Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
It appears to be the only card we have so it's not surprising some want to go there...
Gibraltar, our only card? Righto...
I meant war is our only card.
On Wednesday Theresa May strapped the country to the operating table ready for its organs to be harvested.
Eddie Mair's (on Marr) interview with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who had speciallly flown in, was embarrassing with him continually trying to get the Minster to say the A50 letter omitting Gibraltar was a mistake, despite the Minister's explanation and then saying that Gibraltar would not lose sovereignty if it was shared between UK and Spain
Eddie Marr loves to aggressively question from the Left.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
You must be amongst the nastiest and thickest of the halfwits on here and that takes some doing.
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
It appears to be the only card we have so it's not surprising some want to go there...
Gibraltar, our only card? Righto...
I meant war is our only card.
On Wednesday Theresa May strapped the country to the operating table ready for its organs to be harvested.
Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding. I do think you are wrong that it is our only card. See the huge hole in the EU's budget, for instance.
Eddie Mair's (on Marr) interview with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who had speciallly flown in, was embarrassing with him continually trying to get the Minster to say the A50 letter omitting Gibraltar was a mistake, despite the Minister's explanation and then saying that Gibraltar would not lose sovereignty if it was shared between UK and Spain
Eddie Marr loves to aggressively question from the Left.
I see our local zoomer was wetting himself on the previous thread over an old story that Jersey might "declare itself independent of the UK".
One problem, Jersey is not part of the UK...
Possibly the worst point ever made on pb. Jersey is a dependency of the UK. A declaration that that would cease to be the case would therefore constitute Jersey declaring itself independent of the UK.
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I am pretty comfortable on this election, following Chris from Paris's early tip on Macron.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
A final line for the ages ;-)
Macron does have a certain pragmatic vagueness about him, but is surefooted. He seemed to perform well in the first debate.
I think that his reforms will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the New Labour style, but with the important difference of fiscal sanity.
We'll soon find out if there is more to him than that which people are projecting on to him.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way n economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You keep saying this (a lot) but you haven't answered Charles's point.
To what extent doesthreat?
I agree with Charles: we are on the credit side.
Let's say, we're in security credit by 70-30 (rather than assuming a 50-50 balance) - if we withdraw we lose 30% "extra" security value, but the EU loses 70%.
So, although you could make a case we'd lose *something* it isn't equitable, as you imply it is.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
I love the way you keep ignoring the point.
Stop being silly.
It is precisely the point. You seem to be saying that the consequence of the UK reducing its levels of cooperation would be to make EU member states less secure than they are now. If that is the case, any British citizen who lives in, works in or visits those countries will also be less secure. That's tens of millions of British citizens we are talking about.
If we are not talking about making the EU less secure, then there is no negotiating point.
1 million bitter and twisted brits holding the balance of power, or hand the keys to the mafioso murder band in SF.
either way it would trash the place.
While the North has much less land it adds 40% to the population and the politcal structures of the south can no longer work as they did.
Indeed. One of the reasons that the Good Friday Agreement was an easy sell in the South is because most of the population in the RoI is quite content for the North to exist separately. Surveys show that while people talk about uniting the island of Ireland not many actually wanted to happen.
you cannot have a fully devolved government in Northern Ireland as long as the choice is between the Mob and a theocracy. Neither will work.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
You must be amongst the nastiest and thickest of the halfwits on here and that takes some doing.
Don't tell your grandfather that, I think he cherishes the "nastiest" title (I presume it's juniorG logged on today?)
I see our local zoomer was wetting himself on the previous thread over an old story that Jersey might "declare itself independent of the UK".
One problem, Jersey is not part of the UK...
Possibly the worst point ever made on pb. Jersey is a dependency of the UK. A declaration that that would cease to be the case would therefore constitute Jersey declaring itself independent of the UK.
What is a zoomer?
It's what Unionists call Indy supporters. I'd imagine the silly old trout that's appointed herself my stalker is unaware of its origins.
Funny thing TUD is old Rutherford got it from Scottp , how demeaning can it be when you are down to copying t*at and paste
Give it six months. We're just getting started and already seem to be in the grip of some sort of national psychosis with people suddenly giving a shit about "Gib" and other such nonsense.
It appears to be the only card we have so it's not surprising some want to go there...
Gibraltar, our only card? Righto...
I meant war is our only card.
On Wednesday Theresa May strapped the country to the operating table ready for its organs to be harvested.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if the colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way security union.
You are assuming that partnership with EU ex France is a positive.
I can see, for instance is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
Tens of millions of Brits travel to the European Union each year. The, Spaniards, Pirtuguese etc more vulnerable to attack without doing the same to Brits.
Go to Florida instead
See, that's where your argument just falls to pieces.
Not at all it's to say that if "security" is your biggest concern, dont go anywhere dangerous
you seem to ignore the fact that millions of brits routinely go to places like Egypt, Morrocco, Turkey where there is an ongoing level of violence. It's a choice, nobody makes you go. We travel to lots of dangerous places irrespective of what HMG thinks.
So more expensive and/or more dangerous summer holidays gets added to the Brexit bill.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
For those who read Spanish, a very interesting interview with the country's foreign minister on Brexit and the Brexit negotiations. He is confident of a good deal, sees no security threats from the UK and confirms Spain would not block an independent Scotland's application to join the EU, noting the Scottish and Catalonian situations are very different (there is no legal route for Caralonian secession under the current Spanish constitution, he says). Anyway, worth a read. “España está más cerca del ‘Brexit’ blando” http://elpais.com/politica/2017/04/01/actualidad/1491073769_182345.html
It is an interesting piece (via Google translate). Rather more intelligent than the sort of thing we read in our own papers.
I think this new Spanish clarification on Scotland (while not a big change in policy, a big change in tone) may be a sort of pre-emptive getting in the excuses to discourage Catalan independence. If they think Scotland has a decent chance of going independent in the coming years, better to separate that from Catalonia now, rather than continuously fight it and link it to Catalan independence.
The Spanish case is that Scotland can only leave the UK through a legal process. If that happens Spain will regret it, but will recognise it has happened and as Scotland is in Europe it has every right to apply to join the EU. It already sees the Catalonian situation as distinct, because Catalonia cannot legally secede without Madrid's say-so. The Catalonian government, though, is currently preparing to declare independence unilaterally.
How can Scotland legally secede without Westminster's say-so?
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way n economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
I love the way you keep ignoring the point.
Stop being silly.
It is precisely the point. You seem to be saying that the consequence of the UK reducing its levels of cooperation would be to make EU member states less secure than they are now. If that is the case, any British citizen who lives in, works in or visits those countries will also be less secure. That's tens of millions of British citizens we are talking about.
If we are not talking about making the EU less secure, then there is no negotiating point.
There is always a negotiating point where there is a comparative advantage.
This is something you consistently miss. You know this and, given your considerable intelligence, this is probably deliberate because you ethically object to HMG making an issue of it during the negotiations, and are embarrassed by the Brexit decision itself.
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
You must be amongst the nastiest and thickest of the halfwits on here and that takes some doing.
Don't tell your grandfather that, I think he cherishes the "nastiest" title (I presume it's juniorG logged on today?)
Its SeniorG and not the quiet version , as my hero said , I am turning up the volume.
Eddie Mair's (on Marr) interview with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who had speciallly flown in, was embarrassing with him continually trying to get the Minster to say the A50 letter omitting Gibraltar was a mistake, despite the Minister's explanation and then saying that Gibraltar would not lose sovereignty if it was shared between UK and Spain
Eddie Marr loves to aggressively question from the Left.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
There are 11 mentions of security in the Article 50 letter. Hardly subtle.
And the priorities of some Leavers, who would happily see our security diminished so long as others' security is diminished more, but who would give the shirt off their back in response to a so-far unidentified threat to Gibraltar, is beyond satire.
Britain has some useful cards in a generally poor hand. It is not playing them at all yet.
The official Spanish position now repeated is only a surprise to those who have believed the total rubbish which passes for reporting in the UK press.
I thought it was only reported that they would veto a fast-track entry (or an immediate entry). I don't think it was reported they would veto membership full stop.
Eddie Mair's (on Marr) interview with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who had speciallly flown in, was embarrassing with him continually trying to get the Minster to say the A50 letter omitting Gibraltar was a mistake, despite the Minister's explanation and then saying that Gibraltar would not lose sovereignty if it was shared between UK and Spain
Eddie Marr loves to aggressively question from the Left.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
Re Gibraltar - hasn't US said that they will not allow Spain to influence Gibraltar as it services both US and UK nuclear subs
The official Spanish position now repeated is only a surprise to those who have believed the total rubbish which passes for reporting in the UK press.
I thought it was only reported that they would veto a fast-track entry (or an immediate entry). I don't think it was reported they would veto membership full stop.
Lol we had constant full frother slavering on here that it was full stop veto. You are a forgetful boy Rob.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way n economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
I love the way you keep ignoring the point.
Stop being silly.
It is precisely the point. You seem to be saying that the consequence of the UK reducing its levels of cooperation would beg about.
If we are not talking about making the EU less secure, then there is no negotiating point.
There is always a negotiating point where there is a comparative advantage.
This is something you consistently miss. You know this and, given your considerable intelligence, this is probably deliberate because you ethically object to HMG making an issue of it during the negotiations, and are embarrassed by the Brexit decision itself.
I am embarrassed that our government is so woefully unprepared for the Brexit negotiations, Im unsurprised that the hard Brexit right seems willing to compromise Europe's security and I regret the Leave vote.
We are talking about a country who thought Hollande was a good idea last time out, almost anything is possible. But I tend to agree that there are more lefties than the current polling indicates which should give Melenchon a better chance. I also agree that Melenchon gives Le Pen a better chance, but not much. She loses on pretty much every scenario, it is just a question of by how much.
I wonder whether Melenchon takes voters off LePen. Leftist populists do seem to be polling well on the Continent.
The death of the French Socialist party is a salutary lesson for Labour here. It shows how the tectonic plates of politics can move.
It is increasingly clear that there is very little which separates the populist left and right in Europe. Perhaps it is really just the flag: one is national, the other is red. That said, if the populist right won power anywhere it would probably turn out to be corporatist.
Corporatism has long been part of the ppopulist right, and we see it very clearly in Trumpland. A bit of red meat thrown on cultural issues, a bit of flagwaving and a lot of corporate giveaways.
Britain has some useful cards in a generally poor hand. It is not playing them at all yet.
I'd be interested to hear what you think those are, especially give your stance on Brexit.
Your interest may be satiated if I get time to put together a thread header on the subject.
Some people seem only to be able to think of 'cards' in the sense of things we have to threaten or take away, rather than things we have to offer.
The delusion and hatred of foreigners and how we can do the dirty on them here illustrates just how far this country has fallen. Is it any wonder the UK is circling the drain.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
Re Gibraltar - hasn't US said that they will not allow Spain to influence Gibraltar as it services both US and UK nuclear subs
They might restock on eggs and bog roll there is but is not servicing by any stretch of the imagination. The US boomers are almost always NOFORN. The maintenance and engineering is only done at Kings Bay, GA.
Britain has some useful cards in a generally poor hand. It is not playing them at all yet.
I'd be interested to hear what you think those are, especially give your stance on Brexit.
Your interest may be satiated if I get time to put together a thread header on the subject.
Some people seem only to be able to think of 'cards' in the sense of things we have to threaten or take away, rather than things we have to offer.
The delusion and hatred of foreigners and how we can do the dirty on them here illustrates just how far this country has fallen. Is it any wonder the UK is circling the drain.
Morning Malcolm. What do you think about Jim Sillars' view that Scotland should not leave the UK to rejoin the EU?
I agree with Alastair and have bet heavily (by my standards, about £200) against MLP. I agree with David and rcs that he slightly underestimates Melanchon, whose momentum is picking up, and personally I prefer him to the amiable vacuum of Macon (for much the same reasons as Labour preferred Corbyn to the absent-minded ABC campaigns), but I think his chance of reaching the final two is only about 2%, and if he does it'll be because he's done so well in the second debate and has such a head ofsteam that he'll beat MLP as well.
I am pretty comfortable on this election, following Chris from Paris's early tip on Macron.
I cannot see Fillon recovering now, but Melenchon is an interesting dark horse. Any situation where he makes the final means a surge of support for him.
I cannot see Macron blowing it though. He looks a president in waiting.
A final line for the ages ;-)
Macron does have a certain pragmatic vagueness about him, but is surefooted. He seemed to perform well in the first debate.
I think that his reforms will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in the New Labour style, but with the important difference of fiscal sanity.
We'll soon find out if there is more to him than that which people are projecting on to him.
Indeed.
But whether there is or not some people are going to be disappointed as not all the things being projected upon Macron are the same.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
Re Gibraltar - hasn't US said that they will not allow Spain to influence Gibraltar as it services both US and UK nuclear subs
They might restock on eggs and bog roll there is but is not servicing by any stretch of the imagination. The US boomers are almost always NOFORN. The maintenance and engineering is only done at Kings Bay, GA.
That isn't what this article suggests, it isn't just restocking operations.
Britain has some useful cards in a generally poor hand. It is not playing them at all yet.
I'd be interested to hear what you think those are, especially give your stance on Brexit.
Your interest may be satiated if I get time to put together a thread header on the subject.
Some people seem only to be able to think of 'cards' in the sense of things we have to threaten or take away, rather than things we have to offer.
The delusion and hatred of foreigners and how we can do the dirty on them here illustrates just how far this country has fallen. Is it any wonder the UK is circling the drain.
Morning Malcolm. What do you think about Jim Sillars' view that Scotland should not leave the UK to rejoin the EU?
Britain has some useful cards in a generally poor hand. It is not playing them at all yet.
I'd be interested to hear what you think those are, especially give your stance on Brexit.
Your interest may be satiated if I get time to put together a thread header on the subject.
Some people seem only to be able to think of 'cards' in the sense of things we have to threaten or take away, rather than things we have to offer.
The delusion and hatred of foreigners and how we can do the dirty on them here illustrates just how far this country has fallen. Is it any wonder the UK is circling the drain.
Morning Malc - I reject all thought of hatred to foreigners. The immigrants in this Country are an essential fabric of society and post Brexit they will continue to be welcome, indeed essential for our and Scotland's economy. I do not think the numbers will change much, but at least we will have control, and those coming here must have a job and contribute for several year before received benefits. I think that view is also quite widely held in Scotland.
Of course their are extremists on both sides of the argument but they are very much in a minority and do need to be called out when necessary
On the subject of intelligence and security. It seems that there is a great deal of talk about immediate, lethal threats.
Consider the following situation, though.
Through signals intelligence, the UK discovers that a French person, in the aviation industry, is working for Russia.
Do we :
1) Tell the French 2) Offer to sell the information for a trade-in-kind 3) Offer to sell the information for cash, to the French 4) Offer to sell the information in return for... Cueta? 5) Ask the Russians for something not to tell the French 6) Turn the agent and use him/her to send false information to Russia, to our advantage. The leakage of real French secrets would have to continue, to make our false information believable.
Before considering the options, consider this.
During the Yugoslav wars, French intelligence services were selling UN/NATO information to the Serbs - mostly in return for information.
This included warnings of recon overflights - which the Serbs used to hide ceasefire breaches (moving equipment when it wouln't be seen) and even cover up war crimes (dig up and move bodies when no-one was watching).
This resulted in (ironically) in the shooting down of a French recon aircraft - the Serb commanders wanted more leverage and tried to down an American recon plane. The French didn't realise this, and sold the flight plans as before. However, strangely, someone switched flight plans in the database - so the French gave the Serbs the details of a French flight....
Does no harm remove any doubt that the UK will use it's security strength to extract trade deal concessions. It's absolutely the correct thing to do, remove any idea that the UK is going into this as a supplicant who can be punished.
It all depends on how much you value the intelligence that you receive from our EU partners and the risk associated with sharing our insights (setting aside France with which we have a bilateral agreement).
None of us really know, but based on public comment I suspect the UK is in the credit balance.
More fundamentally, if colour the extent to which we want to partner with them in other areas.
The only way n economic price to pay for leaving the single market and customs union.
You
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
I love the way you keep ignoring the point.
Stop being silly.
It is precisely the point. You seem
There is always a negotiating point
I am embarrassed that our government is so woefully unprepared for the Brexit negotiations, Im unsurprised that the hard Brexit right seems willing to compromise Europe's security and I regret the Leave vote.
As I pointed out, anyone wanting a role can still apply today:
It appalls, but does not surprise that our government is yet to fill 20 Senior Policy Advisor jobs 9 months after the vote, and with negotiations imminent. Its almost as if there is no plan.
I see our local zoomer was wetting himself on the previous thread over an old story that Jersey might "declare itself independent of the UK".
One problem, Jersey is not part of the UK...
Possibly the worst point ever made on pb. Jersey is a dependency of the UK. A declaration that that would cease to be the case would therefore constitute Jersey declaring itself independent of the UK.
What is a zoomer?
More importantly as I mentioned on the last thread, Jersey is not in the Currency Union (the reason cited for their moving away from the UK) so the idea it would declare independence to stay in Union it is not even in is rather... oblique?
I don't really buy this argument about our security assistance being a huge asset that we can threaten to withold. I think we've always been an America's man on the inside, and many in the EU will be happy for us to butt out. If anything, it's May/Fallon/Hammond etc. who will want to continue to have a finger in the EU pie, especially in a potential European army, rather than the other way around.
Our card is our market. 30 million stodgy Brits used to a German car in the drive, holidays in the Costas, and brie and wine in the fridge. The current terms of trade are clearly very skewed in the EU's favour.
You are assuming that partnership with EU ex France is a positive
I can see, for instance, a scenario where the increased risk to our operatives (through sharing information with leaky organisations in Europe) is greater than the value we receive.
We are prepared to partner with them at the moment as part of a broader relationship, but if the balance of that broader relationship shifts perhaps it's not a sacrifice we are prepared to make.
Tens of millions of Brits travel to the European Union each year. The UK government will continue to need to cooperate with governments across the EU to minimise the security threat they face. You cannot make Greeks, Italians, Cypriots, Spaniards, Pirtuguese etc more vulnerable to attack without doing the same to Brits.
Your maths doesn't work
10m Brit tourists * 10 days average = 100m Brit days in Europe.
That's equivalent to less than 1.5 days of French populations days.
It it's also a muddle headed way to analyse risk. FWIW I believe tgd government puts a value of GBP1m on each life in considering expenditure levels (on a CBA basis)
Britain has some useful cards in a generally poor hand. It is not playing them at all yet.
I'd be interested to hear what you think those are, especially give your stance on Brexit.
Your interest may be satiated if I get time to put together a thread header on the subject.
Some people seem only to be able to think of 'cards' in the sense of things we have to threaten or take away, rather than things we have to offer.
The delusion and hatred of foreigners and how we can do the dirty on them here illustrates just how far this country has fallen. Is it any wonder the UK is circling the drain.
Morning Malcolm. What do you think about Jim Sillars' view that Scotland should not leave the UK to rejoin the EU?
Malcolm think Sillars is a bitter old wanker.
No doubt true, but he has thus far been an indy-supporting bitter old wanker, so for that reason alone his current stance is interesting.
It appalls, but does not surprise that our government is yet to fill 20 Senior Policy Advisor jobs 9 months after the vote, and with negotiations imminent. Its almost as if there is no plan.
A G7 is a relatively low level role in any headquarters job in the civil service.
I think the design contract value is given as £1m in the article, it's rather vaguely worded. Note to Telegraph to stop firing sub-editors! £500m sounds like the annual passports budget, 5-6m passports at c.£100 each.
I don't really buy this argument about our security assistance being a huge asset that we can threaten to withold. I think we've always been an America's man on the inside, and many in the EU will be happy for us to butt out. If anything, it's May/Fallon/Hammond etc. who will want to continue to have a finger in the EU pie, especially in a potential European army, rather than the other way around.
Our card is our market. 30 million stodgy Brits used to a German car in the drive, holidays in the Costas, and brie and wine in the fridge. The current terms of trade are clearly very skewed in the EU's favour.
It appalls, but does not surprise that our government is yet to fill 20 Senior Policy Advisor jobs 9 months after the vote, and with negotiations imminent. Its almost as if there is no plan.
Yes, all 300 members of the Brexit department have just been twiddling their thumbs over the last nine months.
Mr. D., I read that article as saying the US submarine was paying a planned visit to Gibraltar (probably to give its crew some fresh air and a chance to go out on the pop) and whilst there took the opportunity to fix some bit of kit that had gone wrong.
Nuclear attack boats are often at sea for extended periods, commonly much longer than the ballistic missile boats, which work to a regular schedule. So a safe port where they can put in, restock and give the crew a chance to let off steam in a safe environment and get kit fixed, probably does count as servicing. The same of course applies to the surface fleets of both navies.
Dura_Ace, I think, probably knows more about this than any of us, but it is my understanding that Gibraltar was, and maybe still is, the first and last port of call for RN ships heading South or East.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
And the great thing is if voters dislike living under a "low tax low public spending Atlanticist" government they can kick them out at the next election
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
You must be amongst the nastiest and thickest of the halfwits on here and that takes some doing.
Don't tell your grandfather that, I think he cherishes the "nastiest" title (I presume it's juniorG logged on today?)
Its SeniorG and not the quiet version , as my hero said , I am turning up the volume.
Malc.. bitter and twisted sounds the same however high the volume is
Worth noting that this has always been Spain's position. What they oppose is a fast track special deal or automatic entry. That is still the case.
While not formally fast tracked, Scotland or Northern Ireland would speed through the accession criteria. They already meet all of them anyway, rather than have to have extensive internal reforms to make the cut.
I suspect indyScotland would prefer the EEA though. Much Scottish support for Remain comes from seeing the EU as a Social Democrat counterweight to a Tory English Westminster, rather than true enthusiasm. Once free of Westminster, that fades as a motivator. Scotland will be more like Scandanavia than England, and perhaps always has been.
Scandinavia without the ability to afford all the socialism it desires?
You must be amongst the nastiest and thickest of the halfwits on here and that takes some doing.
Don't tell your grandfather that, I think he cherishes the "nastiest" title (I presume it's juniorG logged on today?)
Its SeniorG and not the quiet version , as my hero said , I am turning up the volume.
Malc.. bitter and twisted sounds the same however high the volume is
Mr. D., I read that article as saying the US submarine was paying a planned visit to Gibraltar (probably to give its crew some fresh air and a chance to go out on the pop) and whilst there took the opportunity to fix some bit of kit that had gone wrong.
Nuclear attack boats are often at sea for extended periods, commonly much longer than the ballistic missile boats, which work to a regular schedule. So a safe port where they can put in, restock and give the crew a chance to let off steam in a safe environment and get kit fixed, probably does count as servicing. The same of course applies to the surface fleets of both navies.
Dura_Ace, I think, probably knows more about this than any of us, but it is my understanding that Gibraltar was, and maybe still is, the first and last port of call for RN ships heading South or East.
Hurst, must idle most of the time given the dearth of ships we have in our "navy" nowadays, can we even call it that any more. Swiss probably have more ships than UK.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
And the great thing is if voters dislike living under a "low tax low public spending Atlanticist" government they can kick them out at the next election
Not if you are a colony like Scotland, only England can chuck them out.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
Re Gibraltar - hasn't US said that they will not allow Spain to influence Gibraltar as it services both US and UK nuclear subs
They might restock on eggs and bog roll there is but is not servicing by any stretch of the imagination. The US boomers are almost always NOFORN. The maintenance and engineering is only done at Kings Bay, GA.
I find that hard to believe. If that were the case there would be no redundancy in case something happened that took out King's Bay, GA. Whether it's likely or not I have never known the Pentagon deliberately not to build some redundancy into a critical system.
I see our local zoomer was wetting himself on the previous thread over an old story that Jersey might "declare itself independent of the UK".
One problem, Jersey is not part of the UK...
Possibly the worst point ever made on pb. Jersey is a dependency of the UK. A declaration that that would cease to be the case would therefore constitute Jersey declaring itself independent of the UK.
What is a zoomer?
It's what Unionists call Indy supporters. I'd imagine the silly old trout that's appointed herself my stalker is unaware of its origins.
It's a stupid article. By far the bulk of the cost will go into production of passports. The design issue is very minor, a) the passports have to change if we leave the EU because we will no longer be in the EU, and b) the change will be minor as passports follow an ICAO standard, so all that can change is the colour and the graphical design.
Mr. D., I read that article as saying the US submarine was paying a planned visit to Gibraltar (probably to give its crew some fresh air and a chance to go out on the pop) and whilst there took the opportunity to fix some bit of kit that had gone wrong.
Nuclear attack boats are often at sea for extended periods, commonly much longer than the ballistic missile boats, which work to a regular schedule. So a safe port where they can put in, restock and give the crew a chance to let off steam in a safe environment and get kit fixed, probably does count as servicing. The same of course applies to the surface fleets of both navies.
Dura_Ace, I think, probably knows more about this than any of us, but it is my understanding that Gibraltar was, and maybe still is, the first and last port of call for RN ships heading South or East.
Hurst, must idle most of the time given the dearth of ships we have in our "navy" nowadays, can we even call it that any more. Swiss probably have more ships than UK.
A bit of an exaggeration there, Mr. G., but I agree with your general point. To call the present state of the RN as a disgrace is like describing gang rape as a mild social deviation.
"Look, everybody, this has to be a compromise. We will have to make deals with the EU. And we will have to make peace with each other. To do so, we will have to realise that, among civilised people, nobody ever gets everything he wants.
What is the point of an independent nation split into two solitudes which won’t speak to or listen to each other?"
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
And the great thing is if voters dislike living under a "low tax low public spending Atlanticist" government they can kick them out at the next election
Not if you are a colony like Scotland, only England can chuck them out.
Not true. Scotland made the choice not to have a Labour government in 2015. With 50 more Labour MPs (and 50 fewer SNP) Ed Miliband would be PM and we wouldn't be leaving the EU.
A negative power is not quite as strong as a positive one but if used correctly it is very significant
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
And the great thing is if voters dislike living under a "low tax low public spending Atlanticist" government they can kick them out at the next election
Not if you are a colony like Scotland, only England can chuck them out.
Not true. Scotland made the choice not to have a Labour government in 2015. With 50 more Labour MPs (and 50 fewer SNP) Ed Miliband would be PM and we wouldn't be leaving the EU.
A negative power is not quite as strong as a positive one but if used correctly it is very significant
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
And the great thing is if voters dislike living under a "low tax low public spending Atlanticist" government they can kick them out at the next election
Not if you are a colony like Scotland, only England can chuck them out.
Not true. Scotland made the choice not to have a Labour government in 2015. With 50 more Labour MPs (and 50 fewer SNP) Ed Miliband would be PM and we wouldn't be leaving the EU.
Errr, given the Tories have a majority how could 50 SNP to Lab transfer have stopped a Tory Majority?
"Look, everybody, this has to be a compromise. We will have to make deals with the EU. And we will have to make peace with each other. To do so, we will have to realise that, among civilised people, nobody ever gets everything he wants.
What is the point of an independent nation split into two solitudes which won’t speak to or listen to each other?"
I assume the new passports would come in force as they are renewed and the cost will be paid as it is now on the application
hopefully my passport will still be valid for 6yrs after exit, I want to avoid(for as long as possible) being treated as vermin by the French.
We have two years to exit plus a transistional period upto 3 years so a max of 5 years before new passports come into force
Mine expires in 2018, I'm hoping I don't have to renew it, and then renew again once we leave. I don't get why it would cost so much to replace with blue passports, surely all that needs changing is taking the European Union wording off the cover and swapping a colour palette?
Low tax, low regulation and low public spending sounds fine to me!!
The EU don't think it's fine for the UK go down that route on their doorstep though! Once we leave their protective cocoon, we can buy our food from Africa and our steel from China if we want, to give two examples of trade advantage in a post-Brexit UK.
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
And the great thing is if voters dislike living under a "low tax low public spending Atlanticist" government they can kick them out at the next election
Not if you are a colony like Scotland, only England can chuck them out.
Not true. Scotland made the choice not to have a Labour government in 2015. With 50 more Labour MPs (and 50 fewer SNP) Ed Miliband would be PM and we wouldn't be leaving the EU.
Errr, given the Tories have a majority how could 50 SNP to Lab transfer have stopped a Tory Majority?
Don't ask difficult questions this early on a Sunday morning
It is no longer true to say polls of Macron v Le Pen show Le Pen being annihilated. Odoxa last week for example had it Macron 26% Le Pen 25% in round 1 and Macron 59% and Le Pen 41% in round 2. So Le Pen is now polling the same as UK Labour in round 1 and just 4% behind Trump's November 2016 total in round 2, that is higher than a far right party has ever polled in France and indeed Europe for decades as far as I can see and while Macron should win he also has not toughened his rhetoric on immigration in quite the way Rutte did to see off Wilders. http://www.odoxa.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Intention-de-vote-presidentielle-Dentsu-Consulting-LePoint-31-03-17.pdf
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
I read yesterday how the NSA are REALLY narked at GCHQ being traduced - they regard them as brothers in arms - unlike the CIA, who they are much less close to.
I assume the new passports would come in force as they are renewed and the cost will be paid as it is now on the application
hopefully my passport will still be valid for 6yrs after exit, I want to avoid(for as long as possible) being treated as vermin by the French.
We have two years to exit plus a transistional period upto 3 years so a max of 5 years before new passports come into force
Mine expires in 2018, I'm hoping I don't have to renew it, and then renew again once we leave. I don't get why it would cost so much to replace with blue passports, surely all that needs changing is taking the European Union wording off the cover and swapping a colour palette?
Good point and just another one of many unanswered questions
Low tax, low regulation and low public spending sounds fine to me!!
No evidence you will get that from May and Hammond, as her conference speech and his first budget made clear economically they are left of Cameron and Osborne if still well to the right of Corbyn and McDonnell
Not true. Scotland made the choice not to have a Labour government in 2015. With 50 more Labour MPs (and 50 fewer SNP) Ed Miliband would be PM and we wouldn't be leaving the EU.
A negative power is not quite as strong as a positive one but if used correctly it is very significant
Your grasp of arithmetic is...interesting.
2015 GE
Cons 330 seats The rest incl. 56 SNP seats 320 Con maj. 10
Charlesworld 2015 GE where numbers don't mean anything
Cons 330 seats The rest incl. 50 SLab seats 320 Ed Miliband would be PM and we wouldn't be leaving the EU
Just saw a report from Dover and it showed HGV's pouring into the UK from Europe. Does anyone really believe the businesses in Europe are going to allow their goods to have UK import tariffs applied to them if Europe applies tariffs to us.
How is it more broken now than at any time in the recent past? What has changed?
Surprised you ask that question. Does it look like it's working?
Are you blown away by the talent on the green benches? Do you feel it has the finger on the pulse of the country or cutting edge thought? Is it OK that 4M voters have zero represention? Are we getting any meaningful scrutiny?
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The right wing Tory Brexiteer fantasy is undoubtedly a low tax, low regulation, low public spending Atanticist island that is as cut off from Europe as possible. Funnily enough, they never spell this out to voters. They seek to achieve it by stealth.
So is it time for people to stop fighting the referendum and start thinking about an alternative Brexit?
Mr. D., I read that article as saying the US submarine was paying a planned visit to Gibraltar (probably to give its crew some fresh air and a chance to go out on the pop) and whilst there took the opportunity to fix some bit of kit that had gone wrong.
Nuclear attack boats are often at sea for extended periods, commonly much longer than the ballistic missile boats, which work to a regular schedule. So a safe port where they can put in, restock and give the crew a chance to let off steam in a safe environment and get kit fixed, probably does count as servicing. The same of course applies to the surface fleets of both navies.
Dura_Ace, I think, probably knows more about this than any of us, but it is my understanding that Gibraltar was, and maybe still is, the first and last port of call for RN ships heading South or East.
Hurst, must idle most of the time given the dearth of ships we have in our "navy" nowadays, can we even call it that any more. Swiss probably have more ships than UK.
A bit of an exaggeration there, Mr. G., but I agree with your general point. To call the present state of the RN as a disgrace is like describing gang rape as a mild social deviation.
Hurst , but not much, given we have twice as many Admirals as we have ships there is something very wrong.
So we just make it less safe for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe?
You are just repeating in what you hope are more emotive terms an argument which has already been debunked. But anyway the most likely outcome is: we make it as safe as it is now for tens of millions of British citizens to live, work and travel in Europe, and Europe makes it safe for tens of millions of European citizens to live, work and travel in Britain.
When I consider the word "reciprocity" I ask myself whether there is a four-syllable upper bound on concepts which remainers are able to process.
The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, skilled diplomats, capable armed forces, effective intelligence services, the best sigint agency in the world, and considerable expertise on fighting terrorism and organised crime. We are a member of five eyes. We make a considerable contribution to European security via co-operation on policing, intelligence, defence and foreign policy. We have a world-class air force, logistics and naval resources. We help secure the Med, and both Gibraltar and Cyprus are key. And we participate in the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, Eurojust and the Schengen databases.
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
And the great thing is if voters dislike living under a "low tax low public spending Atlanticist" government they can kick them out at the next election
Not if you are a colony like Scotland, only England can chuck them out.
Not tr
Errr, given the Tories have a majority how could 50 SNP to Lab transfer have stopped a Tory Majority?
Comments
On Wednesday Theresa May strapped the country to the operating table ready for its organs to be harvested.
In fact, it's all he does.
If we are not talking about making the EU less secure, then there is no negotiating point.
give me unity, but not just yet
The UK and EU deciding not to comprehensively cooperate in security matters would not be preferable for either the UK or the EU.
It would hurt the EU far more. That makes it a card.
We know the EU are worried about it because of the level of protestation they made on the A50 letter, despite it being gently mentioned only a handful of times, just as we know they are also worried about the UK becoming an offshore Singapore, as they put a comprehensive anti-dumping clause in their draft European Council negotiating guidelines as well.
The official Spanish position now repeated is only a surprise to those who have believed the total rubbish which passes for reporting in the UK press.
This is something you consistently miss. You know this and, given your considerable intelligence, this is probably deliberate because you ethically object to HMG making an issue of it during the negotiations, and are embarrassed by the Brexit decision itself.
And the priorities of some Leavers, who would happily see our security diminished so long as others' security is diminished more, but who would give the shirt off their back in response to a so-far unidentified threat to Gibraltar, is beyond satire.
Britain has some useful cards in a generally poor hand. It is not playing them at all yet.
Isn't the £500mn bill bonkers??
And the EU's EverCloserUnion.
But whether there is or not some people are going to be disappointed as not all the things being projected upon Macron are the same.
http://chronicle.gi/2016/02/mod-confirms-non-nuclear-maintenance-on-us-submarine/
A ten year deal (at a guess) would be £50m p.a to produce 6-7m passports a year.
Unit cost?
Of course their are extremists on both sides of the argument but they are very much in a minority and do need to be called out when necessary
Consider the following situation, though.
Through signals intelligence, the UK discovers that a French person, in the aviation industry, is working for Russia.
Do we :
1) Tell the French
2) Offer to sell the information for a trade-in-kind
3) Offer to sell the information for cash, to the French
4) Offer to sell the information in return for... Cueta?
5) Ask the Russians for something not to tell the French
6) Turn the agent and use him/her to send false information to Russia, to our advantage. The leakage of real French secrets would have to continue, to make our false information believable.
Before considering the options, consider this.
During the Yugoslav wars, French intelligence services were selling UN/NATO information to the Serbs - mostly in return for information.
This included warnings of recon overflights - which the Serbs used to hide ceasefire breaches (moving equipment when it wouln't be seen) and even cover up war crimes (dig up and move bodies when no-one was watching).
This resulted in (ironically) in the shooting down of a French recon aircraft - the Serb commanders wanted more leverage and tried to down an American recon plane. The French didn't realise this, and sold the flight plans as before. However, strangely, someone switched flight plans in the database - so the French gave the Serbs the details of a French flight....
https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1533373
It appalls, but does not surprise that our government is yet to fill 20 Senior Policy Advisor jobs 9 months after the vote, and with negotiations imminent. Its almost as if there is no plan.
Our card is our market. 30 million stodgy Brits used to a German car in the drive, holidays in the Costas, and brie and wine in the fridge. The current terms of trade are clearly very skewed in the EU's favour.
10m Brit tourists * 10 days average = 100m Brit days in Europe.
That's equivalent to less than 1.5 days of French populations days.
It it's also a muddle headed way to analyse risk. FWIW I believe tgd government puts a value of GBP1m on each life in considering expenditure levels (on a CBA basis)
Nuclear attack boats are often at sea for extended periods, commonly much longer than the ballistic missile boats, which work to a regular schedule. So a safe port where they can put in, restock and give the crew a chance to let off steam in a safe environment and get kit fixed, probably does count as servicing. The same of course applies to the surface fleets of both navies.
Dura_Ace, I think, probably knows more about this than any of us, but it is my understanding that Gibraltar was, and maybe still is, the first and last port of call for RN ships heading South or East.
What is the point of an independent nation split into two solitudes which won’t speak to or listen to each other?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
A negative power is not quite as strong as a positive one but if used correctly it is very significant
(But it could easily be the annual flow coat not the stock replacement cost - I have no idea)
Once we leave their protective cocoon, we can buy our food from Africa and our steel from China if we want, to give two examples of trade advantage in a post-Brexit UK.
http://www.odoxa.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Intention-de-vote-presidentielle-Dentsu-Consulting-LePoint-31-03-17.pdf
2015 GE
Cons 330 seats
The rest incl. 56 SNP seats 320
Con maj. 10
Charlesworld 2015 GE where numbers don't mean anything
Cons 330 seats
The rest incl. 50 SLab seats 320
Ed Miliband would be PM and we wouldn't be leaving the EU
Are you blown away by the talent on the green benches? Do you feel it has the finger on the pulse of the country or cutting edge thought? Is it OK that 4M voters have zero represention? Are we getting any meaningful scrutiny?
Broken doesn't get close.