Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foxholer said:
Not a subscriber to FT (I think I've mentioned that to you before!) so can't check it out.

I also believe May probably 'undermined' negotiators - certainly when she imposed the Chequers Plan. That doesn't mean she sabotaged negotiations, which is what Sweep seems to be suggesting!
Click to expand...
Oh, so not “a load of conspiratorial theory twaddle!“ then?
Now you can talk nonsense about what people said or didn’t say in a verbal discussion where it can’t be proved or otherwise but when it’s in writing it you need to quote people correctly. Please show me where I said she “sabotaged” negotiations.
 
JamesR said:
No, May is a disaster!
I don’t believe anyone amongst the Tories would have been capable of doing a better job either.

I don’t think anyone in parliament could get these negotiations done well, after all, we’re always going to lose them as we are trying to play a losing hand.
Click to expand...

We are trying to play a losing hand by negotiating the way we have. Someone who believes in Brexit would have negotiated differently.
The goal of the negotiations is to find a deal that works for all. There should be no winners or losers though I am sure there will have to be compromises on both sides.
I am getting the impression that you are a non-Tory remainer. I do think its inevitable that your view is “clouded” (for want of a better word) by your political view. Fair enough. But I doubt that there could have been any result to the negotiations that would have been satisfactory to you other than us not leaving, sparking a General Election.
 
Sweep said:
I think he means a European Army. You know, that small thing that we were told pre-ref would never happen.
Click to expand...

The EU don’t have control over the UK armed Forces and never would - it’s just words , it’s never going to happen - lots and lots of hurdles and laws in the way. It’s just never going to happen. There can be exercises etc etc but our Armed Forces will be under the control of our government.
 
Sweep said:
We are trying to play a losing hand by negotiating the way we have. Someone who believes in Brexit would have negotiated differently.
The goal of the negotiations is to find a deal that works for all. There should be no winners or losers though I am sure there will have to be compromises on both sides.
I am getting the impression that you are a non-Tory remainer. I do think its inevitable that your view is “clouded” (for want of a better word) by your political view. Fair enough. But I doubt that there could have been any result to the negotiations that would have been satisfactory to you other than us not leaving, sparking a General Election.
Click to expand...

You’re right, I’m a non-Tory remainer!
Agreed, I don’t think anything will keep me happy, save for remaining.
But given a choice of leaving outright or leaving with the May deal, I’ll take no deal.
Her deal is just staying without the benefits of staying. Which is just ridiculous!
 
Sweep said:
Oh, so not “a load of conspiratorial theory twaddle!“ then?
Now you can talk nonsense about what people said or didn’t say in a verbal discussion where it can’t be proved or otherwise but when it’s in writing it you need to quote people correctly. Please show me where I said she “sabotaged” negotiations.
Click to expand...
As per your 2nd sentence, first show me where I stated you 'said' that. My words were 'seems to be suggesting'.

You are posting twaddle - again! Please desist!

Btw. To clarify what I meant by May 'probably undermined' - as, on re-reading it, I can see how it could be misinterpreted as deliberately so - the simple fact that she intervened with the Chequers Plan overruling the negotiators, weakened (undermined) their negotiating position. But I don't believe she had any intention of sabotaging them. Do you? That seems to be the implication of this, especially the bit in bold...

Sweep said:
No. I am suggesting that she didn’t like what they wanted to negotiate ie Brexit, because as a remainer she doesn’t believe in it. So whilst appearing to set up the Dept for Exiting the EU she also set up the Europe Department in No.10 made up of civil servants who shared her views. They negotiated behind the back of the Dept for Exiting the EU. The result was her fudge of a deal that meant we officially left but were still tied in....
Click to expand...

A pretty typical 'conspiracy theory' imo - the word 'suggesting' being indicative!
 
Last edited:
Liverpoolphil said:
The EU don’t have control over the UK armed Forces and never would - it’s just words , it’s never going to happen - lots and lots of hurdles and laws in the way. It’s just never going to happen. There can be exercises etc etc but our Armed Forces will be under the control of our government.
Click to expand...

Have a look at how the current EU Security and Defence policy(CSDP) works. Google it and then you can't say its spin. And see how many countries those missions have operated in since since its creation in 2000.

security-defence

Basically, as it currently stands, if a country agrees to send troops on an EU security mission they may be commanded by a senior officer from another country. Nowt wrong with that, common sense really. However, and this is the important part, if the focus of the mission shifts or is extended the EU Security and Defence commissioner doesn't have to ask the member states for permission to shift the focus or extend the mission. Have a look at the changes already in place in the policy, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty, and covered in Article 44 TUE.

As for the future EU army. Will it, won't it happen? First of all, its in Juncker's most recent state of the union address. Secondly, both Merkel and Macron want it. Thirdly, if you were living in Estonia - name any small country that has 2 tanks, 1 aircraft and a couple of hundred troops would you support the creation of a massive army to provide defence? The fourth point, which I haven't found any corroborating evidence for, is part of the treaty France and Germany signed this week would see France providing the Commander-in-Chief for an EU army. Juncker and Tusk aren't happy about that, and there's already rumbles that that aspect won't happen. I've only seen one report of that, and nothing since.

So "its never going to happen..." It already has.
 
Hobbit said:
Have a look at how the current EU Security and Defence policy(CSDP) works. Google it and then you can't say its spin. And see how many countries those missions have operated in since since its creation in 2000.

security-defence

Basically, as it currently stands, if a country agrees to send troops on an EU security mission they may be commanded by a senior officer from another country. Nowt wrong with that, common sense really. However, and this is the important part, if the focus of the mission shifts or is extended the EU Security and Defence commissioner doesn't have to ask the member states for permission to shift the focus or extend the mission. Have a look at the changes already in place in the policy, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty, and covered in Article 44 TUE.

As for the future EU army. Will it, won't it happen? First of all, its in Juncker's most recent state of the union address. Secondly, both Merkel and Macron want it. Thirdly, if you were living in Estonia - name any small country that has 2 tanks, 1 aircraft and a couple of hundred troops would you support the creation of a massive army to provide defence? The fourth point, which I haven't found any corroborating evidence for, is part of the treaty France and Germany signed this week would see France providing the Commander-in-Chief for an EU army. Juncker and Tusk aren't happy about that, and there's already rumbles that that aspect won't happen. I've only seen one report of that, and nothing since.

So "its never going to happen..." It already has.
Click to expand...

Highlighted bit - been happening for years in NATO exercises or conflicts etc - Many Nations Under Joint Operations.

And been told by people in various high roles in defence both civil servants and Military- the UK Armed Forces will always be under overall control by the UK government - many laws that keep it that way regardless what the EU security blah blah may say
 
Old Skier said:
You move in high places.

I give you Desert Storm and Desert Shield to let you reconsider your answer, and as an aside, the FBG during the Cold War was commanded by the Americans.
Click to expand...

How does that change anything ? It was still "UK Armed Forces" involved within Joint Operations
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
9K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top