BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote: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.
I don't believe the EU (with the exception of Ireland) have any interest in persuading the UK to change their minds.
Neither do I. I also believe that Brexit will cost Ireland billions.
That's why I can't understand MPs who want to avoid a no deal, voted down TM's deal 3 times. The EU continually stated that that deal was the best on offer. Did they not believe them?
The best deal on offer, taking into account TMs red lines. Presumably they thought her red lines were too strong.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:
You see, this is where ideology does not provide any protection from reality. Leaving aside the obvious risk of a return of the Troubles and the impact that would have on security in the UK there is plenty of other information available to those who really want to know - https://www.bcu.ac.uk/centre-for-brexit ... l-security and https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... ce-brexit/ and https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 9cd8b1a1f7 and https://globalriskinsights.com/2019/02/ ... -security/ and https://www.ft.com/content/ad58df38-f49 ... 3765795f99Stevo 666 wrote:
I didn't realise we were leaving NATO as wellantonyfromoz wrote:darkhairedlord wrote:
Not only that, being g a member might make it easier to gain favourable trade agreements across the globe. Perhaps after we brexit the uk should join such a group of nations with similar social values.briantrumpet wrote:
Rather goes to show the success of the EU then, doesn't it? You know, combining together as a large trading bloc, and sharing the benefits... it's almost as if working together for the common good is better than continually fighting each other.Stevo 666 wrote:
Time perhaps to put Luxembourg into perspective with another re-post of my handy graphic of the EU.Coopster the 1st wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I don't care who the protesters were. Bettel should have showed the sort of common courtesy that should be extended to any visiting PM/head of state instead of pulling that stunt.Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:In the meantime, looks like the Luxembourg stunt pulled by their PM is backfiring a tad. How difficult would it have been to move the press conference indoors? :roll:
Even Sir Nicholas Soames is saying that it was bad form:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/17/boris-ambushed-luxembourg-pm-empty-podium-trick-10755306/
And a close ally of Merkel has tweeted that it did not help the EU cause.
I think Bettel has earned himself a Eurotw@t award.
It ought to be noted that the lot making the racket outside were indeed Brits living in Lux, who, perhaps not unfairly, are not enormous fans of the No Deal approach BoJo has said he's taking.
Luxembourg were demonstrating the country version of the Napoleon complex.
It has backfired on them and clearly been shown up for what it was!
It also highlights the faults of the EU regarding the minor nations.
It's also rather apt that you are responding to BikeRadar's own example of the napoleon complex
Luxembourg is the small dot just to the right of Germany and above Italy in case anyone is having problems seeing it. I also recall reading somewhere that the UK economy is larger than the smallest 18 EU members combined if that helps as well.
I reckon there could be some benefits regarding national security too - and, after Brexit, being part of a bigger group would mean that it would be harder for other countries to push us around too.
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.0 -
Jez mon wrote:Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote: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.
I don't believe the EU (with the exception of Ireland) have any interest in persuading the UK to change their minds.
Neither do I. I also believe that Brexit will cost Ireland billions.
That's why I can't understand MPs who want to avoid a no deal, voted down TM's deal 3 times. The EU continually stated that that deal was the best on offer. Did they not believe them?
The best deal on offer, taking into account TMs red lines. Presumably they thought her red lines were too strong.
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.0 -
Many on here would like the UK to change their minds. So in that case are actions like Bettels wise?TailWindHome wrote: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.
I don't believe the EU (with the exception of Ireland) have any interest in persuading the UK to change their minds."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nobody said we were leaving NATO and I expect the rest was too difficult to read.Stevo 666 wrote:
Not sure what your ideology is but the reality is that we remain a member of NATO. Along with a lot of EU nations who presumably see the same benefits (which are to a large degree US funded).antonyfromoz wrote:
You see, this is where ideology does not provide any protection from reality. Leaving aside the obvious risk of a return of the Troubles and the impact that would have on security in the UK there is plenty of other information available to those who really want to know - https://www.bcu.ac.uk/centre-for-brexit ... l-security and https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... ce-brexit/ and https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 9cd8b1a1f7 and https://globalriskinsights.com/2019/02/ ... -security/ and https://www.ft.com/content/ad58df38-f49 ... 3765795f99Stevo 666 wrote:
I didn't realise we were leaving NATO as wellantonyfromoz wrote:I reckon there could be some benefits regarding national security too - and, after Brexit, being part of a bigger group would mean that it would be harder for other countries to push us around too.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.0 -
Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
I agree that the likelihood of rejoining the EU is remote. Why make things worse by voting for the 1970s?
What is difficult to understand about that?0 -
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
I agree that the likelihood of rejoining the EU is remote. Why make things worse by voting for the 1970s?
What is difficult to understand about that?
If enough people vote for the 1970s, then that's what we'll get. The upside of that is that if we don't like it, we can go back to voting for the 1950s again, like we do now.
The point I'm making is that brexit is likely to be a lot more permanent than that..0 -
Point of order here, I never made the statement that Ballysmate appeared to be agreeing with me about here - not sure what happened there. I do, however agree with this - and the Tory/DUP coalition we have at the moment is definitely a nightmare of the worst kind.Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.0 -
Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
I agree that the likelihood of rejoining the EU is remote. Why make things worse by voting for the 1970s?
What is difficult to understand about that?
If enough people vote for the 1970s, then that's what we'll get. The upside of that is that if we don't like it, we can go back to voting for the 1950s again, like we do now.
The point I'm making is that brexit is likely to be a lot more permanent than that..
Like if enough people vote for Brexit, that's what we'll get...
As for Brexit being more permanent, as above, I tend to agree. That's why I can't understand MPs voting against the deal. They were playing the (wo)man and not the ball.0 -
antonyfromoz wrote:
Point of order here, I never made the statement that Ballysmate appeared to be agreeing with me about here - not sure what happened there. I do, however agree with this - and the Tory/DUP coalition we have at the moment is definitely a nightmare of the worst kind.Imposter wrote:Ballysmate wrote:The threat of a Corbyn led government is a terrifying prospect though, I agree.
I've never really understood this, tbh. A Corbyn government might be a nightmare - it might not. But you can vote Corbyn out after 5 years. It's unlikely we would ever be in a position to 'rejoin' the EU again.
'Twas your link was it not?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 38382a1f7d0 -
If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 30 -
Read what I wrote and you will understand the points I made. Firstly, there are national security issues with Brexit that are independant of NATO as recorded by the small sample of articles I pulled off the web - please feel free to read and learn. Secondly, being pushed around by other countries does not necessarily relate to issues of national security - look at the way the US has been using tariffs as a tool to force renegotiation of already agreed trading agreements with Canada and Mexico. Our ability to withstand or avoid actions like this from larger economies will be hugely diminished once we are on our own. Common sense really.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.0 -
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? Edited to add - on reflection I actually think that James Rubin's comment about Corbyn potentially being Russia's ultimate useful idiot tends to ignore the orange one already in place.Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 30 -
I don't have a lot to learn from condescending types who make a misguided point about 'not being pushed around by other countries' (clearly trying to make a point about external security) then try to divert the argument onto internal security matters when the obvious flaw in their argument is pointed out.antonyfromoz wrote:
Read what I wrote and you will understand the points I made. Firstly, there are national security issues with Brexit that are independant of NATO as recorded by the small sample of articles I pulled off the web - please feel free to read and learn. Secondly, being pushed around by other countries does not necessarily relate to issues of national security - look at the way the US has been using tariffs as a tool to force renegotiation of already agreed trading agreements with Canada and Mexico. Our ability to withstand or avoid actions like this from larger economies will be hugely diminished once we are on our own. Common sense really.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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
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.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I don't have a lot to learn from condescending types who make a misguided point about 'not being pushed around by other countries' (clearly trying to make a point about external security) then try to divert the argument onto internal security matters when the obvious flaw in their argument is pointed out.antonyfromoz wrote:
Read what I wrote and you will understand the points I made. Firstly, there are national security issues with Brexit that are independant of NATO as recorded by the small sample of articles I pulled off the web - please feel free to read and learn. Secondly, being pushed around by other countries does not necessarily relate to issues of national security - look at the way the US has been using tariffs as a tool to force renegotiation of already agreed trading agreements with Canada and Mexico. Our ability to withstand or avoid actions like this from larger economies will be hugely diminished once we are on our own. Common sense really.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.
Condescending much? 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.0 -
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? Edited to add - on reflection I actually think that James Rubin's comment about Corbyn potentially being Russia's ultimate useful idiot tends to ignore the orange one already in place.Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
Well done!
I see you have edited your post to slag off Trump.
Extra brownie points for you on here for that. If we were playing Leftybollox bingo you would be well on your way to a full house, or at least a line.0 -
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.0 -
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? Edited to add - on reflection I actually think that James Rubin's comment about Corbyn potentially being Russia's ultimate useful idiot tends to ignore the orange one already in place.Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
Well done!
I see you have edited your post to slag off Trump.
Extra brownie points for you on here for that. If we were playing Leftybollox bingo you would be well on your way to a full house, or at least a line.
Do you feel better now? As a matter of fact, there is plenty of support for the notion that Trump is a useful idiot for Russia, apparently including amongst US security services.0 -
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.0 -
antonyfromoz wrote: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? Edited to add - on reflection I actually think that James Rubin's comment about Corbyn potentially being Russia's ultimate useful idiot tends to ignore the orange one already in place.Ballysmate wrote:If Anthony is unsure of what he posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman ... 7782cca1f7
Look at Strike 3
Well done!
I see you have edited your post to slag off Trump.
Extra brownie points for you on here for that. If we were playing Leftybollox bingo you would be well on your way to a full house, or at least a line.
Do you feel better now? As a matter of fact, there is plenty of support for the notion that Trump is a useful idiot for Russia, apparently including amongst US security services.
Nothing to do with feeling better.
Just don't get why you went back to edit your post to insert a Trump reference that has no bearing on the thread/discussion.0 -
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.0 -
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 -
Ballysmate wrote:
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.
If you're broadly in favour of the EU, setting red lines that rule out single market or customs union would surely be viewed as a less advantageous deal.
The whole good/bad deal thing is a woeful way of presenting it anyway.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.
If you're broadly in favour of the EU, setting red lines that rule out single market or customs union would surely be viewed as a less advantageous deal.
The whole good/bad deal thing is a woeful way of presenting it anyway.
The Brexiteer position has always been portrayed as "Wanting their cake and eat it". Well, on here at least.
Eroding the "Red Lines" would appear to mean wanting less cake.
As I said, weird.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Jez mon wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
So they wanted a less advantageous deal?
Weird.
If you're broadly in favour of the EU, setting red lines that rule out single market or customs union would surely be viewed as a less advantageous deal.
The whole good/bad deal thing is a woeful way of presenting it anyway.
The Brexiteer position has always been portrayed as "Wanting their cake and eat it". Well, on here at least.
Eroding the "Red Lines" would appear to mean wanting less cake.
As I said, weird.
Eroding the red lines is acknowledging that you cannot simultaneously keep the cake whilst eating it.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
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.0 -
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.0
