Of course it's helping terrorists. If you stop fighting them you start aiding them. And you put British lives in increased danger at home and abroad. There is no way round that, I'm afraid.
So the US is aiding terror in Europe? That's Obama since 2008 and Bush from 2000-2008? I know you'd say yes to Trump anyway, but Obama carried the same policies as Bush and Clinton before him.
And of course, we will still be fighting them in our own country, as I said we have the virtue of being an island nation which has a hard border with Europe.
Like it or not, the Europeans are stuffed because they spent the last 30 years neglecting their own intelligence gathering networks and became reliant on an outside power who is able to withdraw support at any time.
Why should British tax payers fund intelligence gathering Belgian or German taxpayers won't? It's not our fault their Intelligence Services aren't up to the job. I'm sure if there was an imminent attack we were aware of we'd tell them - but the day to day grind is something they should take care of themselves- and the howls of outrage show Mrs May has hit a mark.
Is the point not even more fundamental than that? AIUI most of our intelligence comes from the interception and analysis of internet and telephony data by GCHQ. If we do not have agreements or understandings in place how far are we prepared to go to collect such data from, say, Belgium for analysis? I suspect that we would if following a specific person of interest to us but as a generality....
The hypocrisy has been breathtaking
UK - We're leaving EU - OK - you will become a "Third Country" and should expect to be treated as such UK - Fair enough - same applies to Intelligence EU- OUTRAGEOUS!!!
This all comes down to the fact that the EU believe that the UK leaving is both an irrational act, and our problem not theirs. There is no equity.
So they see nothing wrong in being hardline with us, but expect us to be nothing sweetness and light, if we expect anything at all from them, and very grateful for what we do get.
To use their phrasing, they want to 'cherry pick'.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
Yup. So far Remainers have wailed at every single negotiating tactic.
They're seriously scared that we might make a good fist of this, because it marks their worldview as wholly overrated, and their geopolitical assumptions as pretty much emperor's new clothes.
That's unfair. Unless you're volunteering to climb up to remove the cranes?
Useless puerile carping from Carlotta the Tory, upset that the project will come in well under budget. Delayed a little by the weather rather than the usual Tory/Labour tripling of budgets and timescales , overpaying their chums etc etc.
Of course it's helping terrorists. If you stop fighting them you start aiding them. And you put British lives in increased danger at home and abroad. There is no way round that, I'm afraid.
So the US is aiding terror in Europe? That's Obama since 2008 and Bush from 2000-2008? I know you'd say yes to Trump anyway, but Obama carried the same policies as Bush and Clinton before him.
And of course, we will still be fighting them in our own country, as I said we have the virtue of being an island nation which has a hard border with Europe.
Like it or not, the Europeans are stuffed because they spent the last 30 years neglecting their own intelligence gathering networks and became reliant on an outside power who is able to withdraw support at any time.
Why should British tax payers fund intelligence gathering Belgian or German taxpayers won't? It's not our fault their Intelligence Services aren't up to the job. I'm sure if there was an imminent attack we were aware of we'd tell them - but the day to day grind is something they should take care of themselves- and the howls of outrage show Mrs May has hit a mark.
Is the point not even more fundamental than that? AIUI most of our intelligence comes from the interception and analysis of internet and telephony data by GCHQ. If we do not have agreements or understandings in place how far are we prepared to go to collect such data from, say, Belgium for analysis? I suspect that we would if following a specific person of interest to us but as a generality....
The hypocrisy has been breathtaking
UK - We're leaving EU - OK - you will become a "Third Country" and should expect to be treated as such UK - Fair enough - same applies to Intelligence EU- OUTRAGEOUS!!!
This all comes down to the fact that the EU believe that the UK leaving is both an irrational act, and our problem not theirs. There is no equity.
So they see nothing wrong in being hardline with us, but expect us to be nothing sweetness and light, if we expect anything at all from them, and very grateful for what we do get.
To use their phrasing, they want to 'cherry pick'.
I'd love to have the EU's hand in these negotiations, I'd find ours terribly difficult to play.
[CORRECTING TYPO]
It would be if you played it thinking that the contract is in no trumps, when in fact it's in spades and you hold most of them including the ace.
The UK has developed a huge and unsustainable trade deficit, one which dwarfs the scale of previous decades, and almost all of that trade deficit is accounted for by trade with the EU. We're pretty well in balance with the rest of the world, so without EU trade, our trade deficit would virtually disappear. As such, it's overwhelmingly in the EU's interests to continue with the current arrangements, while by contrast the UK can afford to be sanguine over the prospect of some scaling back of the volume of such trade under some tariff and non-tariff barriers, should the EU demand a high price for continuing as now.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
So what? Better someone looks at things without rose tinted spectacles.
If this is our strongest card, boy are we screwed.
So it proves the objection is not rational. The EU has cards, so does the UK.
It's naive to think one side won't use them, unless you don't want them to because you want the deal to be as one-sided as possible so you are vindicated.
Potentially, yes. But we are threatening to stop doing something that we are doing now and around which processes and protocols have been built.
"Your money or your lives" as the Sun puts it. I'd just tell us to go fuck ourselves if I was the EU at this point. At some level this potentially puts British citizens at potential further risk anyway, and the EU will know that. Fuck em (us) I say.
Why don't you support your own country?
Good grief, please don't say it's come to that. It's a bit totalitarian. Support this govts crazy politics or be denounced as not supporting your country.
The wonderful thing that makes us British is our right to call things like Brexit out as a load of old bollocks.
This macho posturing by Max and co is frankly embarrassing. It is little different to the headlines in The Sun when the English football team plays. It shows why the UK is such an ugly partner for our ex Euro allies to deal with.
To appeal to this raw meat tabloid culture even semi sane people are pumping out their chests advising our ex allies 'don't mess with us'.
And all this despite the uncomfortable fact that nearly all our terrorist outrages are home grown. It's the continent who ought to want to quarantine themselves from us.
BAU for the frothers on here Roger, armchair Generals. The country has gone to the dogs.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
So what? Better someone looks at things without rose tinted spectacles.
If this is our strongest card, boy are we screwed.
So it proves the objection is not rational. The EU has cards, so does the UK.
It's naive to think one side won't use them, unless you don't want them to because you want the deal to be as one-sided as possible so you are vindicated.
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement.
I'd love to have the EU's hand in these negotiations, I'd find ours terribly difficult to play.
It would be if you played it thinking that the contract is in no trumps, when in fact it's in spades and you hold most of them including the ace.
The UK has developed a huge and unsustainable trade deficit with the rest of the world, one which dwarfs the scale of previous decades, and almost all of that trade deficit is accounted for by trade with the EU. We're pretty well in balance with the rest of the world, so without EU trade, our trade deficit would virtually disappear. As such, it's overwhelmingly in the EU's interests to continue with the current arrangements, while by contrast the UK can afford to be sanguine over the prospect of some scaling back of the volume of such trade under some tariff and non-tariff barriers, should the EU demand a high price for continuing as now.
@rcs1000 Can explain the relative pain of large deficit and large surplus countries suddenly halting trade with each other.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
If our strongest card is that we have the power to put tens of millions of Brits at home, and living in and visiting mainland Europe, in increased danger and we are not afraid to use it, then it is not much of a card.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
If our strongest card is that we have the power to put tens of millions of Brits at home, and living in and visiting mainland Europe, in increased danger and we are not afraid to use it, then it is not much of a card.
You have repeated this multiple times on this thread this morning without providing any evidence.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
So what? Better someone looks at things without rose tinted spectacles.
If this is our strongest card, boy are we screwed.
So it proves the objection is not rational. The EU has cards, so does the UK.
It's naive to think one side won't use them, unless you don't want them to because you want the deal to be as one-sided as possible so you are vindicated.
It's not a card. It's not a game.
No one said it was. But both sides have their strengths.
In seeking the best win-win deal possible they both should be used and will be used.
Potentially, yes. But we are threatening to stop doing something that we are doing now and around which processes and protocols have been built.
"Your money or your lives" as the Sun puts it. I'd just tell us to go fuck ourselves if I was the EU at this point. At some level this potentially puts British citizens at potential further risk anyway, and the EU will know that. Fuck em (us) I say.
Why don't you support your own country?
I do. I don't want to see it reduced to making empty threats in order to save a situation which has been created by the lies of rich men.
This macho posturing by Max and co is frankly embarrassing. It is little different to the headlines in The Sun when the English football team plays. It shows why the UK is such an ugly partner for our ex Euro allies to deal with.
To appeal to this raw meat tabloid culture even semi sane people are pumping out their chests advising our ex allies 'don't mess with us'.
And all this despite the uncomfortable fact that nearly all our terrorist outrages are home grown. It's the continent who ought to want to quarantine themselves from us.
BAU for the frothers on here Roger, armchair Generals. The country has gone to the dogs.
Time to honour your word. Bavaria beckons. Hurry up.
The nuclear analogy is not a bad one, but in a different M.A.D. way.
Basically, the EU's whole approach to negotiating seems to be to threaten the diplomatic equivalent of nuclear armageddon, that is to threaten to require a chaotic Brexit that will harm the remaining EU just as much (or in reality more) than it will harm the UK, purely in order to make an example of the UK.
It perhaps appears that way if we see the whole thing as just the UK and the EU, but it isn't.
The UK gets a free hand to deal with the world while they remain chained to each other. It's a big mistake to see them as one united nation, they aren't. They are 27 different competing voices and populations - and electorates.
The trade deficit, the investment in the EIB, the 25% net contribution we provide, the intelligence and defence capability, the capital raising of the City, the fishing waters around the UK etc are all ours.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
If our strongest card is that we have the power to put tens of millions of Brits at home, and living in and visiting mainland Europe, in increased danger and we are not afraid to use it, then it is not much of a card.
You have repeated this multiple times on this thread this morning without providing any evidence.
Potentially, yes. But we are threatening to stop doing something that we are doing now and around which processes and protocols have been built.
"Your money or your lives" as the Sun puts it. I'd just tell us to go fuck ourselves if I was the EU at this point. At some level this potentially puts British citizens at potential further risk anyway, and the EU will know that. Fuck em (us) I say.
Why don't you support your own country?
Good grief, please don't say it's come to that. It's a bit totalitarian. Support this govts crazy politics or be denounced as not supporting your country.
The wonderful thing that makes us British is our right to call things like Brexit out as a load of old bollocks.
The debate is over.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
Potentially, yes. But we are threatening to stop doing something that we are doing now and around which processes and protocols have been built.
"Your money or your lives" as the Sun puts it. I'd just tell us to go fuck ourselves if I was the EU at this point. At some level this potentially puts British citizens at potential further risk anyway, and the EU will know that. Fuck em (us) I say.
Why don't you support your own country?
I do. I don't want to see it reduced to making empty threats in order to save a situation which has been created by the lies of rich men.
That's unfair. Unless you're volunteering to climb up to remove the cranes?
Useless puerile carping from Carlotta the Tory, upset that the project will come in well under budget. Delayed a little by the weather rather than the usual Tory/Labour tripling of budgets and timescales , overpaying their chums etc etc.
Thank goodness the Scottish Government wisely ensured that any costs of the overun will be borne by the contractors.
Amazing to think that those now whining about late delivery are the ones that used to whine about the QC being a pointless Salmond vanity project. I guess the whining is the common factor.
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
If our strongest card is that we have the power to put tens of millions of Brits at home, and living in and visiting mainland Europe, in increased danger and we are not afraid to use it, then it is not much of a card.
You have repeated this multiple times on this thread this morning without providing any evidence.
There can only be strength in the UK's security negotiating position if the consequence of going through with it is to make EU countries less secure. If EU countries are less secure, that has a direct and negative consequence on the Brits who live in and visit them, while making it easier for terrorists and other hostile entities to organise attacks against the UK itself. And no British government will do that. Thus, we do not have a strong hand. Everyone knows we will not see it through.
Theresa May played the security card wrong in her Article 50 letter. Threatening to barter on security if you don't get your way undermines trust, which is the entire currency of security. She should instead use it as a trust-builder in a situation where that commodity is in short supply. Point to your shared heritage and interests, say you will be there for them, and that could get you through some tricky patches, of which there will be many.
Theresa May has a very transactional approach for a set of negotiations where Britain's interests are better served by concentrating on rebuilding relationships. Interesting, and quite balanced article about Mrs May's approach to negotiations in the Financial Times: The negotiator: Brexit talks to be Theresa May’s toughest test (Google the title to get it through Google's news-stream. Literally impossible to deal with sometimes, but she does keep her word.
I haven't listed yet to Kieran's podcast, particularly about Scotland. Mrs May is damned if she gets a good deal from Brexit and damned if she doesn't, in my view. A good deal would neutralise the Project Fear gambit. "Everyone said Brexit was going to be catastrophe and it wasn't. Why should we believe you when you say independence will be a disaster?" In the event of a bad deal, the justification for Scotland remaining in the UK is much reduced.
Theresa May played the security card wrong in her Article 50 letter. Threatening to barter on security if you don't get your way undermines trust, which is the entire currency of security. She should instead use it as a trust-builder in a situation where that commodity is in short supply. Point to your shared heritage and interests, say you will be there for them, and that could get you through some tricky patches, of which there will be many
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
If our strongest card is that we have the power to put tens of millions of Brits at home, and living in and visiting mainland Europe, in increased danger and we are not afraid to use it, then it is not much of a card.
You have repeated this multiple times on this thread this morning without providing any evidence.
He posts as much evidence as HMG. Keep it up SO.
I am off to a meeting now. But I think everyone gets it. They just don't like it. I can understand that. But calling me a traitor for pointing it out is a bit off, I think. Oh well!!
There was publication overnight of some Prof Curtice led research in Scotland relating to Brexit conducted by Nat Cen Social research. They largely want the same relationship with the EU that their fellow Britons do.
The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government.
There was publication overnight of some Prof Curtice led research in Scotland relating to Brexit conducted by Nat Cen Social research. They largely want the same relationship with the EU that their fellow Britons do.
The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government.
Mr. Phil, it is a bit ironic. The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
If the EU actively intends to harm Britain, they may succeed but achieve a Pyrrhic victory.
Anyway, hopefully sense will prevail and a mutually beneficial arrangement can be reached. In the meantime, just over a week until the next race. I remain baffled as to the absence of the points markets in the spreads. Damned shame, as I was looking forward to having a guess and seeing how it turned out.
Potentially, yes. But we are threatening to stop doing something that we are doing now and around which processes and protocols have been built.
"Your money or your lives" as the Sun puts it. I'd just tell us to go fuck ourselves if I was the EU at this point. At some level this potentially puts British citizens at potential further risk anyway, and the EU will know that. Fuck em (us) I say.
Why don't you support your own country?
Good grief, please don't say it's come to that. It's a bit totalitarian. Support this govts crazy politics or be denounced as not supporting your country.
The wonderful thing that makes us British is our right to call things like Brexit out as a load of old bollocks.
The debate is over.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
So much for constructive negotiation with a partner.
You'd feel at home in North Korea. It's us vs.the world. When do we get reprogrammed or disappeared?
It is mind boggling that some people seriously seem to believe that the UK will actively help terrorist organisations and enemy powers in order to get one over long-time friends and allies in a trade negotiation.
I think most of the objection to the UK using its strongest card in the negotiation is from those who object to the UK Leaving in principle.
If our strongest card is that we have the power to put tens of millions of Brits at home, and living in and visiting mainland Europe, in increased danger and we are not afraid to use it, then it is not much of a card.
You have repeated this multiple times on this thread this morning without providing any evidence.
He posts as much evidence as HMG. Keep it up SO.
I am off to a meeting now. But I think everyone gets it. They just don't like it. I can understand that. But calling me a traitor for pointing it out is a bit off, I think. Oh well!!
There ain't gonna be an indyref2 until the early-mid 2020s. By then it may feel eerily irrelevant and feel utterly pointless. Bet accordingly.
As I said yesterday it will depend on the outcome of the Scottish elections in 2021. If the SNP get a majority or even close so their little green helpers give them control again we will have one in 2022. If they don't it will simply fall off the table.
That is quite a long time in political terms but it is difficult, given the state of SLAB, to see how the SNP will not still be dominating Scottish politics at that point. At the moment I would say there is about a 75% chance of an Indyref in 2022 or 2023.
As with almost everything in politics (except possibly Labour's performance in the next GE, and even then...) it all depends on how Brexit turns out, or, more accurately, on perceptions of how it turns out. Which themselves depend to a significant degree on where the economy goes over the next five years, whether influenced by Brexit or not.
Brexit has some impact on the Scottish situation but it is mostly peripheral. If the UK gets a proper free trade deal with the EU that would help the SNP argue that we would get such a deal with rUK as well. If the UK has significant NTBs, such as complex customs provisions, that will have an impact the other way.
As someone who is pretty optimistic about our trading relationship with the EU post Brexit I do not think it will have much impact. OTOH we are getting pretty close to being due a recession. It is already 9 years since the last one albeit growth has generally been very restrained. If that recession is blamed on Brexit, and the timing could be unfortunate, then Scots might be persuaded to have a grievance about it. Some of us are rather good at that, unfortunately.
A recession which could turn to a depression in Scotland with independence too
Potentially, yes. But we are threatening to stop doing something that we are doing now and around which processes and protocols have been built.
"Your money or your lives" as the Sun puts it. I'd just tell us to go fuck ourselves if I was the EU at this point. At some level this potentially puts British citizens at potential further risk anyway, and the EU will know that. Fuck em (us) I say.
Why don't you support your own country?
You never really got over the disaster of the 'Charge of the Light brigade' did you?
You're such a Hooray Henry. You're an anachronism.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
Isn't that an inherently collectivist view? It implies that people's duty to their country outweighs their personal freedom of conscience.
We are not at war; we are simply engaged in normal democratic political debate.
Of course it's helping terrorists. If you stop fighting them you start aiding them. And you put British lives in increased danger at home and abroad. There is no way round that, I'm afraid.
So the US is aiding terror in Europe? That's Obama since 2008 and Bush from 2000-2008? I know you'd say yes to Trump anyway, but Obama carried the same policies as Bush and Clinton before him.
And of course, we will still be fighting them in our own country, as I said we have the virtue of being an island nation which has a hard border with Europe.
Like it or not, the Europeans are stuffed because they spent the last 30 years neglecting their own intelligence gathering networks and became reliant on an outside power who is able to withdraw support at any time.
Why should British tax payers fund intelligence gathering Belgian or German taxpayers won't? It's not our fault their Intelligence Services aren't up to the job. I'm sure if there was an imminent attack we were aware of we'd tell them - but the day to day grind is something they should take care of themselves- and the howls of outrage show Mrs May has hit a mark.
Is the point not even more fundamental than that? AIUI most of our intelligence comes from the interception and analysis of internet and telephony data by GCHQ. If we do not have agreements or understandings in place how far are we prepared to go to collect such data from, say, Belgium for analysis? I suspect that we would if following a specific person of interest to us but as a generality....
The hypocrisy has been breathtaking
UK - We're leaving EU - OK - you will become a "Third Country" and should expect to be treated as such UK - Fair enough - same applies to Intelligence EU- OUTRAGEOUS!!!
This all comes down to the fact that the EU believe that the UK leaving is both an irrational act, and our problem not theirs. There is no equity.
So they see nothing wrong in being hardline with us, but expect us to be nothing sweetness and light, if we expect anything at all from them, and very grateful for what we do get.
That's been their experience of British negotiating strategy for decades - ask for little, accept less, take any crap and abuse the EU, surrender and then lie about it to the British people.
On intelligence it also has to be recognised that so far at least the sophisticated international conspiracies have been the least of our problems and a pretty minor problem on the continent too. I think all of our terrorists and the vast majority of those on the continent have been home grown and, as our latest attack showed (and the attack on Lee Rigby before that) about as far from sophisticated as you can get.
This requires a different kind of intelligence with the equivalent of boots on the ground trying to weigh which of the nutters mouthing off is actually a threat and which can be safely ignored. I honestly don't know how much help we can be to EU countries in those kinds of assessments. At best we could suggest a list of people who are seriously worth a look.
A problem is that the government are saying that a large number of terrorist plots have been successfully foiled, but we have little idea where or how the intelligence required to detect them early came from.
It should be remembered that several European mainland terrorist attacks involved men who had moved extensively around Europe and elsewhere before the attacks; we can expect some other would-be terrorists would also have left traces abroad.
It's a simple train journey from Brussels to London. If a terrorist makes that trip and is not uncovered before committing an atrocity because the British government reduced its levels of cooperation with the Belgians that brings the government down. It's as simple as that. All this willy-waving makes for great newspaper headlines, but as a negotiating position it is a non-starter.
In the present climate I would not bet on that, especially if the EU refuse any trade deal
Of course it's helping terrorists. If you stop fighting them you start aiding them. And you put British lives in increased danger at home and abroad. There is no way round that, I'm afraid.
So the US is aiding terror in Europe? That's Obama since 2008 and Bush from 2000-2008? I know you'd say yes to Trump anyway, but Obama carried the same policies as Bush and Clinton before him.
And of course, we will still be fighting them in our own country, as I said we have the virtue of being an island nation which has a hard border with Europe.
Like it or not, the Europeans are stuffed because they spent the last 30 years neglecting their own intelligence gathering networks and became reliant on an outside power who is able to withdraw support at any time.
Why should British tax payers fund intelligence gathering Belgian or German taxpayers won't? It's not our fault their Intelligence Services aren't up to the job. I'm sure if there was an imminent attack we were aware of we'd tell them - but the day to day grind is something they should take care of themselves- and the howls of outrage show Mrs May has hit a mark.
Is the point not even more fundamental than that? AIUI most of our intelligence comes from the interception and analysis of internet and telephony data by GCHQ. If we do not have agreements or understandings in place how far are we prepared to go to collect such data from, say, Belgium for analysis? I suspect that we would if following a specific person of interest to us but as a generality....
The hypocrisy has been breathtaking
UK - We're leaving EU - OK - you will become a "Third Country" and should expect to be treated as such UK - Fair enough - same applies to Intelligence EU- OUTRAGEOUS!!!
This all comes down to the fact that the EU believe that the UK leaving is both an irrational act, and our problem not theirs. There is no equity.
So they see nothing wrong in being hardline with us, but expect us to be nothing sweetness and light, if we expect anything at all from them, and very grateful for what we do get.
That's been their experience of British negotiating strategy for decades - ask for little, accept less, take any crap and abuse the EU, surrender and then lie about it to the British people.
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement. https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/847054240258379780
Good morning all. Copious amounts of bollocks being talked this morning.
Intelligence sharing among western powers predates the EU (Google Club de Berne for the links into more formal EU intelligence & CT structures).
We have several information sharing agreements with 2nd parties in Europe. They're not all equal. The UK is far and away the SIGINT heavyweight in the EU, both by virtue of its own capabilities and the indirect access it can provide to other Five Eyes sources. We would never withhold actionable intelligence from our NATO allies ('never' is probably too absolute, but for practical purposes it'll do).
That said, even our intelligence agencies, though they've been protected during some tough SRs, have finite resources and operations are not immune to rationing and prioritisation. We pivoted away from classic Cold War targets in the 90s, and even harder in the '00s.
I could easily believe that we could repeat that pivot, given our new strategic position as 'Global Britain' (heh). That would naturally de-emphasise European operations without in any way being intended as a hostile act.
On the subject of intelligence gathering would anyone be very surprised if Cheltenham was not crawling all over the phones and inboxes of Brussels and Berlin at the moment? Perhaps Mrs May's letter is based on more than guesswork of the EUs likely reaction.
Shhh! People are so wound up in their righteous indignation that pointing out the obvious is unhelpful....
This macho posturing by Max and co is frankly embarrassing. It is little different to the headlines in The Sun when the English football team plays. It shows why the UK is such an ugly partner for our ex Euro allies to deal with.
To appeal to this raw meat tabloid culture even semi sane people are pumping out their chests advising our ex allies 'don't mess with us'.
And all this despite the uncomfortable fact that nearly all our terrorist outrages are home grown. It's the continent who ought to want to quarantine themselves from us.
France has double the Muslim population of the UK and the same proportion as the UK are extremists, if not higher
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement. https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/847054240258379780
Isn`t the EPP the Conservative group?
No. The Tories left the EPP to join the group one step to the right. It is where the Tories would have been if they were still the sensible centre-right party. There or ALDE, though that would be too pro Europe/centrist for many except Clark, Soubry and a couple of others.
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement.
The more sensible Leavers have come over all North Korea. The more demented ones are trending towards ISIS.
I log onto hear and read this sort of abuse...Now it may be meant as a joke but with no smileys I assume it is not.
I voted Remain... posts like this make me ashamed to associated with some Remainers.
PS: If you were to use the same kind of language to Muslims, or other races, you would be the subject at least of a warning letter form the PC police..
I thought the Andrew Neil show last night was very good. I thought he was very fair to all the participants. Clearly this was Mr Neil's pitch to do the serious interviews at the next GE and I personally thought how refreshing it was not to have the interviewer jumping down the victim's throat with some "Have you stopped beating your husband" question.
People moan at the lack of gravitas in politics - the approach showed them and therefore us all in a better light.
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement. https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/847054240258379780
Isn`t the EPP the Conservative group?
No. The Tories left the EPP to join the group one step to the right. It is where the Tories would have been if they were still the sensible centre-right party. There or ALDE, though that would be too pro Europe/centrist for many except Clark, Soubry and a couple of others.
Talking of Anna:
Anna Soubry MPVerified account @Anna_Soubry 15m15 minutes ago
How long will it take to bring down immigration? David Davis "ask the Home Secretary" @BBCr4today #youcouldntmakeitup
So the US is aiding terror in Europe? That's Obama since 2008 and Bush from 2000-2008? I know you'd say yes to Trump anyway, but Obama carried the same policies as Bush and Clinton before him.
And of course, we will still be fighting them in our own country, as I said we have the virtue of being an island nation which has a hard border with Europe.
Like it or not, the Europeans are stuffed because they spent the last 30 years neglecting their own intelligence gathering networks and became reliant on an outside power who is able to withdraw support at any time.
Why should British tax payers fund intelligence gathering Belgian or German taxpayers won't? It's not our fault their Intelligence Services aren't up to the job. I'm sure if there was an imminent attack we were aware of we'd tell them - but the day to day grind is something they should take care of themselves- and the howls of outrage show Mrs May has hit a mark.
Is the point not even more fundamental than that? AIUI most of our intelligence comes from the interception and analysis of internet and telephony data by GCHQ. If we do not have agreements or understandings in place how far are we prepared to go to collect such data from, say, Belgium for analysis? I suspect that we would if following a specific person of interest to us but as a generality....
The hypocrisy has been breathtaking
UK - We're leaving EU - OK - you will become a "Third Country" and should expect to be treated as such UK - Fair enough - same applies to Intelligence EU- OUTRAGEOUS!!!
This all comes down to the fact that the EU believe that the UK leaving is both an irrational act, and our problem not theirs. There is no equity.
So they see nothing wrong in being hardline with us, but expect us to be nothing sweetness and light, if we expect anything at all from them, and very grateful for what we do get.
That's been their experience of British negotiating strategy for decades - ask for little, accept less, take any crap and abuse from the EU, surrender and then lie about it to the British people.
That's been their experience of British negotiating strategy for decades - ask for little, accept less, take any crap and abuse from the EU, surrender and then lie about it to the British people.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
Morning CR
I do think you've made a rod for your own back with that comment. The telling phrase for me is "it is in all our interests for these to be right".
Yes, wholeheartedly agree - the only problem is the diversity and occasionally mutual exclusivity of those interests. As an example, there is a school of thought that as a successful outward-facing economy, we need to adopt a low-tax low-regulation low-wage model to attract foreign investment.
OTOH, those doing the work might take the view that their quality of life including pay, access to healthcare, protection, holidays and the like need to be respected and indeed enhanced as part of making this country attractive as a place for people to want to come and work.
We are going into, yes, "complex negotiations" with all these different areas of interest and concern having barely had the opportunity to make themselves heard.
Let me make myself clear - I don't trust Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox to negotiate a post-EU treaty which will be in my best interests. Ideally, in my view, we'd have an all-party approach or at least have full all-party sign up to the principal objectives and "red lines". That should have been the aim of the past nine months instead of the nonsense we've endured - we've wasted valuable time.
The more sensible Leavers have come over all North Korea. The more demented ones are trending towards ISIS.
I log onto hear and read this sort of abuse...Now it may be meant as a joke but with no smileys I assume it is not.
I voted Remain... posts like this make me ashamed to associated with some Remainers.
PS: If you were to use the same kind of language to Muslims, or other races, you would be the subject at least of a warning letter form the PC police..
This is the same poster who keeps urging Leavers to try to win over Remainers.
Prof Curtice said: “Much of the debate about Brexit in Scotland has assumed that voters north of the border want a much softer Brexit than voters in the rest of the UK. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s demand for a second independence referendum rests on such an assumption.
“However, this first systematic study of attitudes towards Brexit in Scotland shows that for the most part voters on both sides of the border want much the same outcome - free trade, immigration control and retention of much of the consumer and environmental regulation currently afforded by the EU.
“This means that on immigration in particular, voters in Scotland seem to be more in tune with the stance taken by the UK Government than that adopted by the Scottish Government.”
Good morning all. Copious amounts of bollocks being talked this morning.
Intelligence sharing among western powers predates the EU (Google Club de Berne for the links into more formal EU intelligence & CT structures).
We have several information sharing agreements with 2nd parties in Europe. They're not all equal. The UK is far and away the SIGINT heavyweight in the EU, both by virtue of its own capabilities and the indirect access it can provide to other Five Eyes sources. We would never withhold actionable intelligence from our NATO allies ('never' is probably too absolute, but for practical purposes it'll do).
That said, even our intelligence agencies, though they've been protected during some tough SRs, have finite resources and operations are not immune to rationing and prioritisation. We pivoted away from classic Cold War targets in the 90s, and even harder in the '00s.
I could easily believe that we could repeat that pivot, given our new strategic position as 'Global Britain' (heh). That would naturally de-emphasise European operations without in any way being intended as a hostile act.
As somewhat of an expert, would you class the point I make below about the importance of interconnections between intelligence as 'bollocks' ?
I ask as it's an area I'm genuinely interested in.
Mr. Cumbria, cheers for that (didn't see the interviews myself). Neil's the best political journalist on TV. He and Sophie Raworth should anchor the next election's coverage.
The more sensible Leavers have come over all North Korea. The more demented ones are trending towards ISIS.
I log onto hear and read this sort of abuse...Now it may be meant as a joke but with no smileys I assume it is not.
I voted Remain... posts like this make me ashamed to associated with some Remainers.
PS: If you were to use the same kind of language to Muslims, or other races, you would be the subject at least of a warning letter form the PC police..
This is the same poster who keeps urging Leavers to try to win over Remainers.
Our "'different view of basic human decency" allows you to use threats to life and limb as a bargaining chip and me to show complete contempt towards those who think that is remotely acceptable.
Potentially, yes. But we are threatening to stop doing something that we are doing now and around which processes and protocols have been built.
"Your money or your lives" as the Sun puts it. I'd just tell us to go fuck ourselves if I was the EU at this point. At some level this potentially puts British citizens at potential further risk anyway, and the EU will know that. Fuck em (us) I say.
Why don't you support your own country?
Good grief, please don't say it's come to that. It's a bit totalitarian. Support this govts crazy politics or be denounced as not supporting your country.
The wonderful thing that makes us British is our right to call things like Brexit out as a load of old bollocks.
The debate is over.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
The Sun is the one egging on the EU, they are shit-stirring. By antagonising the EU, they are undermining Theresa May (who has tried to strike a conciliatory tone), and their headlines actively working against our national interest.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
Morning CR
I do think you've made a rod for your own back with that comment. The telling phrase for me is "it is in all our interests for these to be right".
Yes, wholeheartedly agree - the only problem is the diversity and occasionally mutual exclusivity of those interests. As an example, there is a school of thought that as a successful outward-facing economy, we need to adopt a low-tax low-regulation low-wage model to attract foreign investment.
OTOH, those doing the work might take the view that their quality of life including pay, access to healthcare, protection, holidays and the like need to be respected and indeed enhanced as part of making this country attractive as a place for people to want to come and work.
We are going into, yes, "complex negotiations" with all these different areas of interest and concern having barely had the opportunity to make themselves heard.
Let me make myself clear - I don't trust Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox to negotiate a post-EU treaty which will be in my best interests. Ideally, in my view, we'd have an all-party approach or at least have full all-party sign up to the principal objectives and "red lines". That should have been the aim of the past nine months instead of the nonsense we've endured - we've wasted valuable time.
The more sensible Leavers have come over all North Korea. The more demented ones are trending towards ISIS.
I log onto hear and read this sort of abuse...Now it may be meant as a joke but with no smileys I assume it is not.
I voted Remain... posts like this make me ashamed to associated with some Remainers.
PS: If you were to use the same kind of language to Muslims, or other races, you would be the subject at least of a warning letter form the PC police..
It's not a joke.
Some Leavers are, frankly, absurd on some parts of this. Even if one thinks the decision to leave was itself irrational, most of those who voted that way are not absurd. But some remainers are also absurd, taking a similar view - that they can insult and abuse but it's ok because they are right. It's dispiriting no matter which side it comes from, particularly as the worst offenders act like they are not being at all gratuitous.
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement. https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/847054240258379780
Isn`t the EPP the Conservative group?
No. The Tories left the EPP to join the group one step to the right. It is where the Tories would have been if they were still the sensible centre-right party. There or ALDE, though that would be too pro Europe/centrist for many except Clark, Soubry and a couple of others.
The EPP was and is avowedly pro-federalist.
Edit: The Tories pretty much created the ECR group as a group for centre-right but not federalist parties - there wasn't one before.
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement.
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
Morning CR
I do think you've made a rod for your own back with that comment. The telling phrase for me is "it is in all our interests for these to be right".
Yes, wholeheartedly agree - the only problem is the diversity and occasionally mutual exclusivity of those interests. As an example, there is a school of thought that as a successful outward-facing economy, we need to adopt a low-tax low-regulation low-wage model to attract foreign investment.
OTOH, those doing the work might take the view that their quality of life including pay, access to healthcare, protection, holidays and the like need to be respected and indeed enhanced as part of making this country attractive as a place for people to want to come and work.
We are going into, yes, "complex negotiations" with all these different areas of interest and concern having barely had the opportunity to make themselves heard.
Let me make myself clear - I don't trust Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox to negotiate a post-EU treaty which will be in my best interests. Ideally, in my view, we'd have an all-party approach or at least have full all-party sign up to the principal objectives and "red lines". That should have been the aim of the past nine months instead of the nonsense we've endured - we've wasted valuable time.
Wise words, Stodge. You are of course right.
There should have been a general election. Parties could have set out their approach and won a mandate for it.
There was publication overnight of some Prof Curtice led research in Scotland relating to Brexit conducted by Nat Cen Social research. They largely want the same relationship with the EU that their fellow Britons do.
The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government.
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
Good morning all. Copious amounts of bollocks being talked this morning.
Intelligence sharing among western powers predates the EU (Google Club de Berne for the links into more formal EU intelligence & CT structures).
We have several information sharing agreements with 2nd parties in Europe. They're not all equal. The UK is far and away the SIGINT heavyweight in the EU, both by virtue of its own capabilities and the indirect access it can provide to other Five Eyes sources. We would never withhold actionable intelligence from our NATO allies ('never' is probably too absolute, but for practical purposes it'll do).
That said, even our intelligence agencies, though they've been protected during some tough SRs, have finite resources and operations are not immune to rationing and prioritisation. We pivoted away from classic Cold War targets in the 90s, and even harder in the '00s.
I could easily believe that we could repeat that pivot, given our new strategic position as 'Global Britain' (heh). That would naturally de-emphasise European operations without in any way being intended as a hostile act.
This all comes down to the fact that the EU believe that the UK leaving is both an irrational act, and our problem not theirs. There is no equity.
So they see nothing wrong in being hardline with us, but expect us to be nothing sweetness and light, if we expect anything at all from them, and very grateful for what we do get.
The point of negotiations is to get something from the other side. If Theresa May wants a relatively good outcome from the negotiations, she is going about it the wrong way. I am not entirely convinced she is focused on getting a good deal however. You wouldn't put David Davis in charge if you were.
This kind of frustration will be par for the course from now on. We can't live with the EU and we can't bear the consequences of living without it. We have now have little influence over them and they don't care very much about us.
MOST Scots want a uniform Brexit deal across the UK, not the “differentiated” arrangement demanded for Scotland by Nicola Sturgeon, according to new research.
In a blow to one of the First Minister’s key arguments for a second referendum, a NatCen survey reported “little appetite” among Scottish voters for a bespoke Brexit deal.
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
Last time I checked we are still going to be European, unless May is planning some major infrastructure spending.
MOST Scots want a uniform Brexit deal across the UK, not the “differentiated” arrangement demanded for Scotland by Nicola Sturgeon, according to new research.
It only makes logical sense for Scotland and England to be equal partners as full member states of the EU. Hardly surprising that polling reflects this.
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
Who are the "modern, prosperous, European countries" you refer to?
There was publication overnight of some Prof Curtice led research in Scotland relating to Brexit conducted by Nat Cen Social research. They largely want the same relationship with the EU that their fellow Britons do.
The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government.
Good morning all. Copious amounts of bollocks being talked this morning.
Intelligence sharing among western powers predates the EU (Google Club de Berne for the links into more formal EU intelligence & CT structures).
We have several information sharing agreements with 2nd parties in Europe. They're not all equal. The UK is far and away the SIGINT heavyweight in the EU, both by virtue of its own capabilities and the indirect access it can provide to other Five Eyes sources. We would never withhold actionable intelligence from our NATO allies ('never' is probably too absolute, but for practical purposes it'll do).
That said, even our intelligence agencies, though they've been protected during some tough SRs, have finite resources and operations are not immune to rationing and prioritisation. We pivoted away from classic Cold War targets in the 90s, and even harder in the '00s.
I could easily believe that we could repeat that pivot, given our new strategic position as 'Global Britain' (heh). That would naturally de-emphasise European operations without in any way being intended as a hostile act.
As somewhat of an expert, would you class the point I make below about the importance of interconnections between intelligence as 'bollocks' ?
I ask as it's an area I'm genuinely interested in.
Intelligence gathering is an exercise in applied graph theory . So I'd say you were along the right lines. However, raw intelligence (more properly 'information') is incredibly 'noisy'. Just gathering (say) bulk comms metadata and blending that with more traditional OSINT/HUMINT/CT sources doesn't buy you _that_ much. You need first class analysis tools, experienced analysts and solid ways of refining that raw information into timely, actionable intelligence.
The more sensible Leavers have come over all North Korea. The more demented ones are trending towards ISIS.
I log onto hear and read this sort of abuse...Now it may be meant as a joke but with no smileys I assume it is not.
I voted Remain... posts like this make me ashamed to associated with some Remainers.
PS: If you were to use the same kind of language to Muslims, or other races, you would be the subject at least of a warning letter form the PC police..
This is the same poster who keeps urging Leavers to try to win over Remainers.
Our "'different view of basic human decency" allows you to use threats to life and limb as a bargaining chip and me to show complete contempt towards those who think that is remotely acceptable.
Do you think if the situation was reversed the EU wouldn't threaten Britain on that issue ?
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
MOST Scots want a uniform Brexit deal across the UK, not the “differentiated” arrangement demanded for Scotland by Nicola Sturgeon, according to new research.
It only makes logical sense for Scotland and England to be equal partners as full member states of the EU. Hardly surprising that polling reflects this.
The more sensible Leavers have come over all North Korea. The more demented ones are trending towards ISIS.
I log onto hear and read this sort of abuse...Now it may be meant as a joke but with no smileys I assume it is not.
I voted Remain... posts like this make me ashamed to associated with some Remainers.
PS: If you were to use the same kind of language to Muslims, or other races, you would be the subject at least of a warning letter form the PC police..
This is the same poster who keeps urging Leavers to try to win over Remainers.
Our "'different view of basic human decency" allows you to use threats to life and limb as a bargaining chip and me to show complete contempt towards those who think that is remotely acceptable.
You are deluded in your belief in your moral superiority.
Good morning all. Copious amounts of bollocks being talked this morning.
Intelligence sharing among western powers predates the EU (Google Club de Berne for the links into more formal EU intelligence & CT structures).
We have several information sharing agreements with 2nd parties in Europe. They're not all equal. The UK is far and away the SIGINT heavyweight in the EU, both by virtue of its own capabilities and the indirect access it can provide to other Five Eyes sources. We would never withhold actionable intelligence from our NATO allies ('never' is probably too absolute, but for practical purposes it'll do).
That said, even our intelligence agencies, though they've been protected during some tough SRs, have finite resources and operations are not immune to rationing and prioritisation. We pivoted away from classic Cold War targets in the 90s, and even harder in the '00s.
I could easily believe that we could repeat that pivot, given our new strategic position as 'Global Britain' (heh). That would naturally de-emphasise European operations without in any way being intended as a hostile act.
Spot on.
Except that you are responding on the fact, and not the political significance of the clearly intended 'message' within May's letter. That May is bluffing doesn't help any.
This all comes down to the fact that the EU believe that the UK leaving is both an irrational act, and our problem not theirs. There is no equity.
So they see nothing wrong in being hardline with us, but expect us to be nothing sweetness and light, if we expect anything at all from them, and very grateful for what we do get.
The point of negotiations is to get something from the other side. If Theresa May wants a relatively good outcome from the negotiations, she is going about it the wrong way. I am not entirely convinced she is focused on getting a good deal however. You wouldn't put David Davis in charge if you were.
This kind of frustration will be par for the course from now on. We can't live with the EU and we can't bear the consequences of living without it. We have now have little influence over them and they don't care very much about us.
When did they care very much about us ?
To take one example, Junker was clearly a lousy appointment for European Commission President because of his role in tax avoidance deals for Amazon and MacDonalds.
Cameron was right to oppose him. He lost that vote 26-2.
Good morning all. Copious amounts of bollocks being talked this morning.
Intelligence sharing among western powers predates the EU (Google Club de Berne for the links into more formal EU intelligence & CT structures).
We have several information sharing agreements with 2nd parties in Europe. They're not all equal. The UK is far and away the SIGINT heavyweight in the EU, both by virtue of its own capabilities and the indirect access it can provide to other Five Eyes sources. We would never withhold actionable intelligence from our NATO allies ('never' is probably too absolute, but for practical purposes it'll do).
That said, even our intelligence agencies, though they've been protected during some tough SRs, have finite resources and operations are not immune to rationing and prioritisation. We pivoted away from classic Cold War targets in the 90s, and even harder in the '00s.
I could easily believe that we could repeat that pivot, given our new strategic position as 'Global Britain' (heh). That would naturally de-emphasise European operations without in any way being intended as a hostile act.
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
Citation required
Theresa May: "The United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market... we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy."
Poor old John Humphreys interviewing Manfred Weber this am seemed aghast at the idea that the EU might not be entirely in favour of combined cake ownership & consumption activities. He really needs to look outside his Anglo Welsh sense of Brexit entitlement.
I thought we were fully paid up members until the day we left...
err its a bit like telling your wife/girlfriend/lover that you don't love her anymore and want a divorce.. there won't be any nookie during the divorce period, just increasingly harsh words.
There should have been a general election. Parties could have set out their approach and won a mandate for it.
No need at all. The mandate to LEAVE had been provided but not a mandate on how we should leave (and indeed when).
May, once she had emerged from the Conservative internal hiatus, should have invited Corbyn, Farron, Sturgeon and Farage to an all-party summit to engage them in the process.
The truth is it's Britain leaving the EU, not the Conservative Party and while the Conservative Party speaks for a not inconsiderable part of the British people, it doesn't speak for them all (and indeed a third of Conservative supporters voted REMAIN).
It sounds and looks like the Conservative Party leaving the EU and the rest of us being dragged along behind - May has passed a huge opportunity to build a concensus beyond platitudes by failing to directly involve others in the process. It's wrong that parties representing significant parts of public opinion are excluded simply because they aren't in the Government.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
As the clever chap who said that saw most of us live in a world where inter-human relations rest on a substrate of bargaining and reciprocity and are the better for it: things just work better and quicker that way. Remainians want to switch to a benevolence model, where we let the eu citizens stay here with no reciprocal guarantees, and give away intelligence which costs us money to acquire, as a manifestation of our sheer lovely loveliness. They perhaps do not realise that the highly skilled paediatric surgeons who fix up sick kiddies in hospitals are very highly paid for what they do, that they negotiate their pay in advance of working as surgeons, and that in those negotiations both parties recognise that if the pay is less than the surgeon wants, he will walk away leaving kiddies unoperated on? The mercenary bastard.
Any Remainer contending for a reciprocity-free, loveliness based model for negotiating with the EU is invited to confirm that he or she works for whoever they work for on a strictly non-contractual basis, relying entirely on ex gratia payments from their employers or clients to support themselves.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
Morning CR
I do think you've made a rod for your own back with that comment. The telling phrase for me is "it is in all our interests for these to be right".
Yes, wholeheartedly agree - the only problem is the diversity and occasionally mutual exclusivity of those interests. As an example, there is a school of thought that as a successful outward-facing economy, we need to adopt a low-tax low-regulation low-wage model to attract foreign investment.
OTOH, those doing the work might take the view that their quality of life including pay, access to healthcare, protection, holidays and the like need to be respected and indeed enhanced as part of making this country attractive as a place for people to want to come and work.
We are going into, yes, "complex negotiations" with all these different areas of interest and concern having barely had the opportunity to make themselves heard.
Let me make myself clear - I don't trust Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox to negotiate a post-EU treaty which will be in my best interests. Ideally, in my view, we'd have an all-party approach or at least have full all-party sign up to the principal objectives and "red lines". That should have been the aim of the past nine months instead of the nonsense we've endured - we've wasted valuable time.
Wise words, Stodge. You are of course right.
May doesn't even have an all-the-Tory-party sign-up! After the Lib.Dems, some of the most vociferous opponents of the approach being followed are Tory Peers, e.g. Michael Heseltine or Chris Patten, plus Tory MPs, e.g. Stephen Dorrell, Ken Clarke.
If I had to guess, it would be that she's appeasing the rabid Leavers on the right, in the absence of an opposition credible and large enough to defeat her. She's probably not playing a very long and clever game in which the end state will be like Norway, partly in, partly out.
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
Citation required
Theresa May: "The United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market... we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy."
Doesn't support previous assertion......I thought you might have some, you know, polling data, to back you up.....
MOST Scots want a uniform Brexit deal across the UK, not the “differentiated” arrangement demanded for Scotland by Nicola Sturgeon, according to new research.
It only makes logical sense for Scotland and England to be equal partners as full member states of the EU. Hardly surprising that polling reflects this.
There is however, no polling that does reflect that.
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
Citation required
Theresa May: "The United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market... we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy."
Ruth Davidson @RuthDavidsonMSP Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks" What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
Most people in the UK want the same thing - to live in modern, prosperous, European countries. Sadly the UK state is no longer able to deliver that promise.
Citation required
Theresa May: "The United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market... we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy."
Doesn't support previous assertion......I thought you might have some, you know, polling data, to back you up.....
I was backing up the second sentence. The first sentence hardly needs substantiating, although I'm sure you'll be able to find a few Brits who say they want a backward, poor, non-European country.
Comments
They're seriously scared that we might make a good fist of this, because it marks their worldview as wholly overrated, and their geopolitical assumptions as pretty much emperor's new clothes.
It would be if you played it thinking that the contract is in no trumps, when in fact it's in spades and you hold most of them including the ace.
The UK has developed a huge and unsustainable trade deficit, one which dwarfs the scale of previous decades, and almost all of that trade deficit is accounted for by trade with the EU. We're pretty well in balance with the rest of the world, so without EU trade, our trade deficit would virtually disappear. As such, it's overwhelmingly in the EU's interests to continue with the current arrangements, while by contrast the UK can afford to be sanguine over the prospect of some scaling back of the volume of such trade under some tariff and non-tariff barriers, should the EU demand a high price for continuing as now.
It's naive to think one side won't use them, unless you don't want them to because you want the deal to be as one-sided as possible so you are vindicated.
The wonderful thing that makes us British is our right to call things like Brexit out as a load of old bollocks.
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/847054240258379780
In seeking the best win-win deal possible they both should be used and will be used.
Basically, the EU's whole approach to negotiating seems to be to threaten the diplomatic equivalent of nuclear armageddon, that is to threaten to require a chaotic Brexit that will harm the remaining EU just as much (or in reality more) than it will harm the UK, purely in order to make an example of the UK.
It perhaps appears that way if we see the whole thing as just the UK and the EU, but it isn't.
The UK gets a free hand to deal with the world while they remain chained to each other. It's a big mistake to see them as one united nation, they aren't. They are 27 different competing voices and populations - and electorates.
The trade deficit, the investment in the EIB, the 25% net contribution we provide, the intelligence and defence capability, the capital raising of the City, the fishing waters around the UK etc are all ours.
We'll be grand, whatever happens.
We are now engaged in complex negotiations with a soon to be foreign power. It is in all our interests for these to be right.
Let me make myself clear: I consider anyone egging on, or aiding and abetting the EU, to encourage them to make an example of the UK to be directly working against our national interest.
Drops mic.
Amazing to think that those now whining about late delivery are the ones that used to whine about the QC being a pointless Salmond vanity project. I guess the whining is the common factor.
Theresa May has a very transactional approach for a set of negotiations where Britain's interests are better served by concentrating on rebuilding relationships. Interesting, and quite balanced article about Mrs May's approach to negotiations in the Financial Times: The negotiator: Brexit talks to be Theresa May’s toughest test (Google the title to get it through Google's news-stream. Literally impossible to deal with sometimes, but she does keep her word.
I haven't listed yet to Kieran's podcast, particularly about Scotland. Mrs May is damned if she gets a good deal from Brexit and damned if she doesn't, in my view. A good deal would neutralise the Project Fear gambit. "Everyone said Brexit was going to be catastrophe and it wasn't. Why should we believe you when you say independence will be a disaster?" In the event of a bad deal, the justification for Scotland remaining in the UK is much reduced.
If the EU actively intends to harm Britain, they may succeed but achieve a Pyrrhic victory.
Anyway, hopefully sense will prevail and a mutually beneficial arrangement can be reached. In the meantime, just over a week until the next race. I remain baffled as to the absence of the points markets in the spreads. Damned shame, as I was looking forward to having a guess and seeing how it turned out.
You'd feel at home in North Korea. It's us vs.the world.
When do we get reprogrammed or disappeared?
You're such a Hooray Henry. You're an anachronism.
We are not at war; we are simply engaged in normal democratic political debate.
A little late starting this morning as I had a few Belgium lagers last night to drown my Remainer sorrows...
Intelligence sharing among western powers predates the EU (Google Club de Berne for the links into more formal EU intelligence & CT structures).
We have several information sharing agreements with 2nd parties in Europe. They're not all equal. The UK is far and away the SIGINT heavyweight in the EU, both by virtue of its own capabilities and the indirect access it can provide to other Five Eyes sources. We would never withhold actionable intelligence from our NATO allies ('never' is probably too absolute, but for practical purposes it'll do).
That said, even our intelligence agencies, though they've been protected during some tough SRs, have finite resources and operations are not immune to rationing and prioritisation. We pivoted away from classic Cold War targets in the 90s, and even harder in the '00s.
I could easily believe that we could repeat that pivot, given our new strategic position as 'Global Britain' (heh). That would naturally de-emphasise European operations without in any way being intended as a hostile act.
Re security, if MI5 ring the German equivalent to warn them a few dodgy characters are heading their way does anybody really believe the Germans say:
"Not interested" and hang up?
Lets face it, there is NOTHING that will appease or placate the Remoaners, their bitterness is embedded.
I log onto hear and read this sort of abuse...Now it may be meant as a joke but with no smileys I assume it is not.
I voted Remain... posts like this make me ashamed to associated with some Remainers.
PS: If you were to use the same kind of language to Muslims, or other races, you would be the subject at least of a warning letter form the PC police..
People moan at the lack of gravitas in politics - the approach showed them and therefore us all in a better light.
Anna Soubry MPVerified account @Anna_Soubry 15m15 minutes ago
How long will it take to bring down immigration? David Davis "ask the Home Secretary" @BBCr4today #youcouldntmakeitup
Edit: a word missing previously.
I do think you've made a rod for your own back with that comment. The telling phrase for me is "it is in all our interests for these to be right".
Yes, wholeheartedly agree - the only problem is the diversity and occasionally mutual exclusivity of those interests. As an example, there is a school of thought that as a successful outward-facing economy, we need to adopt a low-tax low-regulation low-wage model to attract foreign investment.
OTOH, those doing the work might take the view that their quality of life including pay, access to healthcare, protection, holidays and the like need to be respected and indeed enhanced as part of making this country attractive as a place for people to want to come and work.
We are going into, yes, "complex negotiations" with all these different areas of interest and concern having barely had the opportunity to make themselves heard.
Let me make myself clear - I don't trust Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox to negotiate a post-EU treaty which will be in my best interests. Ideally, in my view, we'd have an all-party approach or at least have full all-party sign up to the principal objectives and "red lines". That should have been the aim of the past nine months instead of the nonsense we've endured - we've wasted valuable time.
“However, this first systematic study of attitudes towards Brexit in Scotland shows that for the most part voters on both sides of the border want much the same outcome - free trade, immigration control and retention of much of the consumer and environmental regulation currently afforded by the EU.
“This means that on immigration in particular, voters in Scotland seem to be more in tune with the stance taken by the UK Government than that adopted by the Scottish Government.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-majority-of-scots-don-t-want-separate-brexit-deal-1-4406774/amp
I ask as it's an area I'm genuinely interested in.
Some Leavers are, frankly, absurd on some parts of this. Even if one thinks the decision to leave was itself irrational, most of those who voted that way are not absurd. But some remainers are also absurd, taking a similar view - that they can insult and abuse but it's ok because they are right. It's dispiriting no matter which side it comes from, particularly as the worst offenders act like they are not being at all gratuitous.
Have a lovely day everyone.
Edit: The Tories pretty much created the ECR group as a group for centre-right but not federalist parties - there wasn't one before.
https://twitter.com/davidmartinmep/status/846993518442827776
Next time @NicolaSturgeon asks "what sort of country do we want to be?" The answer is "one incredibly similar to the rest of the UK, thanks"
What Scotland Thinks @WhatScotsThink
New post & briefing on whether #Scotland wants a different kind of #Brexit? It seems mostly not.
This kind of frustration will be par for the course from now on. We can't live with the EU and we can't bear the consequences of living without it. We have now have little influence over them and they don't care very much about us.
In a blow to one of the First Minister’s key arguments for a second referendum, a NatCen survey reported “little appetite” among Scottish voters for a bespoke Brexit deal.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15190600.Sturgeon_out_of_tune_with_Scots_on_bespoke_Brexit_and_immigration__survey_finds/?ref=twtrec
To take one example, Junker was clearly a lousy appointment for European Commission President because of his role in tax avoidance deals for Amazon and MacDonalds.
Cameron was right to oppose him. He lost that vote 26-2.
May, once she had emerged from the Conservative internal hiatus, should have invited Corbyn, Farron, Sturgeon and Farage to an all-party summit to engage them in the process.
The truth is it's Britain leaving the EU, not the Conservative Party and while the Conservative Party speaks for a not inconsiderable part of the British people, it doesn't speak for them all (and indeed a third of Conservative supporters voted REMAIN).
It sounds and looks like the Conservative Party leaving the EU and the rest of us being dragged along behind - May has passed a huge opportunity to build a concensus beyond platitudes by failing to directly involve others in the process. It's wrong that parties representing significant parts of public opinion are excluded simply because they aren't in the Government.
We are all leaving the EU - not just some of us.
As the clever chap who said that saw most of us live in a world where inter-human relations rest on a substrate of bargaining and reciprocity and are the better for it: things just work better and quicker that way. Remainians want to switch to a benevolence model, where we let the eu citizens stay here with no reciprocal guarantees, and give away intelligence which costs us money to acquire, as a manifestation of our sheer lovely loveliness. They perhaps do not realise that the highly skilled paediatric surgeons who fix up sick kiddies in hospitals are very highly paid for what they do, that they negotiate their pay in advance of working as surgeons, and that in those negotiations both parties recognise that if the pay is less than the surgeon wants, he will walk away leaving kiddies unoperated on? The mercenary bastard.
Any Remainer contending for a reciprocity-free, loveliness based model for negotiating with the EU is invited to confirm that he or she works for whoever they work for on a strictly non-contractual basis, relying entirely on ex gratia payments from their employers or clients to support themselves.
If I had to guess, it would be that she's appeasing the rabid Leavers on the right, in the absence of an opposition credible and large enough to defeat her. She's probably not playing a very long and clever game in which the end state will be like Norway, partly in, partly out.