Brexit negotiations thread

[Tangled up in Blue]

At least we won't have to fund Spain with £billions after the break up with Catalonia :winking:

Cataluña won't get independence from Spain in my lifetime.They've been trying for 300 years without much success so far.:winking:

Our divorce bill will look good business once the almighty punch up starts with 27 family members at the EU funeral. Dress it up al you like but the EU is finished.

There won't be a wake in the EU when the UK finally leaves.Talk of the EU's eventual break up might give some succour to Leavers but it won't be happening any time soon, (if ever), either.

Luckily in Britain the majority can see through the lies and deceit of the criminals in Brussels and the self serving, so called experts and MP's that have been coning us all for decades. In the case of the Kinnock family to the tune of £10m.

That odious little creep Peter Mandelson, who screams the word wrong'un at me , Will receive an EU pension of more than £30,000 to top up his Westminster pension. Guess what under the EU rules if you ever publicly criticize them even after retirement then they can stop your pension. I'll wager the same amount that I have lost so far from my reduced Fire Service pension that Mandelson is a Remainer.

Clearly Mandelson was (and probably still is) a Remainer.Hardly a secret.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Wrong. Again!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/15/number-european-union-workers-britain-rises

There are currently around 3.6 million EU nationals living in the UK.That's some 6% of the population.It's reasonable to assume that number will fall, once the Brexit deal has been finalised and the UK finally leaves the EU.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

At least we won't have to fund Spain with £billions after the break up with Catalonia :winking:

Our divorce bill will look good business once the almighty punch up starts with 27 family members at the EU funeral. Dress it up al you like but the EU is finished.

Luckily in Britain the majority can see through the lies and deceit of the criminals in Brussels and the self serving, so called experts and MP's that have been coning us all for decades. In the case of the Kinnock family to the tune of £10m.

That odious little creep Peter Mandelson, who screams the word wrong'un at me , Will receive an EU pension of more than £30,000 to top up his Westminster pension. Guess what under the EU rules if you ever publicly criticize them even after retirement then they can stop your pension. I'll wager the same amount that I have lost so far from my reduced Fire Service pension that Mandelson is a Remainer.

paying a £40billion sweetener to a collective that is finished would sound like a very bad business deal - what are the Tories playing at?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Mladic gets "life" for the genocide of up to TEN THOUSAND Bosnians.
Now, HOW was it that Mladic was "allowed" to do this by disarming 600 Dutch peace keeper soldiers (who wanted to resist as they knew what was likely) but were ordered not to, and told that they would be unsupported by their French commanding General. And this happened just a week after French Guv (including President) met Serbian Guv and had some secret talks.
I can only guess at what was spoken in the talks; however it is apparent that the Serbs (always tricky buggers) sized up the fight and felt able to "go for it". Although there was a US aircraft carrier and many other support factions close.
I use this as an example of why I am afraid of the UK staying in the EU, and, inevitably (especially under Jezza) getting dragged into an EU military.
The Dutch no longer take part in EU missions.........wonder why?

would war in Serbia not have been a UN military matter not an EU matter?
Also I don't get the Jezza reference - Blair, Cameron, May - they all voted to get involved in other nations conflicts and Corbyn consistently voted not to.

 

[Benfleet A1]

would war in Serbia not have been a UN military matter not an EU matter?
Also I don't get the Jezza reference - Blair, Cameron, May - they all voted to get involved in other nations conflicts and Corbyn consistently voted not to.

I think the reference to Corbyn would be that under a EU controlled militery force he wouldn't have a choice in committing British forces which would conflict with both his own beliefs and obligations to the EU. That's my take on it anyway.

 

[rigsby]

paying a £40billion sweetener to a collective that is finished would sound like a very bad business deal - what are the Tories playing at?

Not if you read the link to Paul Embery's comments......Post 892. You did ask me for a link, so at least have the good manners to read it. :thumbsup:

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

would war in Serbia not have been a UN military matter not an EU matter?
Also I don't get the Jezza reference - Blair, Cameron, May - they all voted to get involved in other nations conflicts and Corbyn consistently voted not to.

My point was that such a multi national command structure DID not work in that case, and was very much under a French command (Germany take a back seat and largely logistics role in either UN or EU Missions) AND National interests were largely to blame for the massacre being "allowed".
Would you want a son/daughter left in a position the Dutch were? under a non Brit command?
This is largely why the USA (sometimes unfortunately) accepts the UK military as partners as the "song sheet" is similar and they trust the UK commanders to get the job done - a classic example was General Jackson entering Kosovo in 1999.
My POINT was, IS, that an EU Military would be about as useful as a chocolate tea pot and as well organised as a chimps' tea party with the funding equivalent of Norfolk Mountain Rescue.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Not if you read the link to Paul Embery's comments......Post 892. You did ask me for a link, so at least have the good manners to read it. :thumbsup:

I thought there was a ban on posting links rather than answering in your own words!I didn't realise a link had been posted but I'll have a look after work. Justifying paying £40billion to get access to a system that is about to implode will be an interesting read.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

My point was that such a multi national command structure DID not work in that case, and was very much under a French command (Germany take a back seat and largely logistics role in either UN or EU Missions) AND National interests were largely to blame for the massacre being "allowed".
Would you want a son/daughter left in a position the Dutch were? under a non Brit command?
This is largely why the USA (sometimes unfortunately) accepts the UK military as partners as the "song sheet" is similar and they trust the UK commanders to get the job done - a classic example was General Jackson entering Kosovo in 1999.
My POINT was, IS, that an EU Military would be about as useful as a chocolate tea pot and as well organised as a chimps' tea party with the funding equivalent of Norfolk Mountain Rescue.

so your argument is against UN in reality and an EU military in theory?

 

[rigsby]

I thought there was a ban on posting links rather than answering in your own words!I didn't realise a link had been posted but I'll have a look after work. Justifying paying £40billion to get access to a system that is about to implode will be an interesting read.

I'm not on a ban just can't do it from my computer. Thanks to my old mate Lordfooty he has posted it from the other Brexit thread.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm not on a ban just can't do it from my computer. Thanks to my old mate Lordfooty he has posted it from the other Brexit thread.

not an individual ban, a general ban on posting links rather than a personal point of view

 

[rigsby]

so your argument is against UN in reality and an EU military in theory?

Ridiculous idea.....We could end up sending our guys to enforce martial law in Catalonia in a few years time. When in reality as they are proud independent people, did you see those Firefighters defending their own innocent people from a brutal beating. We should give our full support.... Don't you think ?

Anyway doesn't matter, the point is the people we elect should decide where we send our troops and who to kill. If your fine with the slaughter of over 1m harmless Iraqi women and children because the US/Israeli war machine can con you with propaganda, then vote Blair or Tory....Its the same thing. If your not conned by the great modern War Racket vote Corbyn and he will stop it because he is no puppet to the US. The only down side is he might become best friends with people who just might want to kill us...Like McGuiness or Adams for example.

If Your the sort of person who doesn't want a convicted Somalian child rapist living next door because it would be inhumane to deport him but at the same time you absolutely know its a war crime to be bombing people in their own country. Then you probably are already a bit of a free thinker and should think Independent.

Just about the worst people I can think of to give control over our armed forces would be the corrupt criminals in Brussels. Absolutely not under any circumstances for all the obvious reasons. Including our proud history that some of you sneer at whilst enjoying your privilege gained by all those poor lads, some of whom don't even have a grave.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

so your argument is against UN in reality and an EU military in theory?

We are in the UN. Full stop etc. That isn't changing and all UN Missions are made up as necessity and volunteered contributions from supplying Nations. Very very different from NATO for example.
EU missions are limited in scope and strength; also very politically motivated.
What IS happened AND stated by Junker and Merkal, with the rest agreeing IS a declared intent for a European Union Military;- THAT is what I believe everyone (other than Russia, ISIS, Iraq, etc) ought to be VERY worried about,

 

[MK Shrimper]

We are in the UN. Full stop etc. That isn't changing and all UN Missions are made up as necessity and volunteered contributions from supplying Nations. Very very different from NATO for example.
EU missions are limited in scope and strength; also very politically motivated.
What IS happened AND stated by Junker and Merkal, with the rest agreeing IS a declared intent for a European Union Military;- THAT is what I believe everyone (other than Russia, ISIS, Iraq, etc) ought to be VERY worried about,

Can you tell me why we should be worried about being in a military alliance with people we consider allies?

 

[Benfleet A1]

Can you tell me why we should be worried about being in a military alliance with people we consider allies?

Its not an alliance when French Generals have operational control over British troops. (French Generals being the example not the rule)

 

[MK Shrimper]

Its not an alliance when French Generals have operational control over British troops. (French Generals being the example not the rule)

Why? Wouldn't British Generals have the same over the French troops? What's the problem with one set of allies controlling another set of allies - we're all on the same side.

You've not really made it any easier to understand.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Its not an alliance when French Generals have operational control over British troops. (French Generals being the example not the rule)

Thank you Benfleet A1, I do wonder if some of the Remoaners are being slightly simple or just blinker to a coming situation and it's realities.
The French are odd for sure; their great strength IMO is that they always do what is best for France and feck the moral or other consequences: AND conversely that is at the same time their great weakness if it comes to being a "partner" with them................as the Bosnians (and Dutch) found out the hard way.

General George S. Patton — 'I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.'

 

[Benfleet A1]

Why? Wouldn't British Generals have the same over the French troops? What's the problem with one set of allies controlling another set of allies - we're all on the same side.

You've not really made it any easier to understand.

Well the language barrier is an obvious one. And why should Generals of another country have that control in the first place. Think about it.

'Tally Ho chaps, over the top'

Where are the French? In barracks, bollocks then!!

 

[Swiss Tony]

Ridiculous idea.....We could end up sending our guys to enforce martial law in Catalonia in a few years time. When in reality as they are proud independent people, did you see those Firefighters defending their own innocent people from a brutal beating. We should give our full support.... Don't you think ?

Anyway doesn't matter, the point is the people we elect should decide where we send our troops and who to kill. If your fine with the slaughter of over 1m harmless Iraqi women and children because the US/Israeli war machine can con you with propaganda, then vote Blair or Tory....Its the same thing. If your not conned by the great modern War Racket vote Corbyn and he will stop it because he is no puppet to the US. The only down side is he might become best friends with people who just might want to kill us...Like McGuiness or Adams for example.

If Your the sort of person who doesn't want a convicted Somalian child rapist living next door because it would be inhumane to deport him but at the same time you absolutely know its a war crime to be bombing people in their own country. Then you probably are already a bit of a free thinker and should think Independent.

Just about the worst people I can think of to give control over our armed forces would be the corrupt criminals in Brussels. Absolutely not under any circumstances for all the obvious reasons. Including our proud history that some of you sneer at whilst enjoying your privilege gained by all those poor lads, some of whom don't even have a grave.

Amen to all of that.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Can you tell me why we should be worried about being in a military alliance with people we consider allies?

Not without breaching the OS Act.:winking: