Brexit Discussion Thread VI

prawnsambo wrote: »

Sorry mate, the UK can't afford to put aircraft on those carriers. They'll make good container ships though.

what are you talking about. They have just bought F35s for this very purpose and have received some of the 140 plus order already. That was what the whole debate about getting ride of the harrier a decade earlier was so controversial.

There is an aircraft carrier with F35Bs which has just come back from the Pacific which has been on an exercise. I know someone who got an award for its first bombhead.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You can't. You have decades of spending while the UK remains static along with training and operational activity to even try to climb to a level playing field.

Even on intelligence, the EU nations are a fairly tin pot with British intelligence being their main source of info.

So let me get this straight: you are simultaneously scared of the EU military co-operation, and contemptuous of what they are capable of?

What bilge.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Wouldn't take much effort by either. The EU just needs to not get too big for its boots. Lucky they are mostly tinpot militaries in the EU without much world class tech. UK and US should keep it that way.

You bleat on ad nauseum about failings of Eu democracy then come out with empty hollow threats about the uk and USA joining militarily to block them- hello irony?
EU states can militarily cooperate if they do wish, what you appear to be proposing is some kind of new arms race- i suppose when all else fails threaten the army on them

First Up

PeadarCo wrote:

To be fair it would have. If you had a leader who ensured the UK had an agreed upon position on Brexit before triggering article 50 it would have made negotiations far easier. With about 3 months to go before Brexit there is still no agreed position on Brexit. The UK has a fairly bespoke deal that is arguably far better than what would have been expected this time last year. However it pleases no one because it's a compromise deal.

It might have helped put more sugar on the pill the UK had to swallow but it would have been the same pill.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

That hasn't a hope in hell of happening. The renewal of Trident, all the new aircraft carriers, new standard sub fleet, new frigates, all the new F35Bs...EU/France have invested nowt nor has any solid plans too and India ditto.

The UK has a global base network which they have agreed to expand. I actually think this is what this is all about. France has raised a white flag to Brussels to stay relevant and the UK has engineered this all to slip out of the EU and ensure that it continues to make decisions at the top table, both militarily and financially.

Sorry mate, the UK can't afford to put aircraft on those carriers. They'll make good container ships though.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Wouldn't take much effort by either. The EU just needs to not get too big for its boots. Lucky they are mostly tinpot militaries in the EU without much world class tech. UK and US should keep it that way.

I suppose when logic fails, you can start throwing insults. It's the UKIP playbook.

Anthracite wrote: »

What about the militarization of the UK? How do we stop this?

You can't. You have decades of spending while the UK remains static along with training and operational activity to even try to climb to a level playing field.

Even on intelligence, the EU nations are a fairly tin pot with British intelligence being their main source of info.

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

Good luck working with the lamp who is in charge over there.

As to France' seat on the Security Council, well it will likely change to an EU seat about the same time as India takes over the UK seat.

That hasn't a hope in hell of happening. The renewal of Trident, all the new aircraft carriers, new standard sub fleet, new frigates, all the new F35Bs...EU/France have invested nowt nor has any solid plans too and India ditto.

The UK has a global base network which they have agreed to expand. I actually think this is what this is all about. France has raised a white flag to Brussels to stay relevant and the UK has engineered this all to slip out of the EU and ensure that it continues to make decisions at the top table, both militarily and financially.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

The UK's natural allies for military and security is the US,AUS,NZ,CAN. I am glad they plan to expand on these with more bases being built in the overseas territories. This is about national security. Same with Gibraltar, UK needs to lay down a strong clear marker that this is totally off limits at all costs.

So you are glad about increasing miltary expansion, but scared of military cooperation?

Right. That makes a lot of sense.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Nobody cares about the club. We care about the militarization on the EU on our doorstep. This is what needs to be stopped.

What about the militarization of the UK? How do we stop this?

PeadarCo

First Up wrote:

It wouldn't have made the slightest difference who was the UK's leader - and it won't make any difference if they change leader now.

To be fair it would have. If you had a leader who ensured the UK had an agreed upon position on Brexit before triggering article 50 it would have made negotiations far easier. With about 3 months to go before Brexit there is still no agreed position on Brexit. The UK has a fairly bespoke deal that is arguably far better than what would have been expected this time last year. However it pleases no one because it's a compromise deal.

A good leader would have dealt with the hard choices Brexit entailed first and which many hard Brexiters still ignore. The red lines May set out shot the UK in the foot and raised expectations when the opposite was required. However there is a serious question on whether any Pm would have lasted long enough to negotiate a deal if they had done this.

road_high wrote: »

The mask don’t take long to slip! Now it’s threats militarily. Lol
Yourselves and the US as best buds against the evil EU. It’s like it’s 1941 again

Wouldn't take much effort by either. The EU just needs to not get too big for its boots. Lucky they are mostly tinpot militaries in the EU without much world class tech. UK and US should keep it that way.

First Up

cryptocurrency wrote:

A strong pro brexit leader to rally the nation to the joys of leaving and highlight the security concerns of this ambitious military club that will expand its powers and spending dramatically with nuclear weapons on their doorstep.

The UK can deal with its own situation as it likes. The 27 EU countries will be getting on with theirs.

1st dalkey dalkey

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Well the UK should walk, no deal and remember this ambitious club is on its doorstep and is against the UKs interest. It wants an Army, to militarise and use Frances UN seat as an EU one. This is now a rival to the US and UK with ambitions. This is a national security issue.
London and Washington should work together on this.

Good luck working with the lamp who is in charge over there.

As to France' seat on the Security Council, well it will likely change to an EU seat about the same time as India takes over the UK seat.

mickoneill31

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Nobody cares about the club. We care about the militarization on the EU on our doorstep. This is what needs to be stopped.

And the best way to achieve this is to leave the club. That's a genius strategy. You are aware that the foreign policy has to be unanimous. So if the UK didn't want the EU not to militarise then all it'd need to do is vote against it.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How do you think you are going to stop EU member states from co-operating in the defense sphere if they choose to do so? It is not your place to interfere in the internal affairs of the EU once you leave.

He’s going to join up with Donald trump to stop them, silly...!

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Nobody cares about the club. We care about the militarization on the EU on our doorstep. This is what needs to be stopped.

No. You just think this is the latest drum to beat to frighten remainers. We in Ireland have had to live with a leaky nuclear waste reprocessing plant just across the water and a sometimes belligerent neighbour with US and home built nuclear weapons on our doorstep. And sometimes sneaking around our coastline on submarines, pulling trawlers under water. Yeah, it's gonna be terrible.

mickoneill31 wrote: »

You are aware that the UK is still a member of the EU and that most votes in the EU have gone the UKs way. So why was the UK voting against its own interests when it was one of the most powerful countries in the EU?

An EU army would mean one UN seat, and that will kill UK and French influence. The French are flat broke so are happy to do it but the UK is not. The US also has concerns about this.

The UK's natural allies for military and security is the US,AUS,NZ,CAN. I am glad they plan to expand on these with more bases being built in the overseas territories. This is about national security. Same with Gibraltar, UK needs to lay down a strong clear marker that this is totally off limits at all costs.

Imreoir2

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Nobody cares about the club. We care about the militarization on the EU on our doorstep. This is what needs to be stopped.

How do you think you are going to stop EU member states from co-operating in the defense sphere if they choose to do so? It is not your place to interfere in the internal affairs of the EU once you leave.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

A strong pro brexit leader to rally the nation to the joys of leaving and highlight the security concerns of this ambitious military club that will expand its powers and spending dramatically with nuclear weapons on their doorstep.

Maybe you can dig up Winston Churchill’s body?

Imreoir2

cryptocurrency wrote: »

May was bullied, she let them. She is worse. UK needed an extremely strong and bullish leader in once she was shown to be weak. Dislike of the EU is quite strong now even among many remainers.

May found out the reality of the UK's situation. What exactly could anyone else have done? Let's say Borris was PM for the last two years. Do you think he would have gotten a better deal from the EU? Your dreaming if you think he or some other "bullish" leader would have fared any better.

The opinion of citizens of a non-member state is not really important to the EU, nor should it be. Hate the EU in your splendid Brexit isolation if you like, why should the EU care?

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Well the UK should walk, no deal and remember this ambitious club is on its doorstep and is against the UKs interest. It wants an Army, to militarise and use Frances UN seat as an EU one. This is now a rival to the US and UK with ambitions. This is a national security issue.
London and Washington should work together on this.

The mask don’t take long to slip! Now it’s threats militarily. Lol
Yourselves and the US as best buds against the evil EU. It’s like it’s 1941 again

cryptocurrency wrote: »

A strong pro brexit leader to rally the nation to the joys of leaving and highlight the security concerns of this ambitious military club that will expand its powers and spending dramatically with nuclear weapons on their doorstep.

The nuclear weapons are there now, were there yesterday and will be there tomorrow. Have you only just noticed them? Struggling to understand your point.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yep. This is how it works. You leave a club and find that you aren't as important to the club as the remaining members. This works with all clubs. Surprised the British didn't get the concept.

Nobody cares about the club. We care about the militarization on the EU on our doorstep. This is what needs to be stopped.

mickoneill31

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Well the UK should walk, no deal and remember this ambitious club is on its doorstep and is against the UKs interest.

You are aware that the UK is still a member of the EU and that most votes in the EU have gone the UKs way. So if the EU is against the UKs interest why was the UK voting against its own interests when it was one of the most powerful countries in the EU? It had alliances with Ireland and others so we generally voted the UKs way to mean they had even more influence.

Look, it's OK to leave, but stop whinging about it, you can't really blame the EU for the mess in the UK anymore.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

May was bullied, she let them. She is worse. UK needed an extremely strong and bullish leader in once she was shown to be weak. Dislike of the EU is quite strong now even among many remainers.

Yep. This is how it works. You leave a club and find that you aren't as important to the club as the remaining members. This works with all clubs. Surprised the British didn't get the concept.

First Up wrote: »

Barnier was "allowed" to negotiate by the twenty seven countries whose interests he represented. That job is done.

It wouldn't have made the slightest difference who was the UK's leader - and it won't make any difference if they change leader now.

A strong pro brexit leader to rally the nation to the joys of leaving and highlight the security concerns of this ambitious military club that will expand its powers and spending dramatically with nuclear weapons on their doorstep.

First Up

cryptocurrency wrote:

I see him as an extremely bad guy but was allowed to be cheeky by such a week May. UK needed a strong leader who talked at him no to him after the way they went on.

Barnier was "allowed" to negotiate by the twenty seven countries whose interests he represented. That job is done.

It wouldn't have made the slightest difference who was the UK's leader - and it won't make any difference if they change leader now.

road_high wrote: »

Over two years later you lot still don’t get it! It wouldnt matter if you sent the Almighty to negotiate, the Eu exists to protects its members- not outsiders who wish to cherry pick

Well the UK should walk, no deal and remember this ambitious club is on its doorstep and is against the UKs interest. It wants an Army, to militarise and use Frances UN seat as an EU one. This is now a rival to the US and UK with ambitions. This is a national security issue.
London and Washington should work together on this.