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.
Folkstonian wrote: » Maybe keep your antagonistic tone for other platforms? This thread has really jumped the shark in recent weeks. The only nations ‘pissing over its partners’ are those European states that rely overwhelmingly on American defence spending, whilst doing very little to bring their own expenditure up to pre-agreed levels. Funny how in this thread it has earned the U.K. so much scorn to have reneged on previous commitments, yet when the United States points out time and time again that other NATO members are doing the same, it becomes a concern, a problem, and a threat even. The only threat to NATO going forwards is the lack of a political will amongst some continental members to keep to their end of the bargain. And if they cannot even commit to a really rather meagre 2% of GDP to defence now, how well do you see the push towards 3, 4, 5% of GDP when the EU decides it is going to take a different approach to defence?
steddyeddy wrote: » 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.
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.
listermint wrote: » Folkstonian wrote: » Maybe keep your antagonistic tone for other platforms? This thread has really jumped the shark in recent weeks. The only nations ‘pissing over its partners’ are those European states that rely overwhelmingly on American defence spending, whilst doing very little to bring their own expenditure up to pre-agreed levels. Funny how in this thread it has earned the U.K. so much scorn to have reneged on previous commitments, yet when the United States points out time and time again that other NATO members are doing the same, it becomes a concern, a problem, and a threat even. The only threat to NATO going forwards is the lack of a political will amongst some continental members to keep to their end of the bargain. And if they cannot even commit to a really rather meagre 2% of GDP to defence now, how well do you see the push towards 3, 4, 5% of GDP when the EU decides it is going to take a different approach to defence? Give up the Faux outrage will you, You sound like Trump. Obama greed targets with the EU, the EU were agreeing with those targets. What is your problem with Agreements that are made? or do agreements mean nothing in the UK anymore. You know because Trump said it was bad must make it so. Ridiculous. As for my tone, its a tone of annoyance as to the blame game that is bubbling up from the island to the right of me
correct horse battery staple wrote: » Imreoir2 wrote: » Don't forget that a certain Irish politician who opposes the EU, spent millions (from where?) campaigning for Russian aligned policies, was one of the largest forestry owners in exUSSR at one stage, like Trump once you get involved in that country they hook you in. Who was/is that?
Imreoir2 wrote: » Don't forget that a certain Irish politician who opposes the EU, spent millions (from where?) campaigning for Russian aligned policies, was one of the largest forestry owners in exUSSR at one stage, like Trump once you get involved in that country they hook you in.
badtoro wrote: » Who was/is that?
listermint wrote: » Give up the Faux outrage will you, You sound like Trump. Obama greed targets with the EU, the EU were agreeing with those targets. What is your problem with Agreements that are made? or do agreements mean nothing in the UK anymore. You know because Trump said it was bad must make it so. Ridiculous. As for my tone, its a tone of annoyance as to the blame game that is bubbling up from the island to the right of me
bob mcbob wrote: » 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. Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help. Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts!
Spook_ie wrote: » The EU isn't in NATO, the countries in NATO did agree to spend 2% of GDP on defence and a lot of them just aren't Countries in NATO 29 NATO member countries: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. 22 of those countries are in the EU and NATOhttps://www.euronews.com/2018/07/10/nato-contributions-country-by-country
bob mcbob wrote: » Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help. Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts!
"We asked Mitterrand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been.'"
Spook_ie wrote: » Sometimes you need to read the last paragraph
lawred2 wrote: » Spook_ie wrote: » Sometimes you need to read the last paragraph ah now - those nations that sell arms are in no place to cast aspersions where duplicity is concerned
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
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..
snailsong wrote: » I note that no deal is available on Paddy Powers @ 17/10. Value?
prawnsambo wrote: » All European countries except France (marginal), the UK, Croatia and Belgium have increased their defence spending between 2014 and 2018. All bar Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg are below 1% of GDP. The average of Canada and Europe is 1.47%. Canada is at 1.23%.
Folkstonian wrote: » bob mcbob wrote: » 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. Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help. Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts! The Falklands would actually be a really interesting and pertinent case study for an integrated European defence establishment. If defence were as highly integrated as many other aspects of the European Union, with Britain having entrusted and transferred much of the experience and capability to a centralised agency (from my understanding this is exactly what the proponents of this idea want) how likely is it that it could rely on, say, the support of Spanish and Italian governments to support Britain logistically or politically in a war against a Latin American ally of theirs? And when they do not, what recourse would them exist for Britain to dispatch a task force like it was able to in the 80s (and could probably just about do now)? How long would it take for Europe’s ministers to green light such a military endeavour? Weeks, months? Longer? By that stage the argentines are so well dug in that you could send the US marine corps and they might struggle. The point is, europe is very very unlikely to be invaded. It’s future wars won’t be fought on home soil. Military action to defend European interests will continue to be fought a long way from our homes, but that throws up lots of difficult questions about divergent values, outlooks, strategic interests etc. It’s difficult as all hell to get 27 nations and their regions to agree on trade deals right now. It would be impossible to get agreement from 27 nations to send men, equipment and lots of money to combat zones in the Middle East, sub Saharan Africa of the south Atlantic for example, when so many of them (quite rightly) will always say, this has nothing to do with us, we are having nothing do with it.
prawnsambo 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 know this probably doesn't mean anything, but the UK has already agreed to stay aligned with the EU on security issues.
lawred2 wrote: » ah now - those nations that sell arms are in no place to cast aspersions where duplicity is concerned
"Behind the scenes, actions were speaking louder than words. In what would appear to be a clear breach of President Mitterrand's embargo, a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government - stayed in Argentina throughout the war. In an interview carried out in 1982 by Sunday Times journalist Isabel Hilton, the team's leader, Herve Colin, admitted carrying out one particular test that proved invaluable to Argentinian forces.The verification process involves determining if the missile launcher was functioning correctly or not. Three of the launchers failed. We located the source of the problem and that was it. The rest was simple."
prawnsambo wrote: » I know this probably doesn't mean anything, but the UK has already agreed to stay aligned with the EU on security issues.
Spook_ie wrote: » It wasn't the point that they sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, after all Ireland exports software and components that can be used in armshttps://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-exports-of-items-for-military-purposes-hits-63m-464245.html it was the fact that they had a French owned company fixing the launchers while the war was on.
Lethier (DGSE CoS) told me that the DGSE had an informer among the members of the technical team who was able to give them some information about what the Argentinian military was doing. But he is fiercely critical of the French team for the technical help it gave. "It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo," he says. "I mean, it's clear that if the head of state in France decrees an embargo, it's an embargo. Full point."
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I would not be surprised if, in the end, this is all just too convoluted and messy for the British govt and they simply decide a NI only backstop for CU and SM is the only logical choice.
Folkstonian wrote: » Selling weapons abroad is one thing. Selling weapons abroad to an aggressor nation to one of your most important strategic allies is another entirely, however. I am completely sure you know that already however.
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?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I would not be surprised if they decided that a month ago ("Raab flies out to tell Olly to shut his big yap") and are now just orchestrating a tense, dramatic finale to railroad Parliament into passing it.
Spook_ie wrote: » France reckon they won't reach NATO defence spending targets until 2024.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-france-macron-spending/france-will-meet-nato-defense-spending-goal-by-2024-idUSKBN1K21IF If it'll take France until 2024 what of the others?
Spook_ie wrote: » If it'll take France until 2024 what of the others?
