kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 spendinghttps://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.
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 spendinghttps://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 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.
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?
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..
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
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.
listermint wrote: » Especially when the UK government has been shown time and time again to be incredibly untrustworthy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
listermint wrote: » 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.
