Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

RobMc59

Russia is rubbing it's hands with glee at the thought of the collapse of NATO-its all that thwarts it's aspirations of global meddling and mischief-putin is a former KGB spy master so make no mistake,he has NO benevolent or conciliatory feeling towards the EU who would be next in the cross hairs if NATO collapses -he sees it as a threat to his ambitions.

murphaph

prinzeugen wrote: »

Google Frances history with NATO. The last thing the EU needs is an army with nukes that surrender in almost every war they have fought.

Could have come straight from the Daily Express! France was a great military power under Napoleon, conquering most of Europe! They did not surrender in WWI and fought in the trenches of the Western Front. They did surrender when faced with an overwhelming military assault in WWII, but this assault also completely routed the British Expeditionary Force, which dumped all of its equipment on the way to Dunkirk to escape capture/death. The ONLY reason Britain didn't face the same fate as France was La Manche.

I thoroughly support the EU having a common defence policy with realistic budget. We do not need to enter an arms race with the US to accomplish this. We know that modern warfare is very different to even 20 years ago. Any war will be largely digital-you can bring a country to its knees if you take out the right computers. Russia tried this against Ukraine and it got out of hand and crippled half the NHS! I actually agree with Trump that many EU countries have been cheaping out on their NATO contributions. A solid EU defence force would not need to replace NATO, in fact the Americans would feel less used if the EU spent a bit more on its own defence and it should solidify NATO, especially after Trump has gone.

ancapailldorcha

Europe has historically relied on the US for protection so it makes some degree of sense in the age of Trumpist isolationism to look into providing its own security. The UK could have been a useful check on this as they had an act of Parliament requiring a membership referendum in the event of further transfers of powers to Brussels. An associate of mine works in military logistics and made a very convincing argument that a single unified EU army would be more effective than 27 countries each having their own which would also be less efficient.

In other news, Steve Baker was on Today yesterday. Apparently, he was asked if being in a customs union with the EU would solve the NI border issue. He then responded:

lawred2

prinzeugen wrote: »

Got the jets. IOC next year.

If you are old enough to remember, France sold the missiles that sunk their allies in 1982.

France has always been against to protect its own industry. It looks likely the UK will go into partnership with the Swedish and Japan.

Google Frances history with NATO. The last thing the EU needs is an army with nukes that surrender in almost every war they have fought.

France has a history of protectionism. Just look at Simiens and the new EuroStar trains.

The biggest trade barrier is France.

list all the wars

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Russia is rubbing it's hands with glee at the thought of the collapse of NATO-its all that thwarts it's aspirations of global meddling and mischief-putin is a former KGB spy master so make no mistake,he has NO benevolent or conciliatory feeling towards the EU who would be next in the cross hairs if NATO collapses -he sees it as a threat to his ambitions.

That, and a fundemental economic weakness that limites them to being a regional power at best. Russia can be a nusiance, but can't credibly pose a sustained military threat, their economey would collapse much faster than the Tsarist empire did.

Leroy42

The article was linked to earlier but a Guardian opinion piece about how

it is that the UK is reneging on the guarantees it has already made. As the negotiators brace themselves for a lock-in at the last-chance saloon, the underlying problem is less about the backstop than the EU’s chronic lack of trust.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/06/britain-brexit-eu-british-government-irish-backstop

The piece continues on in the same vein. A poster yesterday said they were impressed with Barnier and had they been in his place they would've probably slapped out at May and Raab etc at this stage.

Whatever deal, or indeed no deal, that the UK ends up with, the have cost themselves massively in terms of diplomacy and international standing. They are right to be worried about any future agreements as the EU will be starting from a position of total distrust of anything the UK says. So of course they are going to place the signoff on any review on the EU side, TM and the government has shown itself totally incapable of abiding by agreements previously entered into in good faith.

swampgas

Speaking of poor working relations between the UK and the EU ...

UK accuses EU of Brexit bias as it [UK] refuses to endorse aid spending
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/06/uk-accuses-eu-brexit-bias-refuses-endorse-aid-budget-spending

The UK is getting upset that the EU, when allocating funds from the EDF (European Development Funds) to EU NGOs, will stop funding British NGOs if there is a crash-out Brexit.

Another case of the UK just not getting how the EU is the core structure around which Europe organises its activities. Step away from the EU, and expect to lose out on a lot of cooperation.

First Up

The EU has been dealing with the (still fledgling) states on its Eastern flank since the collapse of communism. Most countries in the former Yugoslavia and former SU are still chaotic. Politics are polarised and you have coalitions where Ministries are political prizes and don't talk to each other. They also say different things to the EU and other outside parties. Its hard to know who's in charge and harder still who to trust.

Over the last 20-25 years the EU has refined how it deals with such situations and that experience and skill is now being deployed in dealing with the UK.

This is very familiar ground for them but its an entirely new situation for the UK.

Only one winner.

prawnsambo

Another brexit related closure. This time in Plymouth

lawred2

swampgas wrote: »

Speaking of poor working relations between the UK and the EU ...

UK accuses EU of Brexit bias as it [UK] refuses to endorse aid spending
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/06/uk-accuses-eu-brexit-bias-refuses-endorse-aid-budget-spending

The UK is getting upset that the EU, when allocating funds from the EDF (European Development Funds) to EU NGOs, will stop funding British NGOs if there is a crash-out Brexit.

Another case of the UK just not getting how the EU is the core structure around which Europe organises its activities. Step away from the EU, and expect to lose out on a lot of cooperation.

that's more of expecting the benefits of a club while not being a member of the club...

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

swampgas wrote: »

Speaking of poor working relations between the UK and the EU ...

UK accuses EU of Brexit bias as it [UK] refuses to endorse aid spending
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/06/uk-accuses-eu-brexit-bias-refuses-endorse-aid-budget-spending

The UK is getting upset that the EU, when allocating funds from the EDF (European Development Funds) to EU NGOs, will stop funding British NGOs if there is a crash-out Brexit.

Another case of the UK just not getting how the EU is the core structure around which Europe organises its activities. Step away from the EU, and expect to lose out on a lot of cooperation.

that's more of expecting the benefits of a club while not being a member of the club...

Are you forgetting the input the UK makes to European defence and GCHQ appears to be invaluable in the defence of European cyber safety and the fight against rogue and hostile countries. Its not just a one way arrangement.

lawred2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Are you forgetting the input the UK makes to European defence and GCHQ appears to be invaluable in the defence of European cyber safety and the fight against rogue and hostile countries. Its not just a one way arrangement.

Urm no but what has that to do with the EDF?

EdgeCase

Basically, the defence problem is a mixture of Trump and Brexit. The EU members who have security concerns can no longer trust the US to be a sane and stable defense partner and it looks like the UK could behave very similarly after Brexit and become unreliable or even be exposed to financial pressures that cause it to pursue agendas that are completely contrary to European defence agendas.

Ireland tends to live in la la land when it comes to defence because we perceive that we have no threats due to our geographical position next the UK, France and the US. The world looks very different when you've neighbours like Russia or even politically unpredictable places like Turkey or you're in the Mediterranean etc etc. Ireland lives a relatively charmed life in terms of defence.

What concerns me is that as a huge centre of IT and a growing financial centre we need to be ensuring we're very hardened against cyber attacks and other non conventional military operations that we are as vulnerable to as anyone else.

Even on conventional military stuff, we have had russian bombers entering Irish airspace in recent years and we have no means whatsoever of defending against that. Apparently we don't even have a military radar system so we can't necessarily even see aircraft with their transponders switched off.

I would also have concerns that the US and UK aren't necessarily going to be reliable in the medium term. That being said Ireland has no real formal defence relationship with either. It's all based on assumptions of good will.

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Are you forgetting the input the UK makes to European defence and GCHQ appears to be invaluable in the defence of European cyber safety and the fight against rogue and hostile countries. Its not just a one way arrangement.

Urm no but what has that to do with the EDF?

Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..

I do yes,

Why would the EU rely on external 3 parties in an ever increasing unstable global environment.

Especially when the UK government has been shown time and time again to be incredibly untrustworthy

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..

I do yes,

Why would the EU rely on external 3 parties in an ever increasing unstable global environment.

Especially when the UK government has been shown time and time again to be incredibly untrustworthy

It's not black and white though is it?And I'm not sure I'd want macron watching my back..

prawnsambo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..

I know this probably doesn't mean anything, but the UK has already agreed to stay aligned with the EU on security issues.

jm08

EdgeCase wrote: »

Basically, the defence problem is a mixture of Trump and Brexit. The EU members who have security concerns can no longer trust the US to be a sane and stable defense partner and it looks like the UK could behave very similarly after Brexit and become unreliable or even be exposed to financial pressures that cause it to pursue agendas that are completely contrary to European defence agendas.

Ireland tends to live in la la land when it comes to defence because we perceive that we have no threats due to our geographical position next the UK, France and the US. The world looks very different when you've neighbours like Russia or even politically unpredictable places like Turkey or you're in the Mediterranean etc etc. Ireland lives a relatively charmed life in terms of defence.

What concerns me is that as a huge centre of IT and a growing financial centre we need to be ensuring we're very hardened against cyber attacks and other non conventional military operations that we are as vulnerable to as anyone else.

Even on conventional military stuff, we have had russian bombers entering Irish airspace in recent years and we have no means whatsoever of defending against that. Apparently we don't even have a military radar system so we can't necessarily even see aircraft with their transponders switched off.

I would also have concerns that the US and UK aren't necessarily going to be reliable in the medium term. That being said Ireland has no real formal defence relationship with either. It's all based on assumptions of good will.

The reason why Ireland is threatened is because of its proximity to the UK. Would the Russians be in Irish airspace if we were not next door to Britain?

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

Especially when the UK government has been shown time and time again to be incredibly untrustworthy

This really is at the core of the problem. The EU have stayed out of UK politics, have tried to work with TM to help her deal with her domestic issues, but at every turn they are faced with constantly changing stories, changing stanches.

TM lost so much credibility last December, first from her row back on the initial agreement when she was forced to backtrack after the DUP told her what to do, and then since then by allowing the talk of the backstop to be so disingenuous.

Davies starts off apparently without any preparation or indeed understanding of what was happening. He didn't attend many meetings and clearly wasn't on top of his brief.

He is replaced by Raab, who continues to lay the blame at the EU's lack of vim and vigour. Raab is immediately replaced by TM as the lead negotiator, yet Raab continues to be the lead negotiator with Barnier.

Olly Robbins is sent over to agree a deal, until that is HMG sees the deal and Raab gets dispatched to explain that actually Robbins cannot agree a deal.

And all of this in the knowledge that whatever deal the EU do manage to get will likely not get past the cabinet never mind the HoC because TM hasn't even tried to explain what the reality actually is.

mrbrianj

RobMc59 wrote: »

Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..

There is a difference between not wanting to and having to. Remember 'Brexit is Brexit' after all, come April the Brits are gone off to their splendid isolation.

It comes back to the misunderstanding of the EU position - the UK know that things like defence are important /vital, but from the EU's side they will "take up the slack" not to give a third country free reign to do what they want to destabilise the SM & CU.

Gerry T

I know little of defence but if you said to me the EU would pool all countries spending on defence including what it spends on NATO, I would think that makes up for UK leaving.
Plus we wouldn't be looking after the UK.
Thats silly, it's not just Macron it would be some EU dept.
Someone made another silly comment about EU expertise it these matters. I think the experience Germany, France, Italy, etc... has is sufficient.
At the end the UK will tail between legs and do what it's master says, either the EU or USA.

mrbrianj

Yep, Brexiteers saying that Macron would be in charge of a euro army is like saying Boris Johnson is currently defending the sky over Europe

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Davies starts off apparently without any preparation or indeed understanding of what was happening. He didn't attend many meetings and clearly wasn't on top of his brief.

Davies spent his time trying to make bilateral deals with other EU countries and at the same time trying to undermine Barnier. I'm convinced that that was his brief (whether self-declared or agreed) and that's why he resigned. Because he failed obviously.

RobMc59

Gerry T wrote: »

I know little of defence but if you said to me the EU would pool all countries spending on defence including what it spends on NATO, I would think that makes up for UK leaving.
Plus we wouldn't be looking after the UK.
Thats silly, it's not just Macron it would be some EU dept.
Someone made another silly comment about EU expertise it these matters. I think the experience Germany, France, Italy, etc... has is sufficient.
At the end the UK will tail between legs and do what it's master says, either the EU or USA.

That's the thing though-the UK is stubborn and won't "end with its tail between its legs" it will cut off its nose to spite it's face..As far as the rest of Europe taking up the slack-it won't happen as there are too many countries that have just left the defence of Europe to the usual suspects..And that's not aimed at Ireland as I know they pull their weight.

MrMusician18

prawnsambo wrote: »

Davies spent his time trying to make bilateral deals with other EU countries and at the same time trying to undermine Barnier. I'm convinced that that was his brief (whether self-declared or agreed) and that's why he resigned. Because he failed obviously.

For the sake of clarity as many people are making the same mistake on this thread:
David Davis is the former Brexit sec.
David Davies is a Welsh conservative mp.

Folkstonian

listermint wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..

I do yes,

Why would the EU rely on external 3 parties in an ever increasing unstable global environment.

Especially when the UK government has been shown time and time again to be incredibly untrustworthy

I think it’s hard to see a time in the medium term when European countries are willing to come together to finance the kind of large scale, complex and breathtakingly expensive defence projects that they will lose the cover of if they do the unthinkable and pivot away from the US and Britain and begin to see them as strategic rivals or even adversaries

Huge, huge investment would be needed in missile defence systems, fast jets, naval assets to both project force globally and to protect home waters from the endless Russian naval incursion attempts,
massive increases in cyber and intelligence capabilities, and of course the requisite increases in personnel to keep all these systems ready to fight.

It will, altogether, stretch into the many hundreds of billions of euro.

Politically, I don’t actually think the will to abandon its key NATO allies exists at all in the EU outside federalist ideologues and deeply unpopular leaders such as Juncker and Macron.

NATO has been, in reality, a very successful alliance. It has been highly effective in bringing security to its members in continental Europe from the ever present and unpredictable Russian threat. It has evolved pretty well following the emergence of global terrorism, Chinese cyber etc and regardless of what President Trump says, the US defence and political establishment is very committed to its continued existence, so much so in fact that it continues to demand members live up to their spending commitments

It really baffles me that there are people in the Eu who genuinely seem to see NATO and the U.K./U.S in particular as a problem going forward. It shows a serious lack of awareness, and maybe little more than people from smaller states who historically may not have had the same military clout as France, Britain, Germany etc wanting to wrap themself in the EU flag and declare to the world they have taken a seat at the big boys’ table. I just see it as a bit pointless.

listermint

Folkstonian wrote: »

I think it’s hard to see a time in the medium term when European countries are willing to come together to finance the kind of large scale, complex and breathtakingly expensive defence projects that they will lose the cover of if they do the unthinkable and pivot away from the US and Britain and begin to see them as strategic rivals or even adversaries

Huge, huge investment would be needed in missile defence systems, fast jets, naval assets to both project force globally and to protect home waters from the endless Russian naval incursion attempts,
massive increases in cyber and intelligence capabilities, and of course the requisite increases in personnel to keep all these systems ready to fight.

It will, altogether, stretch into the many hundreds of billions of euro.

Politically, I don’t actually think the will to abandon its key NATO allies exists at all in the EU outside federalist ideologues and deeply unpopular leaders such as Juncker and Macron.

NATO has been, in reality, a very successful alliance. It has been highly effective in bringing security to its members in continental Europe from the ever present and unpredictable Russian threat. It has evolved pretty well following the emergence of global terrorism, Chinese cyber etc and regardless of what President Trump says, the US defence and political establishment is very committed to its continued existence, so much so in fact that it continues to demand members live up to their spending commitments

It really baffles me that there are people in the Eu who genuinely seem to see NATO and the U.K./U.S in particular as a problem going forward. It shows a serious lack of awareness, and maybe little more than people from smaller states who historically may not have had the same military clout as France, Britain, Germany etc wanting to wrap themself in the EU flag and declare to the world they have taken a seat at the big boys’ table. I just see it as a bit pointless.

Here is the problem to cut through your bluster.

The only group that is tugging at NATO is the UK Ally the US. Its not a European thing, And the UK is the one that is pissing all over its partner.

You dressing up this as an EU fault / failure is perplexing.

The Union is being pulled apart by the UK and its parrot on the shoulder the US.

Seth Brundle

While youse are all talking about defense...
Theresa May's national security meetings repeatedly cancelled after UK became 'consumed' by Brexit

Exclusive: Meetings of Theresa May's National Security Council were repeatedly put on hold because the government became "consumed" by Brexit, the prime minister's former national security adviser tells Business Insider.
Sir Mark Lyall Grant tells BI that May's attempts to forge a new "global Britain" are stalling because of the all-consuming nature of Britain's exit from the EU.
"Meetings were cancelled at the last minute because there had to be another meeting on Brexit," he said.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-national-security-meetings-brexit-mark-lyall-grant-2018-11


(not quite sure what all their Brexit meetings were about given that theve not really changed position substantially on anything)

steddyeddy

I don't know if anyone's as sad as me and watches Question Time on a regular basis but I've noticed something on the program that's quite annoying, balance.

The BBC have to air opinions from both sides of the debate and they go to great pains to give both sides equal airtime. The problem is that by doing this they appear to give equal footing to "Brexit is going to be bad for the economy", a position backed up with facts with "Brexit is going to be brilliant for the UK", a position devoid of facts but full of idealism.

It really annoys me as a lot of Brexiters on the program get away with complete waffle. I actually feel sorry for the remain politicians on the show because they don't want to lose voters by saying the obvious, i.e that Brexit is the greatest act of self harm in a country's history orchestrated by people who have no clue about Britain's place in the world or the nature of world trade.

Spook_ie

swampgas wrote: »

Speaking of poor working relations between the UK and the EU ...

UK accuses EU of Brexit bias as it [UK] refuses to endorse aid spending
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/06/uk-accuses-eu-brexit-bias-refuses-endorse-aid-budget-spending

The UK is getting upset that the EU, when allocating funds from the EDF (European Development Funds) to EU NGOs, will stop funding British NGOs if there is a crash-out Brexit.

Another case of the UK just not getting how the EU is the core structure around which Europe organises its activities. Step away from the EU, and expect to lose out on a lot of cooperation.

They might have a point though if you read past the headlines

The UK is a major donor to the EDF, of which it will remain a contributor until 2020, and whose goal is “poverty eradication, sustainable development and the gradual integration of the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific countries into the world economy”.