Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

prawnsambo

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Apparently a deal was arranged with Spain a few weeks ago regarding Gibraltar, but I don't think many details were made public.

The issues were as I posted after yours. There's an additional issue of the status of an airport and the ownership of the land it sits on. But there's actually been no sign off as yet. Whatever the deal is, it will be added as a protocol to the WA.



They should have sent David Davis to do that one. He could then have had the easiest deal in history to boast about.

Seth Brundle

prawnsambo wrote: »

They should have sent David Davies to do that one. He could then have had the easiest deal in history to boast about.

David Davis!

murphaph

RobMc59 wrote: »

No hysterical screaming-a deal done quietly and with common sense..

That's what can happen when Gibraltar's biggest political party aren't propping up a Tory government I suppose.

Spook_ie

J Mysterio wrote: »

I dont see that the UK would get much or any support for a conflict with Argentina over and island just off their coast, the Malvinas.

Wonder what support France would expect for a small island off the coast of Australia if there were a conflict?

charlie14

Enzokk wrote: »

If they want to be seen to keeping to their principles then they will vote against it. I don't think they have to pull the plug on the S&C agreement as I believe they are only obligated to help pass the budgets. I am not sure what else they have to vote with the government with.

Getting a deal through the HoC if the DUP vote against it might not be a problem for May, but the C in the S&C agreement would be.


She could possibly get enough Labour votes to see it passed without DUP support, but her real problem then would be what happens if there is a later motion of no confidence.
Labour MPs are not going to support her on that and after her breaking the agreement the DUP believe they had on the border I cannot see how they could either.
That to me at least is the real problem she has on doing a deal.

Spook_ie

prawnsambo wrote: »

How is it not a bribe when it was made on foot of the DUP supporting the Tories in government?

It's only the way politics works, Jackie Healy-Rae in Kerry was bribed in the past with infrastructure etc. to support the governments between 1997 and 2008

EdgeCase

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK is in the process of upgrading it's Falklands missile defence to a similar system to Israels "iron dome"system as a result of Argentinas purchase of French warplanes-the ironic thing is France will be supplying the missile system to the UK.

Much like the British themselves, the French arms manufactures will take anyone's money really. I don't know why the British seem to think their own arms industry is absolutely moral in how it deals with the world or why they would hold the French or anyone else to higher standard than themselves.

That whole argument about France in the Falklands is just jingoistic nonsense.

All I can see in England is rant, rant, rant, how dare you not wear a poppy, rant, rant, WWII, if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German, rant, Falklands, rant rant...

Meanwhile, industries are leaving due to political and regulatory uncertainty and a Brexit deal still seems to be quite possibly not going to happen.

You can't sustain a country and put food on the table based on jingoism and extreme patriotism.

Spook_ie

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's far more likely that Argentina would ask for the Falklands as part of one of those famous free trade deals that will be flooding Britain after the great Brexit revolution.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Given all the talk about Brexit making Britain great again, that would be quite a hurtful deal to the die-hard Brexiteers.

Where are the Brits in terms of discussions regarding Gibraltar?

Falklands sovereignty being surrendered, never going to happen too much to claim in assets there

keane2097

I've reading the stuff about the Falklands all day trying to figure out what it has to do with Brexit and am as yet none the wiser.

Spook_ie

EdgeCase wrote: »

Much like the British themselves, the French arms manufactures will take anyone's money really. I don't know why the British seem to think their own arms industry is absolutely moral in how it deals with the world or why they would hold the French or anyone else to higher standard than themselves.

That whole argument about France in the Falklands is just jingoistic nonsense.

All I can see in England is rant, rant, rant, how dare you not wear a poppy, rant, rant, WWII, if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German, rant, Falklands, rant rant...

Meanwhile, industries are leaving due to political and regulatory uncertainty and a Brexit deal still seems to be quite possibly not going to happen.

Not really, it would seem to have a basis in facts

prawnsambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Falklands sovereignty being surrendered, never going to happen too much to claim in assets there

It was a slightly tongue in cheek remark. I say slightly because one of the first countries to object to the UK's proposed schedule of tariiffs and quotas at the WTO was Argentina.

EdgeCase

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not really, it would seem to have a basis in facts

Basically France placed an embargo on further exports to Argentina during the conflict and it looks like one of the arms companies breached the embargo to provide technical assistance for faulty equipment.

Thatcher also allegedly told France she'd nuke Buenos Aires, and François Mitterrand allegedly thought that she was quite the old school imperialist war monger type (was he wrong?) but again what this has to with Brexit I do not know. Both France and the UK have big arms industries and neither of them have any great love of each other.

The EU is a lot more than France and Franco-English relations.

prawnsambo

EdgeCase wrote: »

Basically France placed an embargo on further exports to Argentina during the conflict and it looks like one of the arms companies breached the embargo to provide technical assistance for faulty equipment.

Thatcher also allegedly told France she'd nuke Buenos Aires, but again what this has to with Brexit I do not know. Both France and the UK have big arms industries and neither of them have any great love of each other.

The discussion grew out of talk about the "EU Army". Specifically if such a force would rush to Britain's aid if the Argentinians tried to take another bite at the cherry. And then the talk of French aid grew out of that and here we are.

EdgeCase

I don't think you'll see an EU Army in the sense of some kind of unified force, rather there'll be enhanced cooperation on defence and something that works in harmony with NATO while still allowing those members of the EU that aren't NATO members to remain unaligned.

If NATO falls apart, which is quite possible with Trump at the helm of the US, then either you'll get a European led version of NATO emerge from the ashes of that, or you'll see some kind of alternative organisation setup probably under the auspices of an EU defence agency.

I don't think realistically you're going to see an EU agency developed that aims to compete with NATO or replace it unless NATO actually falls apart.

I can understand Macron's position though, the US has gone barking mad and could easily either cause NATO to fall to bits or drag it into some insane and unnecessary conflict. I just don't think that there's political support across the EU for his vision of an EU military. It'll just end up as some kind of corporative body instead.

In normal times, i.e. under a normal president of the US, I think you'd probably find that they'd be rather annoyed by the UK leaving the EU as it's effectively undermining US soft power in Europe and the broader region. Whether you see that as a good or bad thing would very much depend on whether you're an atlanticist or not. My view of it is that the US has the potential to cause a lot of conflict as if it tumbles into further extreme right politics and so on.

An Ciarraioch

Christmas Brexit deal anyone? I believe the technical term here is "sending the fool further":

https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/1060211283134504960

ancapailldorcha

FYI, removing "mobile" from Twitter links will cause the tweet to be correctly displayed here.

RobMc59

EdgeCase wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK is in the process of upgrading it's Falklands missile defence to a similar system to Israels "iron dome"system as a result of Argentinas purchase of French warplanes-the ironic thing is France will be supplying the missile system to the UK.

Much like the British themselves, the French arms manufactures will take anyone's money really. I don't know why the British seem to think their own arms industry is absolutely moral in how it deals with the world or why they would hold the French or anyone else to higher standard than themselves.

That whole argument about France in the Falklands is just jingoistic nonsense.

All I can see in England is rant, rant, rant, how dare you not wear a poppy, rant, rant, WWII, if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German, rant, Falklands, rant rant...

Meanwhile, industries are leaving due to political and regulatory uncertainty and a Brexit deal still seems to be quite possibly not going to happen.

You can't sustain a country and put food on the table based on jingoism and extreme patriotism.

I don't want to appear flippant but if the thread is called "Brexit discussion thread"how has it got to this rant about how Britain is lower than a snakes belly?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I think this thread has gone a little off topic. Take the in-depth military stuff to a new thread please or to the Military forum.

Enzokk

charlie14 wrote: »

Getting a deal through the HoC if the DUP vote against it might not be a problem for May, but the C in the S&C agreement would be.


She could possibly get enough Labour votes to see it passed without DUP support, but her real problem then would be what happens if there is a later motion of no confidence.
Labour MPs are not going to support her on that and after her breaking the agreement the DUP believe they had on the border I cannot see how they could either.
That to me at least is the real problem she has on doing a deal.

Well that is one of the problems. She is in bed with a party looking for a border if it means no border East to West, which is only slightly behind no deal on the scale of things we definitely should not do.

It will be interesting to see what Labour does here, if they stand together and vote as a block, minus Kate Hoey, against the deal they will have a chance at a next election and Jeremy Corbyn will also look more authoritative in his quest to No.10.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Christmas Brexit deal anyone? I believe the technical term here is "sending the fool further":

I would think the later the deal the better it will be for the EU as they need the time to get all parties to agree to it. If the UK doesn't give enough time then it will lead to a no deal. The easiest way to ensure that is passes quickly through the EU steps is to have a deal that suits the EU.

blackcard

In the recent Channel 4 poll, 42% of those polled were still in favour of Brexit. Presumably that means most unionists still want to leave the EU?

First Up

Enzokk wrote: »

charlie14 wrote: »

Getting a deal through the HoC if the DUP vote against it might not be a problem for May, but the C in the S&C agreement would be.


She could possibly get enough Labour votes to see it passed without DUP support, but her real problem then would be what happens if there is a later motion of no confidence.
Labour MPs are not going to support her on that and after her breaking the agreement the DUP believe they had on the border I cannot see how they could either.
That to me at least is the real problem she has on doing a deal.

Well that is one of the problems. She is in bed with a party looking for a border if it means no border East to West, which is only slightly behind no deal on the scale of things we definitely should not do.

It will be interesting to see what Labour does here, if they stand together and vote as a block, minus Kate Hoey, against the deal they will have a chance at a next election and Jeremy Corbyn will also look more authoritative in his quest to No.10.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Christmas Brexit deal anyone? I believe the technical term here is "sending the fool further":

I would think the later the deal the better it will be for the EU as they need the time to get all parties to agree to it. If the UK doesn't give enough time then it will lead to a no deal. The easiest way to ensure that is passes quickly through the EU steps is to have a deal that suits the EU.

A deal that suits the EU isn't just the easiest way. It's the only way.

Iderown

Folks - thank you so much for the highly informative posts. I'm from (and in) Northern Ireland and have learned more about EU in this discussion than from months of UK press items.
I should say that I'm not a political person but I am concerned about the possible bad effects of a no-deal withdrawal by UK from the EU. I'm old enough to remember with horror the two weeks here in Spring of 1974 - the Ulster Workers' Council action. Was discussed many posts ago.
When would a final decision be taken (by EU or by UK) that there would be a no-deal exit of UK? I would need to do some planning.
Haha- I suspect that I would be a better planner than many in UK government circles.

prawnsambo

Iderown wrote: »

Folks - thank you so much for the highly informative posts. I'm from (and in) Northern Ireland and have learned more about EU in this discussion than from months of UK press items.
I should say that I'm not a political person but I am concerned about the possible bad effects of a no-deal withdrawal by UK from the EU. I'm old enough to remember with horror the two weeks here in Spring of 1974 - the Ulster Workers' Council action. Was discussed many posts ago.
When would a final decision be taken (by EU or by UK) that there would be a no-deal exit of UK? I would need to do some planning.
Haha- I suspect that I would be a better planner than many in UK government circles.

We're at the last minute now. There's about a month to the next EuCo and after that, there won't be another until too late. So a deal before that really needs to happen and probably the next couple of weeks to allow for fine print detail to be sorted.

prawnsambo

The memoirs of anyone in Brussels dealing with this will be highly amusing

Apparently David Davis was nicknamed 'steak haché'

Capt'n Midnight

Cabinet ministers have been invited to read the UK's draft deal with the EU although it's not yet complete.

Mrs May has described the withdrawal agreement - covering issues like citizens' rights, the transition period and Gibraltar - as being 95% complete.

Unless the EU drafted it, and the UK roll back on red lines , and get the DUP to roll over, it's just more noise.



Nothing is agreed until Everything is agreed. 95% of Nothing is Nothing.

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Cabinet ministers have been invited to read the UK's draft deal with the EU although it's not yet complete.

Unless the EU drafted it, and the UK roll back on red lines , and get the DUP to roll over, it's just more noise.



Nothing is agreed until Everything is agreed. 95% of Nothing is Nothing.

I read somewhere today that the draft excludes the backstop. So in other words useless.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

It's a two way street info flows both ways between DGSE , BND , CNI , NSA etc.

Don't worry the spooks will share info, unofficially.

The UK is throwing away the European Arrest Warrant.
There was a case up north where a defendant was refused bail because they planned on coming down here. Some of us remember the debacle of UK extradition attempts getting the paperwork or conditions wrong , the Arrest Warrant works way better.


EU privacy laws are at odds with the directions the US and UK are heading. May's Snoopers Charter isn't winning any friends in the EU.

Spook_ie wrote: »

But the EU have said they can't have trusted access to Galileo, so essential to military ops that TM was on record as saying they'd try to afford an alternative UK version https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45314954 or have the EU changed their minds?

Guess which country insisted on the rule to restrict access to the EU only ?

Go on take a wild fecking guess


If you want a clue , it's the same country that wrote Article 50.

Back of the envelope calculation , it's going to cost them £5Bn to reproduce that capability. It's Brexit in a nutshell.

trellheim

Conservative politicians playing the brexit board game https://twitter.com/RCorbettMEP/status/1060248267878006784

Tell me how

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I read somewhere today that the draft excludes the backstop. So in other words useless.

The greater the distance between the present time and a previous event, the more the particulars get squashed in to a broad acceptance of what actually happened.

Him who must not be named increasing in popularity throughout a decade leading up to the start of WW2 for example.

What will future people be told about the Brexit experience. From Cameron holding the referendum, Farage campaigning, the result, his resignation, Tory leadership battle, general election, negotiations with DUP, David Davis, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, accepted backstop, confirmed accepted backstop, deal done, Russian involvement in Leave campaign funds and so on.

What will be the 30-40 word sentence which encapsulates all of that in 100 years?
Hard to see it being one which shows the UK in a positive light irrespective of what is yet to come.

Capt'n Midnight

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I read somewhere today that the draft excludes the backstop. So in other words useless.

am disappoint

I have thought they'd have at least tried to fudge something.

Grove, the sneaky snake, wants to see the legal advice on the NI border , looking for loopholes no doubt.