WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
They have lost a political argument. On a personal level they are wealthy and will see no ill-effects from Brexit. All the risk is being borne by those much lower down the ladder.
Maybe, maybe not but they had the courage to vote for it anyway!
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist attack occuring in the UK that could have been prevented if May had not withdrawn cooperation. Indeed, imagine Brits, or anyone else bluff and bluster designed only to assuage right wing newspapers on a day when it became absolutely clear the government has very few negotiating aces up its sleeves. There is no way on God's earth that a UK Prime Minister will deliberately make UK citizens less secure.
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historical retreat from global policing and western security, given her relatively weakening economic position (Trump is a symptom of this, not a cause), then, yes, we have a big card to play. We are one of the last serious western military powers, willing to shed blood.
If I was, say, an Estonian MEP, I would think, Do I want to "economically damage" nuclear armed liberal Britain, or shall I be nice to them, in case we REALLY need them onside?
Everything is changing. Play the card. But play it subtly. Which is what TMay has done.
There is nothing subtle about the Sun's headline. A Russian attack on any EU member state would be a catastrophe for the UK - markets would crash, for a start. Trump's complete untrustworthiness and willingness to sell the UK down the river when it suits him makes us more reliant on security cooperation with the Europeans, not less. This "threat" is a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist attack occuring in the UK that could have been prevented if May had not withdrawn cooperation. Indeed, imagine Brits, or anyone else for that matter, being killed in an attack abroad for the same reason. This is bluff and bluster designed only to assuage right wing newspapers on a day when it became absolutely clear the government has very few negotiating aces up its sleeves. There is no way on God's earth that a UK Prime Minister will deliberately make UK citizens less secure.
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historical retreat from global policing and western security, given her relatively weakening economic position (Trump is a symptom of this, not a cause), then, yes, we have a big card to play. We are one of the last serious western military powers, willing to shed blood.
If I was, say, an Estonian MEP, I would think, Do I want to "economically damage" nuclear armed liberal Britain, or shall I be nice to them, in case we REALLY need them onside?
Everything is changing. Play the card. But play it subtly. Which is what TMay has done.
Yup. Remainers seem to simultaneously want:
- no cards to be played internationally, or else - everything to be wonderful domestically, or else
The key has always been the public accepting missing targets on immigration for various reasons. Will Brexit actually happening, the feel of it, be enough to satisfy many people who do care about immigration (which includes many remainers as well as most though not all leavers) even if it is not the total fix some hoped it would be?
And if we're not happy about it, politicians no longer have the "our hands are tied" excuse. And we can vote them out. And we can keep voting, until they get the message.
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Hezza's been in tears?
I was off to bed but I'd better head back to IPlayer and have a look...
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
They have lost a political argument. On a personal level they are wealthy and will see no ill-effects from Brexit. All the risk is being borne by those much lower down the ladder.
Maybe, maybe not but they had the courage to vote for it anyway!
The scary thing is the delight people feel selling their country down the river just to get one over a few retired pols.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historical retreat from global policing and western security, given her relatively weakening economic position (Trump is a symptom of this, not a cause), then, yes, we to them, in case we REALLY need them onside?
Everything is changing. Play the card. But play it subtly. Which is what TMay has done.
There is nothing subtle about the Sun's headline. A Russian attack on any EU member state would be a catastrophe for the UK - markets would crash, for a start. Trump's complete untrustworthiness and willingness to sell the UK down the river when it suits him makes us more reliant on security cooperation with the Europeans, not less. This "threat" is a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May can be utterly cold and ruthless if needed and it is not a Russian attack she is talking about is it, we all know what she really means and our intelligence services along with those of the Americans have the best tools to monitor extremist terror groups on the planet, if despite her efforts at reconciliation today the EU hardliners try to bring our economy to its knees (although we would probably survive) they will have to know there is a downside and potentially a big one
Could almost feel sorry for him to see his entire life's work in tatters like this... But then thinking about all the miners be destroyed, all the dogs he killed, and Mrs Thatcher defenestration....
Cameron should have put a "40% of the electorate" requirement like Callaghan did for the Scottish and Welsh devolution plebiscites in 1979. Leave got 37.5%.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist attack occuring in the UK that could have been prevented if May had not withdrawn cooperation. Indeed, imagine Brits, or anyone else for that matter, being killed in an attack abroad for the same reason. This is bluff and bluster designed only to assuage right wing newspapers on a day when it became absolutely clear the government has very few negotiating aces up its sleeves. There is no way on God's earth that a UK Prime Minister will deliberately make UK citizens less secure.
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historical retreat from global policing and western security, given her relatively weakening economic position (Trump is a symptom of this, not a cause), then, yes, we have a big card to play. We are one of the last serious western military powers, willing to shed blood.
If I was, say, an Estonian MEP, I would think, Do I want to "economically damage" nuclear armed liberal Britain, or shall I be nice to them, in case we REALLY need them onside?
Everything is changing. Play the card. But play it subtly. Which is what TMay has done.
Yup. Remainers seem to simultaneously want:
- no cards to be played internationally, or else - everything to be wonderful domestically, or else
Geopolitically naive taken to a whole new level.
Threatening to make British citizens less secure is not a card. Exercises in futile willy-waving are not realpolitik, they are gestures.
Cameron should have put a "40% of the electorate" requirement like Callaghan did for the Scottish and Welsh devolution plebiscites in 1979. Leave got 37.5%.
Such requirements have upsides and downsides, but I could have accepted the need for them. A missed opportunity for status quo supporters.
Cameron should have put a "40% of the electorate" requirement like Callaghan did for the Scottish and Welsh devolution plebiscites in 1979. Leave got 37.5%.
About the one thing capable of uniting us, is the fact that Cameron monumentally screwed up. A tragic figure.
Cameron should have put a "40% of the electorate" requirement like Callaghan did for the Scottish and Welsh devolution plebiscites in 1979. Leave got 37.5%.
About the one thing capable of uniting us, is the fact that Cameron monumentally screwed up. A tragic figure.
I think most people would have accepted a threshold for such a major constitutional change. But Cameron was sure he would win so didn't bother.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historical retreat from global policing and western security, given her relatively weakening economic position (Trump is a symptom of this, not a cause), then, yes, we to them, in case we REALLY need them onside?
Everything is changing. Play the card. But play it subtly. Which is what TMay has done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May can be utterly cold and ruthless if needed and it is not a Russian attack she is talking about is it, we all know what she really means and our intelligence services along with those of the Americans have the best tools to monitor extremist terror groups on the planet, if despite her efforts at reconciliation today the EU hardliners try to bring our economy to its knees (although we would probably survive) they will have to know there is a downside and potentially a big one
May will do nothing that might make British citizens less secure; neither will she do it to key allies. That's the long and short of it. Reducing the flow of information and reducing cooperation increases uncertainty and insecurity. As much as willy-wavers might think that a price worth paying in the abstract, it is something no British PM would do.
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
They have lost a political argument. On a personal level they are wealthy and will see no ill-effects from Brexit. All the risk is being borne by those much lower down the ladder.
Maybe, maybe not but they had the courage to vote for it anyway!
The scary thing is the delight people feel selling their country down the river just to get one over a few retired pols.
It was those retired pols who sold them down the river in the first place!
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight!
Apart from the being dead while Hezza is alive thing obvs.
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Hezza's been in tears?
I was off to bed but I'd better head back to IPlayer and have a look...
I imagine that will soon be on the most played list
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The question is whether it is sensible to put security co-operation into play as a bargaining chip. At one level, I would say, why not if it's a benefit we're giving them. However, security is closely linked to trust and confidence. If you trade away that trust and confidence, security loses all the currency it has. And it undoubtedly plays both ways. Our would-be partners will look elsewhere.
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies across the world, not least the USA. We don't WANT to walk away from our European pals, but when they literally talk of "punishing us" or "economically damaging us", well then, yes, they go from being friends to being hostile powers and all bets are off. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historical retreat from global policing and western security, given her relatively weakening economic position (Trump is a symptom of this, not a cause), then, yes, we to them, in case we REALLY need them onside?
Everything is changing. Play the card. But play it subtly. Which is what TMay has done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing that might make British citizens less secure; neither will she do it to key allies. That's the long and short of it. Reducing the flow of information and reducing cooperation increases uncertainty and insecurity. As much as willy-wavers might think that a price worth paying in the abstract, it is something no British PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight!
Apart from the being dead while Hezza is alive thing obvs.
She was 3 years older than he is now when she died
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight
I heard she was reincarnated as a miner. Karma and all that.
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The question is whether it is sensible to put security co-operation into play as a bargaining chip. At one level, I would say, why not if it's a benefit we're giving them. However, security is closely linked to trust and confidence. If you trade away that trust and confidence, security loses all the currency it has. And it undoubtedly plays both ways. Our would-be partners will look elsewhere.
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies across the world, not least the USA. We don't WANT to walk away from our European pals, but when they literally talk of "punishing us" or "economically damaging us", well then, yes, they go from being friends to being hostile powers and all bets are off. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
I think you miss the point. In practice no mutual security pact is likely ever to be unconditional but there has to be some belief that your partners will come to your aid when needed. If we say, actually that's just a transaction point we are going to haggle over, our partners will decide the mutual security arrangement isn't worth the paper it's written on. So the "benefit" we offer, which could be a powerful one, no longer has any currency. That's what Theresa May was pushing in her Article 50 letter. Subtle, it wasn't.
Cameron should have put a "40% of the electorate" requirement like Callaghan did for the Scottish and Welsh devolution plebiscites in 1979. Leave got 37.5%.
Such requirements have upsides and downsides, but I could have accepted the need for them. A missed opportunity for status quo supporters.
Would have been a divisive proposal that went on to cause enormous bitterness, though. Suspect it would also have nudged a few more voters towards Leave (the "taking sides in an unfair fight" instinct) though nowhere near enough to get it up to 40%!
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historical retreat from global policing and western security, given her relatively weakening economic position (Trump is a symptom of this, not a cause), then, yes, we to them, in case we REALLY need them onside?
Everything is changing. Play the card. But play it subtly. Which is what TMay has done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
Reducing security cooperation and information sharing endangers British lives. It will not happen. As May acknowledges in her otherwise conciliatory and realistic letter to Tusk, there will be a price for the UK to pay for leaving the EU - but it will only be an economic one.
May was short on substance, but at the moment she can wave away pretty much everything with the excuse that "this is a matter for negotiations but I broadly want [X]". She has the luxury of that line for some time to come. It will be interesting when things finally become more concrete and she has to justify the deals struck. But we're not there yet, and she didn't frighten the horses, so she didn't hurt herself tonight.
I thought Corbyn (amazingly) came across as measured, polite and reasonably well informed. I disagree with pretty much everything he says, but tonight was a big change from his usual prickly interview style accompanied by unforced errors left-right-and-centre. I mean, at 18 points behind in the polls, I'm not sure one good interview makes much difference, but credit where credit's due.
I wonder if the Lib Dems are ever going to move beyond the referendum debate. At some point they are surely going to have to engage with Brexit rather than demanding a second vote and wringing their hands. I suppose at the moment there's probably a good number of people out there who identify with the sentiments they express, but I wonder how much longer they can keep this up without looking like they're burying their head in the sand.
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The q
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies across the world, not least the USA. We don't WANT to walk away from our European pals, but when they literally talk of "punishing us" or "economically damaging us", well then, yes, they go from being friends to being hostile powers and all bets are off. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
Trump and GCHQ - a marriage made in heaven!!
Seriously. What do you think when you hear European politicians talking of "damaging Britain's economy" or "punishing Britain for Brexit" -which they literally do? What is your reaction? Do you immediately think, that's OK, that's fine, we'll still send UK soldiers to die for Estonians or Romanians if they get invaded by Putin?
Is that what you think?
Because, if it is, I can guarantee you are in a small minority. If the EU deliberately seeks to damage us in these negotiations, even to the extent of knowingly damaging themselves - i.e. just to make an example of us - then we will say Fuck You, and we will walk away from our security commitments.
Why should any Brit die to defend these people who hate us so much?
Almost every EU politician says the UK 'must be worse off than in the EU' pour encourager les autres, we must be clear that if they take that attitude without a hint of compromise the UK can play hardball too
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The q
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies across the world, not least the USA. We don't WANT to walk away from our European pals, but when they literally talk of "punishing us" or "economically damaging us", well then, yes, they go from being friends to being hostile powers and all bets are off. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
Trump and GCHQ - a marriage made in heaven!!
Seriously. What do you think when you hear European politicians talking of "damaging Britain's economy" or "punishing Britain for Brexit" -which they literally do? What is your reaction? Do you immediately think, that's OK, that's fine, we'll still send UK soldiers to die for Estonians or Romanians if they get invaded by Putin?
Is that what you think?
Because, if it is, I can guarantee you are in a small minority. If the EU deliberately seeks to damage us in these negotiations, even to the extent of knowingly damaging themselves - i.e. just to make an example of us - then we will say Fuck You, and we will walk away from our security commitments.
Why should any Brit die to defend these people who hate us so much?
If we reduce security cooperation Brits are more likely to die. That's why it won't happen. There are willy-wavers on both sides. They are best ignored.
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight!
Apart from the being dead while Hezza is alive thing obvs.
She was 3 years older than he is now when she died
But still dead. Now. Right at this moment. Bereft of life, off the twig, kicked the bucket, not pining for the fjords. An ex Thatcher.
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight
I heard she was reincarnated as a miner. Karma and all that.
I expect she would have flung herself into it as much as everything else
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The question is whether it is sensible to put security co-operation into play as a bargaining chip. At one level, I would say, why not if it's a benefit we're giving them. However, security is closely linked to trust and confidence. If you trade away that trust and confidence, security loses all the currency it has. And it undoubtedly plays both ways. Our would-be partners will look elsewhere.
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies across the world, not least the USA. We don't WANT to walk away from our European pals, but when they literally talk of "punishing us" or "economically damaging us", well then, yes, they go from being friends to being hostile powers and all bets are off. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
I think you miss the point. In practice no mutual security pact is likely ever to be unconditional but there has to be some belief that your partners will come to your aid when needed. If we say, actually that's just a transaction point we are going to haggle over, our partners will decide the mutual security arrangement isn't worth the paper it's written on. So the "benefit" we offer, which could be a powerful one, no longer has any currency. That's what Theresa May was pushing in her Article 50 letter. Subtle, it wasn't.
Until the next major terrorist attack in Paris or Berlin
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historihas done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
Reducing security cooperation and information sharing endangers British lives. It will not happen. As May acknowledges in her otherwise conciliatory and realistic letter to Tusk, there will be a price for the UK to pay for leaving the EU - but it will only be an economic one.
She said the price she was prepared to pay was to leave the Single Market, if the EU wants an economic war with the UK that will hit British lives too and we get far more intelligence from the US on national security than we do from the EU
Actually, I am not sure that Britain offers more in terms of security to the EU than the EU does to the UK, in total, bearing in mind the number of countries in the EU. If you exclude places like Bulgaria and Malta and stick to serious defence countries you have France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Spain and Italy against just us.
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The question is whether it is sensible to put security co-operation into play as a bargaining chip. At one level, I would say, why not if it's a benefit we're giving them. However, security is closely linked to trust and confidence. If you trade away that trust and confidence, security loses all the currency it has. And it undoubtedly plays both ways. Our would-be partners will look elsewhere.
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
I think you miss the point. In practice no mutual security pact is likely ever to be unconditional but there has to be some belief that your partners will come to your aid when needed. If we say, actually that's just a transaction point we are going to haggle over, our partners will decide the mutual security arrangement isn't worth the paper it's written on. So the "benefit" we offer, which could be a powerful one, no longer has any currency. That's what Theresa May was pushing in her Article 50 letter. Subtle, it wasn't.
Until the next major terrorist attack in Paris or Berlin
They can happen in the UK, too. That's why it's all bluff and bluster.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historihas done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
Reducing security cooperation and information sharing endangers British lives. It will not happen. As May acknowledges in her otherwise conciliatory and realistic letter to Tusk, there will be a price for the UK to pay for leaving the EU - but it will only be an economic one.
She said the price she was prepared to pay was to leave the Single Market, if the EU wants an economic war with the UK that will hit British lives too and we get far more intelligence from the US on national security than we do from the EU
Far more is not all. In security matters every scrap of info counts. May will not make the UK less secure. You know that.
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight
I heard she was reincarnated as a miner. Karma and all that.
Hewing the underworld coalface with her pal Savile (who was actually a miner).
I would have liked to get a 'minor' pun in there but it's too late.
I think you miss the point. In practice no mutual security pact is likely ever to be unconditional but there has to be some belief that your partners will come to your aid when needed. If we say, actually that's just a transaction point we are going to haggle over, our partners will decide the mutual security arrangement isn't worth the paper it's written on. So the "benefit" we offer, which could be a powerful one, no longer has any currency. That's what Theresa May was pushing in her Article 50 letter. Subtle, it wasn't.
Until the next major terrorist attack in Paris or Berlin
Is your point that when the next attack in Paris or Berlin happens, EU partners will say, we can now trust the Brits again, after they walked away previously?
I think you miss the point. In practice no mutual security pact is likely ever to be unconditional but there has to be some belief that your partners will come to your aid when needed. If we say, actually that's just a transaction point we are going to haggle over, our partners will decide the mutual security arrangement isn't worth the paper it's written on. So the "benefit" we offer, which could be a powerful one, no longer has any currency. That's what Theresa May was pushing in her Article 50 letter. Subtle, it wasn't.
Until the next major terrorist attack in Paris or Berlin
Is your point that when the next attack in Paris or Berlin happens, EU partners will say, we can now trust the Brits again, after they walked away previously?
I don't think so.
Whether they trust us or not is not the point, the point is our national security intelligence service is an important asset to them
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The question is whether it is sensible to put security co-operation into play as a bargaining chip. At one level, I would say, why not if it's a benefit we're giving them. However, security is closely linked to trust and confidence. If you trade away that trust and confidence, security loses all the currency it has. And it undoubtedly plays both ways. Our would-be partners will look elsewhere.
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
I think you miss the point. In practice no mutual security pact is likely ever to be unconditional but there has to be some belief that your partners will come to your aid when needed. If we say, actually that's just a transaction point we are going to haggle over, our partners will decide the mutual security arrangement isn't worth the paper it's written on. So the "benefit" we offer, which could be a powerful one, no longer has any currency. That's what Theresa May was pushing in her Article 50 letter. Subtle, it wasn't.
Until the next major terrorist attack in Paris or Berlin
They can happen in the UK, too. That's why it's all bluff and bluster.
Not as frequently as on the Continent, precisely because of our intelligence services
WTF is the Sun playing at? Backing Brexit is one thing; wanting to throw relations between Britain and EU27 into the muck is another. And this is from the newspaper that is always on the winning side. Nobody under 60 in Britain has ever voted in a general election when the Sun hasn't backed the winner. Who is playing at what here?
FFS, let us have our fun (for the next five years), we had to suck up europhile sneering and jeering for about FORTY FUCKING YEARS
We want the europhiles to weep and sob. We want to hear the lamentations of their women, we want to take away their slaves and turn them into pets, even as we fully intend to gas their pets to death. Because we have conquered. We triumphed. We are the champions.
In the end, we won, because they played it so badly, they destroyed themselves. FUCKING WANKERS, HAHAHAHAHAHA
In all seriousness, the sight of Lord Heseltine nearly in tears on Newsnight GAVE ME THE HORN
Blair, Mandelson, Osborne, Heseltine, Cameron, Major, Ashdown, Clegg, they have dominated the political leadership of this country for almost 30 years and they are all losers today
Utter, utter losers. You don't get more losery than this, other than losing a world war and seeing your country vanquished and occupied
Everything they believed in has been taken away, and trashed. It's all over. It must be acutely painful for rich, aged, privileged people like Heseltine and Clarke, who always felt they were on the incoming tide of history, then suddenly seeing, at the very end of their lives and careers, everything overturned, and that all they did was for absolutely nothing. Their entire lives were literally wasted.
LOL
I think Lord Heseltine was almost weeping for the legacy of his political career too
Yes. He was teary-eyed
HEH
I imagine Lady Thatcher will be having a rather large dose of schadenfreude from the other side tonight!
Apart from the being dead while Hezza is alive thing obvs.
She was 3 years older than he is now when she died
But still dead. Now. Right at this moment. Bereft of life, off the twig, kicked the bucket, not pining for the fjords. An ex Thatcher.
The EU referendum result was arguably a greater victory for Thatcher's legacy than any of her general election victories
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historihas done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
Reducing security cooperation and information sharing endangers British lives. It will not happen. As May acknowledges in her otherwise conciliatory and realistic letter to Tusk, there will be a price for the UK to pay for leaving the EU - but it will only be an economic one.
She said the price she
Far more is not all. In security matters every scrap of info counts. May will not make the UK less secure. You know that.
If the EU tries to make us economically less secure she will rightly play every hand she has, I know that
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of an attack occuring. Working less effectively with the Europeans would do just that. Imagine the memo leaks here and across the Channel after an attack. This "threat" was designed solely for what it is getting tonight from the Sun.
With Trump in the White House, and America in historihas done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
Reducing securitynomic one.
She said the price she
Far more is not all. In security matters every scrap of info counts. May will not make the UK less secure. You know that.
If the EU tries to make us economically less secure she will rightly play every hand she has, I know that
Of course - but making the UK more vulnerable to attack is not part of that hand, which - as her letter makes clear - is not a strong one.
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
The question is whether it is sensible to put security co-operation into play as a bargaining chip. At one level, I would say, why not if it's a benefit we're giving them. However, security is closely linked to trust and confidence. If you trade away that trust and confidence, security loses all the currency it has. And it undoubtedly plays both ways. Our would-be partners will look elsewhere.
We need to play the security card very carefully. It looks to have been very clumsily played today, hence the push-back.
oh stop being a silly twat.
NATO is on the verge of breaking up. Trump doesn't like the way America funds it (and I'll lay odds that subsequent presidents will be equally tough). Pax Americana is over. They can't afford it any more. China is rising too fast. America has to focus.
So we, as one of the two major European military powers, are a significant guarantor of European security. Not underlining this to our dear friends and allies in the EU would be daft.
We can walk away. We are an island. Our nation is easier to defend, and we have very powerful allies. We will stick with our English-speaking cousins across the world. And fuck Berlin, and fuck Paris if they deliberately aim to hurt us in this divorce, just to encourage European Federalism.
But all this can be avoided, if they give us a decent trade deal, and we all stay friends. But to do that, we need to show some stick.
I think you miss the point. In practice no mutual security pact is likely ever tosn't worth the paper it's written on. So the "benefit" we offer, which could be a powerful one, no longer has any currency. That's what Theresa May was pushing in her Article 50 letter. Subtle, it wasn't.
Until the next major terrorist attack in Paris or Berlin
They can happen in the UK, too. That's why it's all bluff and bluster.
Not as frequently as on the Continent, precisely because of our intelligence services
Using the information flows and cooperative agreements that are currently in place.
Actually, I am not sure that Britain offers more in terms of security to the EU than the EU does to the UK, in total, bearing in mind the number of countries in the EU. If you exclude places like Bulgaria and Malta and stick to serious defence countries you have France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Spain and Italy against just us.
But it's not just us. We are in the Five Eyes. It's us, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the world's mightiest nation, the USA.
Do europhiles not get this? Unlike the rest of Europe, we have choices. A different path to take. Which we are taking.
The five eyes feeds into a wider set of relationships. Have we asked our partners whether they are OK about us reducing their access to information and cooperative agencies?
Meanwhile, support for Scotland taking a markedly different path in the wake of Brexit certainly appears to be much lower than might be anticipated from the 62% vote to Remain.
The one in three or so of Yes voters who voted to Leave not only mostly think that Scotland should leave the EU along with the rest of the UK, but are also not especially keen on the country having a closer relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, and especially so in respect of immigration.
Meanwhile a majority of those No voters who voted for Remain believe that Scotland should accept the UK-wide result of the referendum and are inclined to the view that the rules on EU trade and (especially) immigration should be the same in Scotland as in England and Wales. It would seem that for most No voters their support for the Union matters more than their preferences in respect of the EU.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already curate our intelligence with regards to our EU allies. Do you honestly imagine we hand over everything we know to Bucharest and Bulgaria, in the same way we deal with Paris and Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of
With Trump in the White House, and America in historihas done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
Reducing securitynomic one.
She said the price she
Far more is not all. In security matters every scrap of info counts. May will not make the UK less secure. You know that.
If the EU tries to make us economically less secure she will rightly play every hand she has, I know that
Of course - but making the UK more vulnerable to attack is not part of that hand, which - as her letter makes clear - is not a strong one.
We will not be more vulnerable to attack because of lack of support from EU intelligence services but given the EU's stated aim is to make the UK poorer because of Brexit we cannot allow ourselves to be steamrollered over, end of
Actually, I am not sure that Britain offers more in terms of security to the EU than the EU does to the UK, in total, bearing in mind the number of countries in the EU. If you exclude places like Bulgaria and Malta and stick to serious defence countries you have France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Spain and Italy against just us.
But it's not just us. We are in the Five Eyes. It's us, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the world's mightiest nation, the USA.
Do europhiles not get this? Unlike the rest of Europe, we have choices. A different path to take. Which we are taking.
The five eyes feeds into a wider set of relationships. Have we asked our partners whether they are OK about us reducing their access to information and cooperative agencies?
Given Trump's contempt for Merkel and the EU elite I doubt he could care less!
Actually, I am not sure that Britain offers more in terms of security to the EU than the EU does to the UK, in total, bearing in mind the number of countries in the EU. If you exclude places like Bulgaria and Malta and stick to serious defence countries you have France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Spain and Italy against just us.
But it's not just us. We are in the Five Eyes. It's us, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the world's mightiest nation, the USA.
Do europhiles not get this? Unlike the rest of Europe, we have choices. A different path to take. Which we are taking.
The five eyes feeds into a wider set of relationships. Have we asked our partners whether they are OK about us reducing their access to information and cooperative agencies?
Given Trump's contempt for Merkel and the EU elite I doubt he could care less!
Trump could not care less about the UK. See his casual accusations against GCHQ. But he is not the only player in this game - even in the US.
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of
With Trump in the White House, and America in historihas done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British citizens less secure economically she will not be prepared to lift many fingers to improve the security of EU citizens either
Reducing securitynomic one.
She said the price she
Far more is not all. In security matters every scrap of info counts. May will not make the UK less secure. You know that.
If the EU tries to make us economically less secure she will rightly play every hand she has, I know that
Of course - but making the UK more vulnerable to attack is not part of that hand, which - as her letter makes clear - is not a strong one.
We will not be more vulnerable to attack because of lack of support from EU intelligence services but given the EU's stated aim is to make the UK poorer because of Brexit we cannot allow ourselves to be steamrollered over, end of
Yes, we will be more vulnerable to attack. And, no, the EU's stated aim is not to make the UK poorer. You are floundering.
Has Corbyn just managed to piss off The Scots and The Ulster Unionists at the same time?
That should be the SNP not Scotland as a whole on present polling
Sounds as if he has upset the Nats and SLab at the same time. Smart guy, is Jeremy, could go far.
FWIW I think's SLAB's united front will crumble as they are increasingly look like Tory stoodges
chortle
reduced to name calling
tell us what your going to do for an economy
Based on chatting with the dwindling band of SLABers I know.
Re economy we'd be fine !
economy of the verite I think there
with a 9-10% govt deficit theres nothing but pain ahead for the first 5 years
FWIW half the "deficit" is UK debt - a big gap in data is the many folks like myself who work in London etc - but would be tax resident in iScot
No you wouldn't. If England is a separate country and you are living and working there that is where you would pay your tax. If you retained a Scottish domicile you might pay an extra tax in Scotland if our taxes were higher than England's (which they would be) but you would be entitled to offset the tax paid in England against any liability.
183 days etc - I live in Scotland
So what? It is where you earn that you pay the tax.
Its a nice idea though. "I won't pay you tax, coz I'm going to pay tax in my home country. Honest."
Actually, I am not sure that Britain offers more in terms of security to the EU than the EU does to the UK, in total, bearing in mind the number of countries in the EU. If you exclude places like Bulgaria and Malta and stick to serious defence countries you have France, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Spain and Italy against just us.
But it's not just us. We are in the Five Eyes. It's us, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the world's mightiest nation, the USA.
Do europhiles not get this? Unlike the rest of Europe, we have choices. A different path to take. Which we are taking.
The five eyes feeds into a wider set of relationships. Have we asked our partners whether they are OK about us reducing their access to information and cooperative agencies?
Given Trump's contempt for Merkel and the EU elite I doubt he could care less!
Trump could not care less about the UK. See his casual accusations against GCHQ. But he is not the only player in this game - even in the US.
At least he gets on with May, he has contempt for Merkel
I said a few months ago that security and intelligence co-operation was something we could withdraw if the EU got too uppity. Caused some surprise on here at the time as if it was below the belt.
Its a weapon, a real one.
A very real one.
No, it's not. Imagine a terrorist a
Naive. We already Berlin?
Of course not. We trust some more, others less, and the Americans trust us to assess, correctly, who should know what, when.
We are good at this. They need us. We use it. Hardball.
Naive. We need info, too. We need people detained and watched, movements noted, airwave and internet traffic communicated. This is bluff and bluster. No UK PM would ever increase the risk of
With Trump in the White House, and America in historihas done.
There is nothing subtle aboutis a carrot thrown at the right to keep it onside. It's willy waving, nothing more.
I don't think so, May
May will do nothing PM would do.
She won't but if the EU leadership refuse to cooperate and threaten to make British cmmm
Reducing securitynomic one.
She said the price she
Far more is not all. In security matters every scrap of info counts. May will not make the UK less secure. You know that.
If the EU tries to make us economically less secure she will rightly play every hand she has, I know that
Of course - but making the UK more vulnerable to attack is not part of that hand, which - as her letter makes clear - is not a strong one.
We will not be more vulnerable to attack because of lack of support from EU intelligence services but given the EU's stated aim is to make the UK poorer because of Brexit we cannot allow ourselves to be steamrollered over, end of
Yes, we will be more vulnerable to attack. And, no, the EU's stated aim is not to make the UK poorer. You are floundering.
Yes it is as the statements of Macron etc show, you are being very naive
Comments
- no cards to be played internationally, or else
- everything to be wonderful domestically, or else
Geopolitically naive taken to a whole new level.
I was off to bed but I'd better head back to IPlayer and have a look...
Could almost feel sorry for him to see his entire life's work in tatters like this... But then thinking about all the miners be destroyed, all the dogs he killed, and Mrs Thatcher defenestration....
Nah!
https://twitter.com/jwoodcockmp/status/847230274932842497
Now Remainers are telling us the threat is from abroad. Make your minds up.
Bereft of life, off the twig, kicked the bucket, not pining for the fjords. An ex Thatcher.
I would have liked to get a 'minor' pun in there but it's too late.
Is your point that when the next attack in Paris or Berlin happens, EU partners will say, we can now trust the Brits again, after they walked away previously?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Whether they trust us or not is not the point, the point is our national security intelligence service is an important asset to them
http://natcen.ac.uk/media/1361413/40kt-55a-brx1t-r£p0rt_v5.pdf
Prof Curtice:
Meanwhile, support for Scotland taking a markedly different path in the wake of Brexit certainly appears to be much lower than might be anticipated from the 62% vote to Remain.
The one in three or so of Yes voters who voted to Leave not only mostly think that Scotland should leave the EU along with the rest of the UK, but are also not especially keen on the country having a closer relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, and especially so in respect of immigration.
Meanwhile a majority of those No voters who voted for Remain believe that Scotland should accept the UK-wide result of the referendum and are inclined to the view that the rules on EU trade and (especially) immigration should be the same in Scotland as in England and Wales. It would seem that for most No voters their support for the Union matters more than their preferences in respect of the EU.