BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
A more long term issue is that the UK may we’ll lose it’s power in NATO.
How? Simply put, the way things are going and the divisions getting wider there is an increased chance of Scottish independence.
Good thing? No. With independence Faslane would be closed as a nuclear base and the UK (as it is now) would lose it’s standing within NATO.
Unintended consequences.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Good point.Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.
You do accept that as a member of NATO, the U.K. will be forced (if it continues to member) to declare and fight a war if another member is attacked?
Not even the EU can force the U.K. to fight a war.
I think you will find that is just plain wrong.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Good point.Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.
You do accept that as a member of NATO, the U.K. will be forced (if it continues to member) to declare and fight a war if another member is attacked?
Not even the EU can force the U.K. to fight a war.
I think you will find that is just plain wrong.
Feel free to correct me - what’s wrong about that? Existentially surely mutual defence is literally the entire point.0 -
The decision to declare war rests with the individual member state, they are not forced to do anything.
Contrast that with the EU battlegroups which are under the direct control of the EU Council. Contributing member states could see their troops deployed at the behest of the EU.0 -
Ah yes, I do remember Nato forces swinging into action during the Falklands war....Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Good point.Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.
You do accept that as a member of NATO, the U.K. will be forced (if it continues to member) to declare and fight a war if another member is attacked?
Not even the EU can force the U.K. to fight a war.
I think you will find that is just plain wrong.
Feel free to correct me - what’s wrong about that? Existentially surely mutual defence is literally the entire point.0 -
darkhairedlord wrote:
Ah yes, I do remember Nato forces swinging into action during the Falklands war....Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Good point.Ballysmate wrote:
I would suggest that the pre-eminent player in the gathering of intel in Europe is GCHQ and the loss of sharing would impact the EU significantly.
The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
Antony also needs to go away and better understand the difference between the EU and NATO now in terms of 'not being pushed around by other countries' as he puts it.
You do accept that as a member of NATO, the U.K. will be forced (if it continues to member) to declare and fight a war if another member is attacked?
Not even the EU can force the U.K. to fight a war.
I think you will find that is just plain wrong.
Feel free to correct me - what’s wrong about that? Existentially surely mutual defence is literally the entire point.
The clue is in the "North Atlantic" part of the NATO acronym.The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Article 6.
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.0 -
darkhairedlord wrote:Ah yes, I do remember Nato forces swinging into action during the Falklands war....
You are right. An old boss of mine and German citizen spent time on a German naval ship sailing round the British Isles in the guise of protecting the UK during that brief conflict. He thought it was ridiculous but the right thing to do on the basis of NATO solidarity.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:The decision to declare war rests with the individual member state, they are not forced to do anything.
Contrast that with the EU battlegroups which are under the direct control of the EU Council. Contributing member states could see their troops deployed at the behest of the EU.
You sure about that? Surely you immediately cease to be a member of NATO if you don't go to the defence of its members? Literally what is the point of it otherwise.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Shout out to the Telegraph who is now using Jaak Madison as a columnist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_MadisonJaak Madison (born 22 April 1991)[3] is an Estonian politician and a member of Riigikogu, representing the Conservative People's Party of Estonia, widely considered a far-right party.In March 2015, media reported about Madison’s old blog post which defended the economic aspects of the Nazi regime. He had written: "It is true that there were concentration camps, forced labour camps, games with gas chambers were being played, but at the same time such a "strict" order brought Germany at the time out of a thorough shithole, because development, that admittedly concentrated primarily on the development of the military industry, brought the country only within a couple of years to one of the most powerful in Europe."
His blog post further claimed that while Madison did not seek to justify Nazi mass murders, he nonetheless felt that the Holocaust had 'positive aspects'.[7]
If Hitler were around today they’d roll out the red carpet for him.
Anyway, it's a healthy distraction from this, which I'm not gonna let lie for now.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The decision to declare war rests with the individual member state, they are not forced to do anything.
Contrast that with the EU battlegroups which are under the direct control of the EU Council. Contributing member states could see their troops deployed at the behest of the EU.
You sure about that? Surely you immediately cease to be a member of NATO if you don't go to the defence of its members? Literally what is the point of it otherwise.
I'm sure.0 -
Rick, do you think that if a member state is attacked, the Sec Gen NATO declares war on behalf of all 27 other members?0
-
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The decision to declare war rests with the individual member state, they are not forced to do anything.
Contrast that with the EU battlegroups which are under the direct control of the EU Council. Contributing member states could see their troops deployed at the behest of the EU.
You sure about that? Surely you immediately cease to be a member of NATO if you don't go to the defence of its members? Literally what is the point of it otherwise.
I'm sure.
Where does it say that in the treaty? Is it the line “such action as it seems necessary”?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick, do you think that if a member state is attacked, the Sec Gen NATO declares war on behalf of all 27 other members?
Figured the security council has the final say but basically yeah, else you're not a member.
I thought that was the entire point and why Afganistan was such a PITA for many members because the yanks called the shots so they all had to chip in.
if it's a "only if we fancy" you might as well not bother.0 -
But the link wasn't about Corbyn, he was just listed as one of several risks that the author saw brexit represents to the national security of the UK. I didn't endorse any particular view on him and I didn't comment on any of the other risks that other authors had raised either. You might see a Corbyn government as being a particular national security risk -the author definitely did - but the point of the post was to refute that post-brexit all was going to be rosy on the security front as we would still be in NATO. That was surely obvious. No teddies, no prams.Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:
I simply raised the point that I had not said anything about Corbyn and had not endorsed the opinion of the author in that regard. The whole reason for linking to the articles was to support my point about the national security implications of brexit. No real reason for the edit other than it occurred to me at the time.Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:
It's not my view, it is a fact. My position in linking to the articles is not that I endorse all opinions of the authors but the overwhelming message is that there are security implications to brexit, especially a no deal brexit, that are independant of our continuing membership of NATO.Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:
Out of that whole article you picked out that one point and ignored the rest? Every other point in the articles I linked to you ignored and you selected the one point that supported your own beliefs? So, do you agree that there are national security risks with Brexit?Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
You seem to have posted a link without fully reading it, automatically thinking it supported your view.
Less co-operation obviously does impact both sides vis-à-vis security. But, as I pointed out, the EU stands to lose an awful lot.
Your disagreement with me was about the view that Corbyn as PM was terrifying was it not?
What does Strike 3 of your posted link say. I assume this isn't tainted by your view and is fact.
As I have said, I agree there are security implications, but point out that they are not one sided and that the EU has much to lose.
Well do you agree with the links you posted or not?
You can't really post a link about Corbyn, then say that you haven't said anything about him and then chuck your teddy out of the pram because I read the link and pointed out that you had referenced him.
Well, you can coz it's t'internet, but it is not a logical position to take is it?0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:
But the link wasn't about Corbyn, he was just listed as one of several risks that the author saw brexit represents to the national security of the UK. I didn't endorse any particular view on him and I didn't comment on any of the other risks that other authors had raised either. You might see a Corbyn government as being a particular national security risk -the author definitely did - but the point of the post was to refute that post-brexit all was going to be rosy on the security front as we would still be in NATO. That was surely obvious. No teddies, no prams.Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:
I simply raised the point that I had not said anything about Corbyn and had not endorsed the opinion of the author in that regard. The whole reason for linking to the articles was to support my point about the national security implications of brexit. No real reason for the edit other than it occurred to me at the time.Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:
It's not my view, it is a fact. My position in linking to the articles is not that I endorse all opinions of the authors but the overwhelming message is that there are security implications to brexit, especially a no deal brexit, that are independant of our continuing membership of NATO.Ballysmate wrote:antonyfromoz wrote:
Out of that whole article you picked out that one point and ignored the rest? Every other point in the articles I linked to you ignored and you selected the one point that supported your own beliefs? So, do you agree that there are national security risks with Brexit?Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
You seem to have posted a link without fully reading it, automatically thinking it supported your view.
Less co-operation obviously does impact both sides vis-à-vis security. But, as I pointed out, the EU stands to lose an awful lot.
Your disagreement with me was about the view that Corbyn as PM was terrifying was it not?
What does Strike 3 of your posted link say. I assume this isn't tainted by your view and is fact.
As I have said, I agree there are security implications, but point out that they are not one sided and that the EU has much to lose.
Well do you agree with the links you posted or not?
You can't really post a link about Corbyn, then say that you haven't said anything about him and then chuck your teddy out of the pram because I read the link and pointed out that you had referenced him.
Well, you can coz it's t'internet, but it is not a logical position to take is it?
IIRC I nor anyone else ever claimed that everything was going to be rosy. I agreed that there would be security implications for us and pointed out that the EU would also suffer.
One of the security risks postulated in your post was Corbyn as PM, which I also agreed with.
This is taking a strange turn. I am agreeing with something you posted.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:In other small country news, Finland says Boris needs his homework done for 30th Sept
He's probably a bit worried at being told off by Aunty Reena though, she always been his favourite relative as a kid.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick, do you think that if a member state is attacked, the Sec Gen NATO declares war on behalf of all 27 other members?
Figured the security council has the final say but basically yeah, else you're not a member.
I thought that was the entire point and why Afganistan was such a PITA for many members because the yanks called the shots so they all had to chip in.
if it's a "only if we fancy" you might as well not bother.
Posted this document before
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... efence.pdf
The key difference between Nato and the EU is that the former is an inter-governmental
alliance which does not impact to any degree on the sovereign defence capabilities of its
member nations. The EU is essentially a supra-national body designed to replace national
decision-making.
Third paragraph up on the summary second page.0 -
Are the Tories definitely going to campaign on no deal?TailWindHome wrote:If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.
But yes, that seems logical. Although LDs are closer to being a single issue party on brexit whereas you'd think quite a few people voting Tory are doing so for other reasons.
I don't see the conservatives winning a majority anyway though so it's probably a moot point...
The point of the LD position is not that they will win a majority, I don't think anybody believes that, but that if they end up being kingmaker again they can use their mandate to pressure whoever else it is. Imagine another Con/LD coalition (unlikely but who knows - something closer to the DUP agreement is probably more likely?) - Con may have said in the election they want no deal but LD said they wanted to revoke so they can push a 2nd ref on the subject as a condition of their support.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
EU actions like this will provide additional justification to many in the UK that we are right to leave. Not a wise course of action if there is to be a GE or second referendum.TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
If I were an EU bigwig I would be squirming with embarrassment. It may also have other adverse effects:TailWindHome wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Do you think that Bettels actions were appropriate for an EU head of state?
I don't think they were inappropriate.
Then I remember Margaret Thatcher doing a walk about and answering press questions on Royal Avenue, Belfast at the high of the Troubles not running from a group of British ex pats.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/luxembourg-pms-treatment-of-johnson-may-harm-brexit-talks
If the EU were that bothered they wouldn't have spent today briefing that Johnson is thick
We've all been here before.
Tusk & the special place in hell
Tusk & the cherry cake
Juncker in Strasboug
It's all overblown nonsense.
The UK media like to shoot the bed about these things and some people like to get very angry at how the PM is treated before demanding he/she goes
I'm trying to work out why you are making such a big deal out of this. It was disrespectful, but that's what happens when you p*ss people about for three years: tempers get frayed. As for the effect in this country, all the evidence of the past three years is that hardly anyone has shifted their position despite ever increasing rhetoric on both sides. We only get a 2nd ref if Labour win a GE, and have not already torn themselves apart arguing whether they should back remain in that ref or be neutral. At that point if the hysteria over Corbyn is correct, we'll have bigger things to worry about. In the more likely scenarios that we bounce out or leave with some version of May's deal, what does it matter that some of the people who already wanted to leave get to confirm their prejudices?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick, do you think that if a member state is attacked, the Sec Gen NATO declares war on behalf of all 27 other members?
Figured the security council has the final say but basically yeah, else you're not a member.
I thought that was the entire point and why Afganistan was such a PITA for many members because the yanks called the shots so they all had to chip in.
if it's a "only if we fancy" you might as well not bother.
Posted this document before
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... efence.pdf
The key difference between Nato and the EU is that the former is an inter-governmental
alliance which does not impact to any degree on the sovereign defence capabilities of its
member nations. The EU is essentially a supra-national body designed to replace national
decision-making.
Third paragraph up on the summary second page.
This is simple straightforward and clear. Surely even Chasey can keep up on this one.0 -
Article on Breakfast this morning about the risk of medicines not being available in the event of no deal. They interviewed a man who was insulin dependent and who might not be able to get the medicine that he could need to stay alive. The guy was a leave voter and said he would vote leave again even if it meant he couldn't get his medication. When asked why his response was that we voted to leave and not for a deal so we have to leave. This made me question a) how we've ended up with a revisionist position that anyone voted to leave without a deal when even the most ardent leave campaigners were keen to say otherwise and b) how have we got to a position where something that was really only ever a minor issue other than for internal politics of the Tories has literally got to the stage where someone is prepared to die over remaining in the EU?
It almost feels like the Government are doing some sleight of hand magic to distract from something really bad in the background on other policies whilst everyone has become fully focussed on Brexit.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Shout out to the Telegraph who is now using Jaak Madison as a columnist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_MadisonJaak Madison (born 22 April 1991)[3] is an Estonian politician and a member of Riigikogu, representing the Conservative People's Party of Estonia, widely considered a far-right party.In March 2015, media reported about Madison’s old blog post which defended the economic aspects of the Nazi regime. He had written: "It is true that there were concentration camps, forced labour camps, games with gas chambers were being played, but at the same time such a "strict" order brought Germany at the time out of a thorough shithole, because development, that admittedly concentrated primarily on the development of the military industry, brought the country only within a couple of years to one of the most powerful in Europe."
His blog post further claimed that while Madison did not seek to justify Nazi mass murders, he nonetheless felt that the Holocaust had 'positive aspects'.[7]
If Hitler were around today they’d roll out the red carpet for him.
Anyway, it's a healthy distraction from this, which I'm not gonna let lie for now.
"Some games with gas chambers" WTAF?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Pross wrote:Article on Breakfast this morning about the risk of medicines not being available in the event of no deal. They interviewed a man who was insulin dependent and who might not be able to get the medicine that he could need to stay alive. The guy was a leave voter and said he would vote leave again even if it meant he couldn't get his medication. When asked why his response was that we voted to leave and not for a deal so we have to leave. This made me question a) how we've ended up with a revisionist position that anyone voted to leave without a deal when even the most ardent leave campaigners were keen to say otherwise and b) how have we got to a position where something that was really only ever a minor issue other than for internal politics of the Tories has literally got to the stage where someone is prepared to die over remaining in the EU?
It almost feels like the Government are doing some sleight of hand magic to distract from something really bad in the background on other policies whilst everyone has become fully focussed on Brexit.
To further confuse things, the Remain camp was adamant that a vote to Leave was a vote to leave everything, CU, SM, the lot. Remember the leaflet that we all got at extra Government expense?
Now it appears that they are saying that was not the case at all.
Funny old world...0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick, do you think that if a member state is attacked, the Sec Gen NATO declares war on behalf of all 27 other members?
Figured the security council has the final say but basically yeah, else you're not a member.
I thought that was the entire point and why Afganistan was such a PITA for many members because the yanks called the shots so they all had to chip in.
if it's a "only if we fancy" you might as well not bother.
Posted this document before
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... efence.pdf
The key difference between Nato and the EU is that the former is an inter-governmental
alliance which does not impact to any degree on the sovereign defence capabilities of its
member nations. The EU is essentially a supra-national body designed to replace national
decision-making.
Third paragraph up on the summary second page.
You wonder why Russia is so sensitive about NATO in which case!0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Pross wrote:Article on Breakfast this morning about the risk of medicines not being available in the event of no deal. They interviewed a man who was insulin dependent and who might not be able to get the medicine that he could need to stay alive. The guy was a leave voter and said he would vote leave again even if it meant he couldn't get his medication. When asked why his response was that we voted to leave and not for a deal so we have to leave. This made me question a) how we've ended up with a revisionist position that anyone voted to leave without a deal when even the most ardent leave campaigners were keen to say otherwise and b) how have we got to a position where something that was really only ever a minor issue other than for internal politics of the Tories has literally got to the stage where someone is prepared to die over remaining in the EU?
It almost feels like the Government are doing some sleight of hand magic to distract from something really bad in the background on other policies whilst everyone has become fully focussed on Brexit.
To further confuse things, the Remain camp was adamant that a vote to Leave was a vote to leave everything, CU, SM, the lot. Remember the leaflet that we all got at extra Government expense?
Now it appears that they are saying that was not the case at all.
Funny old world...
Remember the lies were only on the leavers side. In no way would a remain campaign lie or repeat another persons lie. Leavers are the only ones that can lie:)0 -
Pross wrote:Article on Breakfast this morning about the risk of medicines not being available in the event of no deal. They interviewed a man who was insulin dependent and who might not be able to get the medicine that he could need to stay alive. The guy was a leave voter and said he would vote leave again even if it meant he couldn't get his medication. When asked why his response was that we voted to leave and not for a deal so we have to leave. This made me question a) how we've ended up with a revisionist position that anyone voted to leave without a deal when even the most ardent leave campaigners were keen to say otherwise and b) how have we got to a position where something that was really only ever a minor issue other than for internal politics of the Tories has literally got to the stage where someone is prepared to die over remaining in the EU?
It almost feels like the Government are doing some sleight of hand magic to distract from something really bad in the background on other policies whilst everyone has become fully focussed on Brexit.
Its not really revisionist, the question was a binary one, in or out. It was a question that played more to emotional response, either leave or remain, than to facts and an understood risk.
Neither remain nor leave fully understood the implications and to a large degree that hasn't changed, the permutations are almost endless and our MPs have neither the intellect, knowledge or training to fully understand, let alone explain to an even less well informed electorate.
Consequently were still stuck at emotion. if we weren't, the various factions could sit down and talk through the pros and cons of each situation and make an agreement. We're not there, it is still an emotional decision albeit peoples positions are shored up by tit bits of information that they use to support their emotional positions.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
Are the Tories definitely going to campaign on no deal?TailWindHome wrote:If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.
But yes, that seems logical. Although LDs are closer to being a single issue party on brexit whereas you'd think quite a few people voting Tory are doing so for other reasons.
I don't see the conservatives winning a majority anyway though so it's probably a moot point...
The point of the LD position is not that they will win a majority, I don't think anybody believes that, but that if they end up being kingmaker again they can use their mandate to pressure whoever else it is. Imagine another Con/LD coalition (unlikely but who knows - something closer to the DUP agreement is probably more likely?) - Con may have said in the election they want no deal but LD said they wanted to revoke so they can push a 2nd ref on the subject as a condition of their support.
Based on the last time they entered a voalition they forgot one of their key pledges. I wonder how long it will take them to forget this one when given a sniff of power. They will probably dress it up as pragmatism.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.
It's a good point, if that is what the Conservatives campaign on as a preferred policy which I think is very doubtful.
It's another one of those Lib Dem policies based on them being in the real world position of not going to win a majority and showing a preferred direction of travel. (Their mistake before was to individually say that they would never vote for a policy that they then decided to.)0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:
Its not really revisionist, the question was a binary one, in or out. It was a question that played more to emotional response, either leave or remain, than to facts and an understood risk.
Neither remain nor leave fully understood the implications and to a large degree that hasn't changed, the permutations are almost endless and our MPs have neither the intellect, knowledge or training to fully understand, let alone explain to an even less well informed electorate.
Consequently were still stuck at emotion. if we weren't, the various factions could sit down and talk through the pros and cons of each situation and make an agreement. We're not there, it is still an emotional decision albeit peoples positions are shored up by tit bits of information that they use to support their emotional positions.
That is well put, thanks.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:If the Lib Dems believe a majority for them in an upcoming election is a mandate for revocation then they must accept that a Tory majority is a mandate for no deal.
A start would be the Fib Dems respecting the majority from the referendum. It's why they are now an extremist party as they no longer respect democracy.0
