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.
ambro25 wrote: » Not a clue. Though I’m very certain that you’ll be waiting a long time for Luxembourg. I mean, short of buying an M1A1 for each household as a decorative garden feature, what exactly would you expect them to spend €1.4bn a year on, given the size of the country (27x smaller than Ireland), the size of its population (600k), the size of its military (4 companies) and its neutral status?
swampgas wrote: » I guess that's an argument for a more centralised EU defence structure, with Luxembourg (and Ireland, and everyone else) paying the appropriate % of GDP into a common pot, which is then used to fund defence capabilities wherever in the EU makes most sense. Politically tricky of course but if push comes to shove in the future with aggressive neighbours then it might be the way to go.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » France's military expenditure alone is larger than Russia's Whole 2% thing is a red herring
daithi7 wrote: » Yes, except that would screw countries like Ireland who have artificially high official Gdp ratings cos of the presence of multinational and their accounting policies. A better pro rata metric would be required imho.
Folkstonian wrote: » 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.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Luxembourg being one of those countries too. Imagine if they started to spend 2%.I suppose they could use a navy...
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
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. It does demonstrate though how difficult it would be to fashion a cohesive and effective military organisation out of 27 member states with diverging strategic, political and economic interests.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Aren't the DUP going to pull the plug here anyway?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Aren't the DUP going to pull the plug here anyway? Maybe. Or maybe when May lays it out, that this is the best deal on offer, they will shut up and keep their £1 Billion bribe. It's not like they give a crap about Brexit in any real sense other than the fact that is has a Union Jack sticker on it and dark money attached.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Maybe. Or maybe when May lays it out, that this is the best deal on offer, they will shut up and keep their £1 Billion bribe. It's not like they give a crap about Brexit in any real sense other than the fact that is has a Union Jack sticker on it and dark money attached.
RobMc59 wrote: » How is it a bribe if NI is still part of the UK?-it's what all central governments do,distribute money around .
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. In other words simply give the DUP an ultimatum to back it.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Aren't the DUP going to pull the plug here anyway? Because the CU is only one half of the puzzle. To avoid land infrastructure NI must be in SM which means, like it or not, lots of new checks between UK and NI and some on the Irish sea.
BonnieSituation wrote: » daithi7 wrote: » Yes, except that would screw countries like Ireland who have artificially high official Gdp ratings cos of the presence of multinational and their accounting policies. A better pro rata metric would be required imho. Luxembourg being one of those countries too. Imagine if they started to spend 2%.I suppose they could use a navy...
J Mysterio wrote: » Folkstonian wrote: » 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. 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.
Folkstonian wrote: » Good effort, you petty little man.
Folkstonian wrote: » Good effort, you petty little man. But indeed, I do absolutely agree however, it was my exact point. Britain would not be able to rely on European ‘allies’ for both practical and political in the event of a second Falklands war even were it to be a part of the new European defence community. Could the French count on the support of the Danes, or poles, or Irish as examples if things really heated up in Mali? I doubt they could. Sort of makes the whole exercise a bit redundant, no?
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: Where are the Brits in terms of discussions regarding Gibraltar?
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?
Taoiseach Leo Vardakar has set out a second key condition for acceptance by Ireland of any Brexit backstop review mechanism currently being proposed by the UK. The review mechanism discussion is understood to be critical to breaking the talks impasse ahead of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union in March 2019. Speaking in Helsinki, Finland on Wednesday, Mr Varadkar said any review mechanism could not be unilateral on the part of the UK. Secondly, he said it would have to be based on a sufficiently ambitious “future relationship” agreement being in place to “achieve the same objective, which is that there be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.”
ilovesmybrick wrote: » Seth Brundle wrote: Where are the Brits in terms of discussions regarding Gibraltar? Apparently a deal was arranged with Spain a few weeks ago regarding Gibraltar, but I don't think many details were made public.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » It says here Varadkar has introduced now a second condition that could make things even more complicated.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brexit-varadkar-sets-out-second-condition-for-review-of-backstop-1.3689488
RobMc59 wrote: » No hysterical screaming-a deal done quietly and with common sense..
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.
