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.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I read somewhere today that the draft excludes the backstop. So in other words useless.
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.
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?
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.
Mrs May has described the withdrawal agreement - covering issues like citizens' rights, the transition period and Gibraltar - as being 95% complete.
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.
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.
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.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Christmas Brexit deal anyone? I believe the technical term here is "sending the fool further":
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.
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.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » Not really, it would seem to have a basis in facts
Spook_ie wrote: » Falklands sovereignty being surrendered, never going to happen too much to claim in assets there
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.
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?
prawnsambo wrote: » How is it not a bribe when it was made on foot of the DUP supporting the Tories in government?
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.
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.
RobMc59 wrote: » No hysterical screaming-a deal done quietly and with common sense..
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.
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.
