You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
No Alastair - it makes complete sense. The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks and, as we all know it sometimes seems to do it with a sense of bloodymindedness that is breathtaking.
The EU bureaucrats will enforce the legal agreements. That is their job. The politicians are constrained by EU law.
It will frustrate them too, but if you start trying to ignore the law and have tantrums about it, then you might as well call yourself "Donald"
Don't be ridiculous the entire thing is up for negotiations at the moment.
When the UK hinted that defense might be tied to the economic agreement the EU reacted with exaggerated horror and got the UK to agree that defense was imperative to be agreed separately with full security.
Having negotiators creating divisions in security does not fulfil that ambition. The EU is using that line as its backfired not because that was the reason.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
Brexit 2016: Merkel can't afford to lose our business Brexit 2018: How dare Merkel steal our business!
Mr. Walker, might that not be a vicious circle, though?
......
The Northern Powerhouse isn't a bad idea, though the focus should be Manchester and Leeds (two large cities very close together). Trying to make Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc into a northern equivalent of London, though, is optimistic at best. Of course, it'd help if work on transport weren't cancelled when funds were suddenly withdrawn (Leeds by itself has blown tens if not hundreds of millions on plans for a tram system which has been proposed and then axed by multiple governments).
Yes, it is a vicious circle. But London’s success is not at the expense of the rest. Rather, the whole system structurally discriminates against the regions.
The Northern Powerhouse is based on the idea that “urban agglomeration” drives productivity (hence, let’s connect the Northern Cities) because firms are able to access a larger pool of skills.
I agree wrt Newcastle being too distant here, but to reduce Northern Powerhouse to a Manchester-Leeds thing is too reductionist. It should focus on the central core of Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield, and in particular excluding Manchester-Sheffield from major consideration ignores the most glaring connectivity black hole in the north, if not the whole UK.
What hotch potch idea remains of "HS3" already looks like a 2 year old's scribble of a straight line, essing from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, up and then almost encircling central Manchester, then weaving to Leeds through Roch/Calder Valley (actually that last bit is fairly comparable with the current Tame/Colne route). Journey time is king, but still...
Sheffield shot itself in the foot over HS2 somewhat, being excluded from HS3 entirely is pretty terrible for it.
As I tried to say, the issue is less about connecting cities up in a string, it’s about helping commuters *inside* Manchester get about freely.
But we should be doing both, taking advantage of ultra low interest rates.
John McDonnell are you listening? I know Philip Hammond sure as hell ain’t.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
Out of defence and intelligence collaboration is is too then.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
I think the EU is being stupid. But at the end of the day, it’s a rule based institution - it *has* to be to cope with 27 different members.
Galileo is a metaphor for the whole Brexit project.
We were in, and doing well from it. Now it looks like we might be out, and will have to reproduce it if we are to keep up with the modern economy - but at vastly greater expense.
I agree that acting like this is definitely against the EU's best interests. It is certainly not in our interest to have this happen. It is a divorce. Notoriously messy and neither party really wins.
I agree with this assessment by Ivan Rodgers of our options post-Brexit, although he is a lot more Eurosceptic than I am. A "pragmatist" outcome is unlikely because the EU is unlikely to make special concessions for a country that very unpragmatically chose to reject membership. At the same time there isn't a realistic outcome for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU on the EU's terms. The most likely outcome is full alignment with the EU on a rule-taking basis with - maybe - a concession on freedom of movement.
Worth the long read if you are interested in this subject
I agree wrt Newcastle being too distant here, but to reduce Northern Powerhouse to a Manchester-Leeds thing is too reductionist. It should focus on the central core of Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield, and in particular excluding Manchester-Sheffield from major consideration ignores the most glaring connectivity black hole in the north, if not the whole UK.
What hotch potch idea remains of "HS3" already looks like a 2 year old's scribble of a straight line, essing from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, up and then almost encircling central Manchester, then weaving to Leeds through Roch/Calder Valley (actually that last bit is fairly comparable with the current Tame/Colne route). Journey time is king, but still...
Sheffield shot itself in the foot over HS2 somewhat, being excluded from HS3 entirely is pretty terrible for it.
It should definitely include Liverpool. Already you can drive from Liverpool to Manchester without ever leaving an urban area - the cities and surrounding towns on the M62 corridor have grown into each other.
Although having said that if transport were the only consideration already there already is a lot of motorway/rail etc infrastructure between Liverpool and Manchester but that hasn't developed a 'powerhouse' there.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
I agree that is good tactics. Strategically, of course, it’s a fucking disaster.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Actually it does have to do with rules that exclude third countries from participation in Galileo at the highest level. The question is whether the EU will make a exception for the UK in exchange for something the EU wants. This will take time to play out I think. My guess is that there will something eventually for the UK but it will be part of a bigger deal and the the UK will need to make a lot more concessions than it is in the mindframe for at the moment.
Mr. Walker, might that not be a vicious circle, though?
......
The Northern Powerhouse isn't a bad idea, though the focus should be Manchester and Leeds (two large cities very close together). Trying to make Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc into a northern equivalent of London, though, is optimistic at best. Of course, it'd help if work on transport weren't cancelled when funds were suddenly withdrawn (Leeds by itself has blown tens if not hundreds of millions on plans for a tram system which has been proposed and then axed by multiple governments).
Yes, it is a vicious circle. But London’s success is not at the expense of the rest. Rather, the whole system structurally discriminates against the regions.
The Northern Powerhouse is based on the idea that “urban agglomeration” drives productivity (hence, let’s connect the Northern Cities) because firms are able to access a larger pool of skills.
I agree wrt Newcastle being too distant here, but to reduce Northern Powerhouse to a Manchester-Leeds thing is too reductionist. It should focus on the central core of Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield, and in particular excluding Manchester-Sheffield from major consideration ignores the most glaring connectivity black hole in the north, if not the whole UK.
What hotch potch idea remains of "HS3" already looks like a 2 year old's scribble of a straight line, essing from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, up and then almost encircling central Manchester, then weaving to Leeds through Roch/Calder Valley (actually that last bit is fairly comparable with the current Tame/Colne route). Journey time is king, but still...
Sheffield shot itself in the foot over HS2 somewhat, being excluded from HS3 entirely is pretty terrible for it.
As I tried to say, the issue is less about connecting cities up in a string, it’s about helping commuters *inside* Manchester get about freely.
But we should be doing both, taking advantage of ultra low interest rates.
John McDonnell are you listening? I know Philip Hammond sure as hell ain’t.
I look at the current building boom in Manchester, and I suspect my proposal is by now a centralising extension of the Manchester commuter belt rather than something more distributed, as sucking from the other cities as HS2 is said to be. But, hey, I'll settle for that.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
No Alastair - it makes complete sense. The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks and, as we all know it sometimes seems to do it with a sense of bloodymindedness that is breathtaking.
The EU bureaucrats will enforce the legal agreements. That is their job. The politicians are constrained by EU law.
It will frustrate them too, but if you start trying to ignore the law and have tantrums about it, then you might as well call yourself "Donald"
The rules matter until they turn out to be malleable in practice.
I agree wrt Newcastle being too distant here, but to reduce Northern Powerhouse to a Manchester-Leeds thing is too reductionist. It should focus on the central core of Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield, and in particular excluding Manchester-Sheffield from major consideration ignores the most glaring connectivity black hole in the north, if not the whole UK.
What hotch potch idea remains of "HS3" already looks like a 2 year old's scribble of a straight line, essing from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, up and then almost encircling central Manchester, then weaving to Leeds through Roch/Calder Valley (actually that last bit is fairly comparable with the current Tame/Colne route). Journey time is king, but still...
Sheffield shot itself in the foot over HS2 somewhat, being excluded from HS3 entirely is pretty terrible for it.
It should definitely include Liverpool. Already you can drive from Liverpool to Manchester without ever leaving an urban area - the cities and surrounding towns on the M62 corridor have grown into each other.
Although having said that if transport were the only consideration already there already is a lot of motorway/rail etc infrastructure between Liverpool and Manchester but that hasn't developed a 'powerhouse' there.
There is very little commuting between Liverpool and Manchester. The problem there is not, as you say, inter transport links.
I agree wrt Newcastle being too distant here, but to reduce Northern Powerhouse to a Manchester-Leeds thing is too reductionist. It should focus on the central core of Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield, and in particular excluding Manchester-Sheffield from major consideration ignores the most glaring connectivity black hole in the north, if not the whole UK.
What hotch potch idea remains of "HS3" already looks like a 2 year old's scribble of a straight line, essing from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, up and then almost encircling central Manchester, then weaving to Leeds through Roch/Calder Valley (actually that last bit is fairly comparable with the current Tame/Colne route). Journey time is king, but still...
Sheffield shot itself in the foot over HS2 somewhat, being excluded from HS3 entirely is pretty terrible for it.
It should definitely include Liverpool. Already you can drive from Liverpool to Manchester without ever leaving an urban area - the cities and surrounding towns on the M62 corridor have grown into each other.
Although having said that if transport were the only consideration already there already is a lot of motorway/rail etc infrastructure between Liverpool and Manchester but that hasn't developed a 'powerhouse' there.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
No Alastair - it makes complete sense. The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks and, as we all know it sometimes seems to do it with a sense of bloodymindedness that is breathtaking.
The EU bureaucrats will enforce the legal agreements. That is their job. The politicians are constrained by EU law.
It will frustrate them too, but if you start trying to ignore the law and have tantrums about it, then you might as well call yourself "Donald"
Don't be ridiculous the entire thing is up for negotiations at the moment.
When the UK hinted that defense might be tied to the economic agreement the EU reacted with exaggerated horror and got the UK to agree that defense was imperative to be agreed separately with full security.
Having negotiators creating divisions in security does not fulfil that ambition. The EU is using that line as its backfired not because that was the reason.
So Brexit means "mostly Brexit"?
Comedy gold.
No co-operation means co-operation and can occur outside the parameters of the EU.
We are are the only Five Eyes nation in the EU. We still manage to have the worlds best intelligence network without being it being organised in the EU.
If the EU wants to co-operate with us then they can do all that goes with it.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
I really don't get it either. The Mail have said the French are not happy with the EU over this either and given they are the only other major military power in Europe it does show the flaws of letting Germany decide that they want German companies to get the plum contracts by excluding the UK from a defence programme.
Germany are, again, the problem country. They are an incredibly unreliable partner.
Thank goodness we are leaving and want nothing more to do with the whole damn project.
I await the day when you really mean that. I feel like it won't be long, given what is unfolding in Italy.
If you really mean it why are you getting in a tizzy about Galileo?
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
I agree that is good tactics. Strategically, of course, it’s a fucking disaster.
For them, they have a huge defence and security deficit. They can't rely on one nation to step up. Especially now that the US seems much less interested in European defence.
If not giving the UK a free trade deal is a lose/lose that favours them, not giving the EU a defence partnership is a lose/lose that favours the UK. Of that there is no doubt.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
If Britain is going to build and invest in a northern powerhouse, which cities and towns is it implicitly going to leave to decline?
It’s already leaving them to decline.
It should be obvious though that if you are a small or middle-sized town more than an hour away from a large metro - ie too far to commute - and you’re not a tourist destination or a university town - you’re fucked.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
I agree that is good tactics. Strategically, of course, it’s a fucking disaster.
For them, they have a huge defence and security deficit. They can't rely on one nation to step up. Especially now that the US seems much less interested in European defence.
If not giving the UK a free trade deal is a lose/lose that favours them, not giving the EU a defence partnership is a lose/lose that favours the UK. Of that there is no doubt.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
I agree that is good tactics. Strategically, of course, it’s a fucking disaster.
For them, they have a huge defence and security deficit. They can't rely on one nation to step up. Especially now that the US seems much less interested in European defence.
If not giving the UK a free trade deal is a lose/lose that favours them, not giving the EU a defence partnership is a lose/lose that favours the UK. Of that there is no doubt.
Do you believe that becoming a strategic rival to the EU is an option?
If Britain is going to build and invest in a northern powerhouse, which cities and towns is it implicitly going to leave to decline?
It’s already leaving them to decline.
It should be obvious though that if you are a small or middle-sized town more than an hour away from a large metro - ie too far to commute - and you’re not a tourist destination or a university town - you’re fucked.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
Less cooperation is always a bad thing. That Brexiteers are happy to countenance not only endangering British jobs, but also British lives, is quite a thing.
Test cricket is more boring than it used to be because most of the characters and eccentrics have disappeared from the game. Also the umpires are mostly indistinguishable from each other. They've been standardised.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
Less cooperation is always a bad thing. That Brexiteers are happy to countenance not only endangering British jobs, but also British lives, is quite a thing.
No we want co-operation. It has to be reciprocated though and in good faith.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
Less cooperation is always a bad thing. That Brexiteersthe EU are happy to countenance endangering European British lives, is quite a thing.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
Less cooperation is always a bad thing. That Brexiteersthe EU are happy to countenance endangering European British lives, is quite a thing.
That is why it is stupid of the EU. But it perhaps less stupid for narrow German economic interests, and Martin Selmayr simply has to point to the rulebook.
Previously, we had a strong voice in these kinds of decisions.
Test cricket is more boring than it used to be because most of the characters and eccentrics have disappeared from the game. Also the umpires are mostly indistinguishable from each other. They've been standardised.
EU27 PRIORITIES Survey respondents were asked to list the two things the EU should discuss as a matter of priority. This is the top 10, backed by Eurobarometer respondents Fighting terrorism: 49 Youth Unemployment: 45 Immigration: 45
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
Yes - let us get the Germans and French armed to the teeth whilst we stand back safely on the other side of the Channel.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
You’ve just rearticulated my point - at much greater length.
It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
Yes - let us get the Germans and French armed to the teeth whilst we stand back safely on the other side of the Channel.
What could possibly go wrong?
The French already are and we have a mutual defence treaty with them, we share defence hardware and intelligence. That agreement is outside of the scope of the EU and will continue afterwards. As for the Germans, lets see them actually spend the money before proclaiming them as armed to the teeth.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
Less cooperation is always a bad thing. That Brexiteersthe EU are happy to countenance endangering European British lives, is quite a thing.
It’s not EU threatening to reduce security and defence cooperation. It’s the Brexit loons. They are prepared to sacrifice anything, even British lives, if they don’t get their way.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
Yes - let us get the Germans and French armed to the teeth whilst we stand back safely on the other side of the Channel.
What could possibly go wrong?
Cod wars.
The Uk having to defend its fishing waters against Spanish and French factory trawler ships.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
You’ve just rearticulated my point - at much greater length.
It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them.
Wake up, Max.
I am awake, it is you that needs to wake up. The EU should no longer be treated as an ally. Individual nations within the EU, yes, but not the EU as the organisation.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
Yes - let us get the Germans and French armed to the teeth whilst we stand back safely on the other side of the Channel.
What could possibly go wrong?
Cod wars.
The Uk having to defend its fishing waters against Spanish and French factory trawler ships.
I am more worried by the last 200 years of European history. Heavily armed European nations have never been a good thing.
In fact, much of the last 1000 years has had the same outcome...
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
Yes - let us get the Germans and French armed to the teeth whilst we stand back safely on the other side of the Channel.
What could possibly go wrong?
Cod wars.
The Uk having to defend its fishing waters against Spanish and French factory trawler ships.
BTW - one (Dutch?) trawler has already purchased the rights to 25% of the UK cod catch. It is a British flagged ship.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
Do they mean the missile launcher was fired by members of the Russian armed forces? A weapon can be used by anyone who knows how to use it - people are members of armed forces not objects.
Perhaps that's the problem with tweets!
It seems unclear: the vehicles and missiles are part of the Russian armed forces; it may not be that the operations crew were. (Or more likely given history, that there was a mixed crew of Ukranian rebels and Russian 'advisers').
"But on Thursday Wilbert Paulissen, a Dutch official from the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), told reporters: "All the vehicles in a convoy carrying the missile were part of the Russian armed forces."
He said investigators had traced the convoy to Russia's 53rd brigade."
The Putin regime is up to it's evil little necks in it.
Where's LuckyGuy to post the latest Russian line?
I thought you told us you were joining the army so as to take part in the forthcoming UK invasion of Russia...or did I read your hysterical posts in the wake of the spy poisonings wrongly?
I take it you don't actually have an argument against what I wrote.
I fear you might find your defences of Russia becoming ever more ludicrous. I say 'fear', as Russia's actions are not good for the world. Sadly, people such as yourself have their heads in the sand, and are willing to find ludicrous excuses for Russia's actions.
Cummings of course being the man who produced all the Vote Leave posters promising millions more from the NHS and the threat of mass migration from Turkey them having narrowly won the referendum left the government with actually having to implement Brexit
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
Perhaps Selmayr is a Russian mole...
Would explain a lot, including his inexplicable rise to where he is now. He shares a lot with Trump.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
As I recall, it was always common knowledge that both the EU and the UK would be diminished by Brexit.
Few divorces have a happy outcome
I don't agree with that, few divorces are happy but many people are happier after they're divorced especially once they've moved on.
Just because divorce is messy doesn't mean we should stay in an unhappy 28-person polygamous marriage.
How fortunate for you that you will soon have your wish.
My grandparents divorced before I was born, remarried and have been happily married now for nearly 40 years in their current relationships. From the stories I've been told theirs was a messy divorce but I'm glad they found something better.
We shouldn't be afraid of divorce if its the right thing to do.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
Less cooperation is always a bad thing. That Brexiteersthe EU are happy to countenance endangering European British lives, is quite a thing.
It’s not EU threatening to reduce security and defence cooperation.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
That works until it turns out that Brits killed by terrorists in a European attack could have been saved if the UK government had not decided to stop cooperating on security and intelligence issues. At that point it becomes a scandal and political poison.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
Yes - let us get the Germans and French armed to the teeth whilst we stand back safely on the other side of the Channel.
What could possibly go wrong?
Cod wars.
The Uk having to defend its fishing waters against Spanish and French factory trawler ships.
I am more worried by the last 200 years of European history. Heavily armed European nations have never been a good thing.
In fact, much of the last 1000 years has had the same outcome...
This again. That was when we mattered on the world stage and were in a position to seek plunder around the globe. For Europe that is no longer the case. which may well be a happier state of affairs for its population of course.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Isn't Brexit chaos enough for you, do you want to foist upon us a political administrative body like Trump's?
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
No Alastair - it makes complete sense. The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks and, as we all know it sometimes seems to do it with a sense of bloodymindedness that is breathtaking.
The EU bureaucrats will enforce the legal agreements. That is their job. The politicians are constrained by EU law.
It will frustrate them too, but if you start trying to ignore the law and have tantrums about it, then you might as well call yourself "Donald"
Being slightly charitable, I think you are being somewhat naive in saying "The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks". The EU is driven by the want to protect itself and expand its own powers over an increasing number of areas. The EU is quite happy to turn a blind eye or find a solution when it suits itself or one of its key players such as Germany or France. Sometimes you want to ascribe the worst to anything that happens on the British side and the best to anything that is done by the EU.
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concerns
The mistake that many people make though, I suspect, is that because many voters supported Leave it must be a key salient issue for them. The reality is likely to be different - for most voters it is a low-level highly technical issue which swings relatively few votes.There is a big difference between seeing an issue as 'important' - which Brexit clearly is - and 'salient' - which it probably is not ( London may be an exception in some areas). I also tend to the view that the wide variations in election results across the UK in 2017 owed far more to attitudes to Corbyn - rather than Brexit.Corbyn is a much more salient factor - and ,in particular, he alienates many traditional white working class Labour voters.Crucial to Labour's prospects next time is the extent to which they remain alienated.
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
No Alastair - it makes complete sense. The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks and, as we all know it sometimes seems to do it with a sense of bloodymindedness that is breathtaking.
The EU bureaucrats will enforce the legal agreements. That is their job. The politicians are constrained by EU law.
It will frustrate them too, but if you start trying to ignore the law and have tantrums about it, then you might as well call yourself "Donald"
The rules matter until they turn out to be malleable in practice.
Quite, absolutely ridiculous to claim that the EU are a body that follows their own laws.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
That works until it turns out that Brits killed by terrorists in a European attack could have been saved if the UK government had not decided to stop cooperating on security and intelligence issues. At that point it becomes a scandal and political poison.
Terrorist attack in Europe, UK gets the blame? Are you aware how ridiculous you sound?
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Isn't Brexit chaos enough for you, do you want to foist upon us a political administrative body like Trump's?
Mortimer has a rule which is that any news which looks good for Remain turns out to be good for Brexit.
My rule is that Brexiters will malign and attack any institution to defend a pure Brexit. I called it a death cult in late 2016. As a metaphor, it still works.
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concerns
The mistake that many people make though, I suspect, is that because many voters supported Leave it must be a key salient issue for them. The reality is likely to be different - for most voters it is a low-level highly technical issue which swings relatively few votes.There is a big difference between seeing an issue as 'important' - which Brexit clearly is - and 'salient' - which it probably is not ( London may be an exception in some areas). I also tend to the view that the wide variations in election results across the UK in 2017 owed far more to attitudes to Corbyn - rather than Brexit.Corbyn is a much more salient factor - and ,in particular, he alienates many traditional white working class Labour voters.Crucial to Labour's prospects next time is the extent to which they remain alienated.
Corbyn neutralised the Brexit issue in 2017 by matching May's commitment to leave the EU and single market and end free movement while also promising to retain the benefits of the Customs Union and single market.
He cannot have his cake and eat it for both Labour Remain and Leave voters for ever
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
That works until it turns out that Brits killed by terrorists in a European attack could have been saved if the UK government had not decided to stop cooperating on security and intelligence issues. At that point it becomes a scandal and political poison.
By cooperating, you mean doing their jobs for them.
I agree with this assessment by Ivan Rodgers of our options post-Brexit, although he is a lot more Eurosceptic than I am.
Funnily enough, reading that I started to wonder if May fired him because he was too much of a Eurosceptic and would have been too committed to making Brexit work.
The interesting thing about that article is that he refers to "trade off between sovereignty and maximising market access" whereas it for all the world appears that the current administration doesn't want to make any trade offs whatsoever.
It is very simple. You take all the sovereignty, market access is available via WTO rules. There is no real value in the single market. The stats make it clear that none of the EU has seen improved growth since it 'appeared' (in fact, EU growth since the GFC is laughable) and there is no evidence that being in the SM makes it easier to increase trade with the EU - at least half the countries that have increased their exports to the EU the most did so under WTO rules.
Once you reject the 'magical thinking' of the SM, Brexit becomes rather easy.
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
That works until it turns out that Brits killed by terrorists in a European attack could have been saved if the UK government had not decided to stop cooperating on security and intelligence issues. At that point it becomes a scandal and political poison.
Terrorist attack in Europe, UK gets the blame? Are you aware how ridiculous you sound?
My guess is, if the UK pulls out of co-operation with the EU on defence, Trump will see it as a great opportunity to ratchet up the pressure on Germany to spend more on defence by threatening to scale back US commitments, possibly by announcing simultaneously greater co-operation amongst the Five Eyes. Merkel might end up getting more than she bargained for.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
That works until it turns out that Brits killed by terrorists in a European attack could have been saved if the UK government had not decided to stop cooperating on security and intelligence issues. At that point it becomes a scandal and political poison.
Terrorist attack in Europe, UK gets the blame? Are you aware how ridiculous you sound?
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
Funny things EU rules. Like when Germany and France broke the 3% deficit rule, or Greece cooked the books to get in the Euro, or indeed when in fact Belgium and Italy would never have qualified for it too because of their debt to GDP ratio.
I’m sure there are loads of other examples where the “rules” were shall we say “interpreted” because it suited at the time? Of course should it not “suit”, those rules are immutable laws of physics without which the world will implode.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
e defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
That works until it turns out that Brits killed by terrorists in a European attack could have been saved if the UK government had not decided to stop cooperating on security and intelligence issues. At that point it becomes a scandal and political poison.
Terrorist attack in Europe, UK gets the blame? Are you aware how ridiculous you sound?
My guess is, if the UK pulls out of co-operation with the EU on defence, Trump will see it as a great opportunity to ratchet up the pressure on Germany to spend more on defence by threatening to scale back US commitments, possibly by announcing simultaneously greater co-operation amongst the Five Eyes. Merkel might end up getting more than she bargained for.
German defence spending is set to fall below 1.2% and the equipment budget cut in absolute terms because what is spent is going on wages....
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Citizens that have chosen to leave the UK. No one will give a flying fuck about the expats (and I speak as one).
Millions travel to Europe each year for holidays and to do business. People give a very big fuck about them.
Yes, and the Europeans will need to guarantee their safety just as we will when they visit the UK.
That works until it turns out that Brits killed by terrorists in a European attack could have been saved if the UK government had not decided to stop cooperating on security and intelligence issues. At that point it becomes a scandal and political poison.
Terrorist attack in Europe, UK gets the blame? Are you aware how ridiculous you sound?
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
By its very nature if the intelligence hasn't been shared then it won't come out.
The screed by Cummings is extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy - his Brexit is crumbling away before his eyes, to the extent that we might even be worse off than under EU membership. And this is all down to the amateur hour haplessly trying to implement it. Unfortunately, whether we blame the politicians - or the intractability of the project itself - this was always going to be the danger. The Leavers should have been more honest and prepared us for the hard graft.
Who exactly did he think was going to implement it?
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.
It's the Germans who think by excluding the UK their companies will get the prime contracts for the programme.
As predicted. Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
It also means no defence and security cooperation with the EU. I'm fairly comfortable with that and said a long time ago it should be on the table as part of any trade negotiation.
So Brexit also means the world becoming a more dangerous place for British citizens. It just gets better and better.
Only if you think the EU aren't up to the job without us.
Less cooperation is always a bad thing. That Brexiteersthe EU are happy to countenance endangering European British lives, is quite a thing.
It’s not EU threatening to reduce security and defence cooperation.
What do you call locking us out of Galileo?
Or are they only 'loons' when they are British?
We voted to Leave. Galileo is a project run by an organisation we no longer wish to be a part of.
This doesn’t make sense. You can claim that the EU stands to lose more. But the U.K. still loses.
Of course it makes sense, defence, like trade is becoming a zero sum game. At least when some of the major players don't adhere to the rules. It would cost Germany an additional €20-25bn per year to meet their NATO treaty obligations, and Europe as a whole would need to spend an additional €50-60bn just to get to 2% as a continent. Germany has been free-riding on UK and US defence spending for the better part of 20 years. Our blood and treasure is spent guaranteeing their security. That is fine as long as our goals are aligned and both sides benefit from it. Within the EU that was probably true and along with France it really was the two nations that set the defence and foreign policy agenda.
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
It’s JCR willy-waving that won’t survive a moment’s contact with the real world. A government that deliberately puts its own citizens at additional risk is not one that will survive for very long.
Who will Germany be defending itself against?
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
An excellent article. Cummings always knew that the UK civil service was incapable of implementing Brexit and so it has proven. Need to stop pretending that they are dreadfully clever chaps and accept that they are massively overrated and generally incompetent. Might be time to abandon the concept of an impartial administrative body as they clearly are not impartial.
Not true! SeanT assured us that his contact high up in the leave campaign (Boris?) said our blokes are world beaters, geared up and ready to make a killing.
UK government gets blame for not sharing information that could have prevented the attack. If you don’t understand that, don’t blame me!
That doesn't happen now when there are terrorist attacks outside of Europe. Or should the UK take the blame every time a terrorist decides to blow up a bunch of innocents and the government doesn't have an intelligence sharing agreement with said nation?
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.
Comments
Comedy gold.
Brexit 2018: How dare Merkel steal our business!
But we should be doing both, taking advantage of ultra low interest rates.
John McDonnell are you listening?
I know Philip Hammond sure as hell ain’t.
Brexit means more high value jobs, in France, in Germany, and in the Netherlands.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/18/nigel-farage-party-staffer-russian-embassy-smear-campaign-kremlin-critic
Although having said that if transport were the only consideration already there already is a lot of motorway/rail etc infrastructure between Liverpool and Manchester but that hasn't developed a 'powerhouse' there.
Strategically, of course, it’s a fucking disaster.
We are are the only Five Eyes nation in the EU. We still manage to have the worlds best intelligence network without being it being organised in the EU.
If the EU wants to co-operate with us then they can do all that goes with it.
https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/999580138613420032
If not giving the UK a free trade deal is a lose/lose that favours them, not giving the EU a defence partnership is a lose/lose that favours the UK. Of that there is no doubt.
It should be obvious though that if you are a small or middle-sized town more than an hour away from a large metro - ie too far to commute - and you’re not a tourist destination or a university town - you’re fucked.
You can claim that the EU stands to lose more.
But the U.K. still loses.
https://twitter.com/tony_nog/status/999562317829492737?s=21
Few divorces have a happy outcome
Polling shows that Brexiters believed they’d be better off post-Brexit, or at least suffer no economic damage. Last I saw, this belief persisted.
Just because divorce is messy doesn't mean we should stay in an unhappy 28-person polygamous marriage.
But it perhaps less stupid for narrow German economic interests, and Martin Selmayr simply has to point to the rulebook.
Previously, we had a strong voice in these kinds of decisions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44240047
Apparently, no one gave a monkeys about the economics
Root’s gone now!
Survey respondents were asked to list the two things the EU should discuss as a matter of priority. This is the top 10, backed by Eurobarometer respondents
Fighting terrorism: 49
Youth Unemployment: 45
Immigration: 45
https://www.politico.eu/article/europeans-love-the-eu-and-populists-too/
So losing cooperation with Britain is no biggie....
Now that we are leaving that zero sum game being played by Germany on defence (and trade) begins to make much less sense for us. It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them. Just as they are willing to live with whatever smaller losses they will incur if we leave without a trade deal, because they know it will hurt us more.
It's cold logic.
What could possibly go wrong?
It's true that we may lose out if there is no defence partnership with the EU. However, we'll just have to live with it in order to inflict the greater loss on them.
Wake up, Max.
Stoneman, Root and Malan all out.
Cod wars.
The Uk having to defend its fishing waters against Spanish and French factory trawler ships.
In fact, much of the last 1000 years has had the same outcome...
https://dominiccummings.com/2018/05/23/on-the-referendum-25-a-letter-to-tory-mps-donors-on-the-brexit-shambles/
We await Boycott's analysis of England's casual batting performance.
I fear you might find your defences of Russia becoming ever more ludicrous. I say 'fear', as Russia's actions are not good for the world. Sadly, people such as yourself have their heads in the sand, and are willing to find ludicrous excuses for Russia's actions.
We shouldn't be afraid of divorce if its the right thing to do.
Or are they only 'loons' when they are British?
My rule is that Brexiters will malign and attack any institution to defend a pure Brexit.
I called it a death cult in late 2016. As a metaphor, it still works.
He cannot have his cake and eat it for both Labour Remain and Leave voters for ever
Once you reject the 'magical thinking' of the SM, Brexit becomes rather easy.
Perhaps a Brexit clock, with the small hand showing how many minutes we are away from invading Spain?
I’m sure there are loads of other examples where the “rules” were shall we say “interpreted” because it suited at the time? Of course should it not “suit”, those rules are immutable laws of physics without which the world will implode.
It's adversary is Russia but Germany would rather the USA confronts Russia so that Germany can continue to trade happily with Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html
Maybe we should really be more worried about the threat to Democracy from the likes of Nick Clegg rather than the likes of Nigel Farage.
The very notion that we should do their work for them because they don't want to spend the money is ridiculous.