Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Options
1…9394969899…321

Comments

  • Options
    #2852
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,477 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Daft comments deleted.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #2853
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭swampgas


    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?

    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.


  • Options
    #2854
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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?
    Nitpick: Luxembourg's not neutral: it's a NATO member.

    But, yeah, they'd struggle to spend 2% of GDP on defence.


  • Options
    #2855
    daithi7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭daithi7


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #2856
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,414 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    France's military expenditure alone is larger than Russia's

    Whole 2% thing is a red herring

    The USA spend on defence is not just for European defence, nor is it under control.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2857
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    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...


  • Options
    #2858
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Deleted until I fix my zero key


  • Options
    #2859
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    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.


  • Options
    #2860
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,269 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Luxembourg being one of those countries too. :)

    Imagine if they started to spend 2%.
    I suppose they could use a navy...
    Nah m8; they need a space force!


  • Options
    #2861
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    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

    Your logic is strange. It is the UK who are 'pivoting' away from the EU with Brexit. It is the US who are becoming protectionist and confrontational. The EU do not want to act the global police and stick their fingers in regional conflicts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2862
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    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.


  • Options
    #2863
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    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.

    The UK are selling arms to the Saudi's. We have already seen how this can cause issues in strategic, political, economic and social issues.


  • Options
    #2864
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.


  • Options
    #2865
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    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.
    How is it a bribe if NI is still part of the UK?-it's what all central governments do,distribute money around .


  • Options
    #2866
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    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.

    Yes but their red line is for the north not to be treated differently at all.

    But it's actually the SM that does the damage there in terms of checks.


  • Options
    #2867
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,204 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    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 .
    How is it not a bribe when it was made on foot of the DUP supporting the Tories in government?


  • Options
    #2868
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,581 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    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.

    Yeah, it should have been obvious that the only deal that can be taken without reneging on the GFA would either be the UK in the single market and customs union, or if they wanted to leave that then NI would have to be treated separately to keep the border open. The fact that this was not discussed during the referendum or even mentioned by Cameron is just another blot on the abysmal record.

    If he did mention it then the obvious conclusion would have been they are either breaking up the UK or they don't or cannot leave, which he didn't want to go near.


    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.


    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.


  • Options
    #2869
    ambro25
    Registered Users Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    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...
    Heard about their maritime register? The numbers might surprise you ;)

    Got yet another new neighbour this week, a fintech/refresh scale-up seeking refuge from Brexit uncertainty.

    ‘Twas already a regular fixture in our very green postage stamp of a country, but I imagine it must be getting a regular fixture on your greenest of islands too.

    That Brexit information meeting by the British consulate on the 27th is going to need a bigger boat...err, venue.


  • Options
    #2870
    Folkstonian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    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.

    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?


  • Options
    #2871
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mod Note
    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Good effort, you petty little man.

    Please read the charter before posting further. Personal attacks like this aren't allowed. Be nice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2872
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,204 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    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?
    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.


  • Options
    #2873
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    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.
    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.


  • Options
    #2874
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,976 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    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.
    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?


  • Options
    #2875
    ilovesmybrick
    Registered Users Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭ilovesmybrick


    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.


  • Options
    #2876
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,204 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    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?
    There was supposed to be some form of agreement last month, but I've seen nothing in the press. Very much the forgotten part of the whole process, but there are issues that the Spanish want agreement on before brexit. They have a problem with tobacco smuggling from there, tax avoidance and some form of protection for workers who cross into Gibralter for work each day.


  • Options
    #2877
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,542 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    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

    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.”


  • Options
    #2878
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    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.
    No hysterical screaming-a deal done quietly and with common sense..


  • Options
    #2879
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    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?

    'Petty little man'? Have you lost your mind? Ive engaged with you twice here and both times you've thrown your toys out of the pram and resorted to insults.

    Unless explicitly agreed Allies are not duty bound to enter every war one party decide to enter into, especially a bizarre post colonial dispute such as this.


  • Options
    #2880
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    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

    That condition would surely be there most logical consideration for agreeing to any change under the review. Anything else would be pointless as would enhance the prospects of a return of border infrastructure


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2881
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    No hysterical screaming-a deal done quietly and with common sense..

    Is far from a done deal as the other opposition parties are currently piling on the pressure as they view it as giving up a golden opportunity to have joint authority.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement