool; he could see it was poisoned, or, to France expression, a sugar-coated bullet. This money wasn't free, nor was it without cost or demands. To paraphrase a certain great man. "Like Jiang Ziya fishing, those who are willing will take the bait. Food given with contempt will only cause stomach pain!"

The use of these funds must be subject to France oversight, which is perfectly reasonable. Britain must implement reforms domestically that meet the demands of the France. In fact, if Britain accepts the friendly aid from the France, this "handout," the Britain government even loses the power to formulate its own budget, because the budget must conform to the France's requirements in order to receive that "handout" from the France.

"Finance is the mother of all governance." This is a basic principle known to every senior Britain bureaucrat. In fact, all the struggles between the state apparatus of the United Kingdom, whether between Parliament and the King, between the Whig Party and the Tory Party, or between various government departments, all revolve around the struggle for the fiscal budget.

Now, once the France "aid" is accepted, a supreme arbiter will suddenly appear in this supreme struggle. Although, according to the law, this arbiter is not an all-powerful figure like "our Father in Heaven," he only possesses veto power.

But having the veto power is already decisive. Imagine you're playing football and you encounter a referee whose principle is: if I say it's not a foul, it's not a foul, even if he kicks you in the head while you're on the ground; if I say a goal is disallowed, it's disallowed, no matter how you scored, even if you dribbled the ball from your own goal line into the opponent's goal; whether you're Spain or Italy, if I say you're eliminated, you're eliminated, even if your opponent is a third-rate team.

Once the France gained such power, the entire Britain government, everything that depended on financial support for survival—from the army and police to the courts and prisons—would have to prioritize pleasing the France to survive. Only by pleasing the France could they secure the budgets they needed.

Thus, by accepting this aid, the entire Britain government would become a subordinate department of the France government. Accepting handouts is not just a matter of stomach aches; it can lead to being usurped. But can the United Kingdom truly refuse this aid now?

The consequences of refusing this aid are clear. Many rebel groups have ties to the France —a fact the France themselves make no secret of. This is a huge sum of money; would the United Kingdom government refuse it, or would the rebels refuse it too? In modern Britain, anyone who could produce such a sum, simply by waving the France checkbook like a flag, would have starving soldiers, hungry policemen, and underfed spies abandon the United Kingdom without hesitation and join their ranks, then disappear from museums... They dragged out the guillotine the Britain had captured in Toulon, erected it in the London, and then, starting with the King, sent one by one, all those with noble titles—even those merely knights—to the guillotine in a long procession. Each time a noble head fell, the mob erupted in thunderous cheers. The heads of the King and the Crown Prince were impaled on lances and Upstream the streets of London, the crowds following behind the horrible spears, cheering and reveling as if in a carnival.

Every lamppost in London had a head hanging from it, with a sign below listing their crimes: "Vampire," "Enemy of the People," "Nobleman"... Children ran past, cheerfully singing a France song in English: "It will be alright, it will be alright... The noblemen are all hanging on the lampposts..."

"This is absolutely terrifying!" Just imagining the situation made Simonie tremble, break out in a cold sweat, and even shed tears.

"We must not let the United Kingdom fall to such a state, so even if it's poison, we have no choice but to drink it. If we don't drink it, we'll die; if we drink it, I don't know who will die, but at least I won't be fluttering in the wind on a lamppost."

However, Simonie still wanted to try his best to get as much as possible for the United Kingdom.

So when he met Talleyrand again, he told him that, in principle, he agreed with the basic ideas in the memorandum, and he believed that, guided by such ideas, Britain and France would surely be able to overcome all misunderstandings and misfortunes and become brotherly nations working hand in hand.

Of course, there are still some minor issues, such as the various restrictions on the Britain government budget that come with the France aid.

"Of course, now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up and the war is over, it is certainly appropriate to reduce the size of the oversized army. However, reducing the entire Britain army to less than 30,000 men and limiting the navy to only having armored cruisers, isn't that a bit too much... Mr. Minister, you know that the military has a lot of say in the government. Cutting their budget so much will bring us a lot of resistance."

"Ah, my friend, I thought only an invincible army could put pressure on the government. Besides, your thinking is trapped by outdated ideas. We don't necessarily want to harm the interests of the military leaders. It's true that the army should be smaller than 30,000, but we haven't stipulated how many soldiers and officers should be in those 30,000. Even if all 30,000 are generals, even if the number of generals exceeds the number of artillery pieces, that's not a problem."

"The people will not accept such an absurd thing," Simonie said.

"Ah, if the people don't accept it, it must be because your explanations are inadequate. So, in many things, you Britain still have a lot to learn," Talleyrand replied with a smile. "For example, you could tell them that maintaining too many troops in peacetime consumes a lot of wealth and affects everyone's standard of living. If you only maintain the backbone of the army—the organization and officers—you can save a lot of money, and with both organization and officers, you can quickly expand the army when needed. Wouldn't that explain it? Less tax is collected, but the army is still usable. What more could they possibly want?"

Furthermore, this way, the number of troops can be reduced, but all organizational structures remain, and the number of officers can still be maintained. Although the military budget is significantly cut, because there are no more privates, each officer can actually receive more. Isn't this a good thing for the military? If you can clearly explain the pros and cons and the rationale to them, why would they oppose something so beneficial to the country?

As for the navy... First of all, the navy is extremely expensive. If your country insists on spending a lot of money to build battleships, then who is its hypothetical enemy? As for the navy's opposition, if the army can stand with the government, what's so difficult about dealing with their opposition? Besides, if there really are such out-of-touch individuals in the navy, then why not just throw them in jail for failing in combat? I think his successor will definitely be much smarter. Moreover, like the army, the navy can be reduced in size, but its organization remains the same, isn't that the same thing?"

When he said this, Talleyrand was unaware that, in the original history, many years later, the once-dominant Royal Navy had been reduced to only six destroyers. But even under such circumstances, the British Navy still retained many fleet formations that no longer existed.

For example, the Yangtze River Fleet, which was expelled from the Yangtze River after the Amethyst Incident, remained part of the Royal Navy's organization until the British Empire century, with all its officers, such as fleet commander, deputy commander, chief of staff, and deputy chief of staff, still in place. This is normal, given the unique circumstances of the British Empire. The Britain Army has more generals than tanks. The British Navy cannot afford to have fewer generals than its army! However, the British Navy has too few ships; it's impractical to assign a general the position of chief engineer. Therefore, inactive fleets like the Yangtze River Fleet come in handy. Consequently, some British Navy fleet commanders have fewer warships and soldiers than the Mongol Navy, one of the Seven Warlords of the Sea.

However, Simonie still had some doubts, so he said, "But as you know, there are some unstable factors in our country. If the army is so small, what if they rebel?"

"We have calculated that your army, retaining its current officers, should still have a capable force of over ten thousand men. Considering the good progress your railways have made in recent years, and the army's rapid mobility capabilities are quite strong, we believe that a rapid reaction force of ten thousand men is sufficient to handle this situation," Talleyrand replied.

"But..." Simonie shut up. Theoretically, there were still over ten thousand capable soldiers left. Theoretically, that was indeed enough. But, but that was all in theory; in reality, it was a different story.

For example, the demobilization of the military and the clearing out of so many people is a very important task. Shouldn't such an important task be handled by a special agency? For instance, a Military Streamlining Committee could be established to oversee this work.

The members of the "Army Streamlining Committee" must, of course, be officials, some of whom are military officers, and others, naturally, are civilian government officials. Their expenses will naturally come from the military budget. Of course, in theory, this is a temporary body that will be dissolved after its work is completed. However, this is only in theory. When has any "temporary body" established by my United Kingdom ever truly been temporary? Considering the number of people occupied by these temporary bodies, how many positions will ultimately be left for the combat troops is anyone's guess.

However, such a thing was too shameful to say out loud, so Simonie really couldn't bring himself to say it. After all, although he was a professional diplomat, and a key characteristic of diplomats is having a very low moral standard and being utterly shameless when spouting nonsense, in this respect, Simonie was far inferior to a certain fat diplomat in the Lighthouse Country of the future who openly regarded lying, deception, and theft as a source of constant pride. (That constantly striving pride: What does this have to do with me? Hmm, let's work together to crush Huawei!)

Thus, the military issue was resolved satisfactorily. Then came the other details. Since the decision had been made to sell out the country for personal gain, the most important thing was, of course, to get a good price. Before the negotiations began, the basic bottom line had already been established within Britain: preserve the kingdom, not Great Britain.

In theory, Great Britain and a kingdom are two different things. Great Britain could be United Kingdom, but it could also be a United Republic, or even, if the revolution goes well, Soviet Union. Oh, no, it should be Soviet Love Alliance.

However, neither the United Republic nor the Soviet Love Alliance offered any foothold for the nobility. Therefore, the interests of Great Britain and the Kingdom were now at odds. The Kingdom had to immediately and firmly side with France in order to continue ruling Great Britain.

With this attitude in mind, there were no longer any truly insurmountable problems between the two sides. Thus, in a cordial and friendly atmosphere, they fully communicated on some details of the new memorandum proposed by France Foreign Minister Talleyrand, reaching a broad consensus. Finally, both sides signed the memorandum to indicate their "pleasant agreement."

Then Simonie rushed back to London with the new memorandum and handed it over to the Crown Prince and the Earl of Liverpool for review.

When Simonie arrived in London, it was already late at night, but the Crown Prince still ordered him to immediately take the memorandum to the Buckingham Palace to report to them.

Upon entering Buckingham Palace, he was greeted by a servant. The servant led him into the drawing room, where Simonie saw the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister, the Earl of Liverpool, already waiting.

"Well? What did you bring back?" the Crown Prince asked, his tone and expression like that of a prisoner inquiring about his sentence in court—a mixture of fear and anticipation.

"Peace," Simonie replied. "Your Highness, Your Excellency, Prime Minister, I have brought back peace for our time."