Brexit negotiations

It’s a fact we had an opt out clause, simple as that.

Fair enough, my description of distortion was merely for some posters who cannot, and will not, accept even the slightest variation of what they think. Have to say, our press, and the BBC reporters, are pretty pathetic at times, but surely we're big enough and ugly enough to recognise when the silly season statements are made.

Bollotom2014 wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Bollotom2014 wrote:

   I voted to leave as I didn't want an all encompassing EU Superstate.

Any reason to think that would happen? 

No need to quote your grades in reply.

Chief eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, in lockstep with French president Emmanuel Macron, has put forward ambitious plans for a superstate including a eurozone budget and EU army. (Express)
 
Jean-Claude Juncker has been accused of proposing “the blueprint for a United States of Europe” with vast centralised powers to be agreed at a special summit the day after Brexit. (Times)
 
And others. And I agree not to quote my grades. Oh aye. I've worked in France, Germany, Sweden and Iceland and I can tell you that lots of others in those countries are fearful of how this EU group are progressing. 
   Now you tell me why there will not be a EU superstate, and no need to quote your grades, I think I know them already

Bollotom can you explain to me why a European military would be a bad thing given that we already contribute to the UN force? 

I would have thought that spreading the cost would reduce the burden on British taxpayers and only today the National Audit Office has announced that the MOD's procurement budget for the next 10 years is "unrealistic and unaffordable" so wouldn't subsuming the MOD into a pan-Europe force be a reasonable solution?

Honest question - just want to know the logic.

In the past, in my experience, any organisation that included the British military, tends to lean on, indeed, depend on, the British soldier, (all services), and their professionalism, when something happens. Apart from the UK always willing to commit them, they are, (were?), regarded as the best trained, and fighting forces, which would manifest itself in operations. 
Why have a European managed military, when NATO is already in place, alongside the UN? What would the difference be, other than letting a bunch of people who take years to make a decision, run an Army? We all know that the Russians, (again) are the main, and biggest threat. Try to imagine what would happen if things became strained, and the newly formed EU military machine lurched into action. (Whilst doing this, consider how they bodged the refugee crisis). 
I guarantee that if they treated Russia like they are treating the UK, in these Brexit talks, the proverbial would hit the fan very quickly, or their defence will grind to a halt whilst they discuss things.

I can only echo Glos' post and as a serving officer I have to be extremely careful as to what I post on a public forum. However, Lusty asked me to explain why a EU military would be a bad thing. In simplest terms and within my knowledge which is also in the public domain.

Despite Germany and The Netherlands having links, these are the only two EU nations with some integration (Since 1990s). There are other nations within the EU that don’t want an EU military arm, or won’t work one with the other. Germany has long been building an EU army in an almost secret way, like they did pre-WW2.
   We, UK, work hand in hand with various other EU nations forces and always have done while keeping our own Chain of Command and at times there have been language problems. This can lead to massive errors when faced with front line action.
    The complications of Chain of Command where one nation may control the forces of other nations.
    The possibility of wrongful orders being given as some EU nations only pay lip service to The Geneva Convention.
    The possibility of one nation’s troops being used for front line ops while others take a seat.
    The possibility of some nations committing atrocities when the Chain of Command is UK, as a for instance.
    The costs borne by the likes of UK, Germany, France and Italy will still be very high while most non-net contributors to the EU will get a free ride. And who will decide what equipment to buy as some countries have differing requirements to others? 
Lots of deeper discussion would be needed to clarify some points but I am unable to expand on these.

Bollotom2014 wrote:I can only echo Glos' post and as a serving officer I have to be extremely careful as to what I post on a public forum. However, Lusty asked me to explain why a EU military would be a bad thing. In simplest terms and within my knowledge which is also in the public domain.

Despite Germany and The Netherlands having links, these are the only two EU nations with some integration (Since 1990s). There are other nations within the EU that don’t want an EU military arm, or won’t work one with the other. Germany has long been building an EU army in an almost secret way, like they did pre-WW2.
   We, UK, work hand in hand with various other EU nations forces and always have done while keeping our own Chain of Command and at times there have been language problems. This can lead to massive errors when faced with front line action.
    The complications of Chain of Command where one nation may control the forces of other nations.
    The possibility of wrongful orders being given as some EU nations only pay lip service to The Geneva Convention.
    The possibility of one nation’s troops being used for front line ops while others take a seat.
    The possibility of some nations committing atrocities when the Chain of Command is UK, as a for instance.
    The costs borne by the likes of UK, Germany, France and Italy will still be very high while most non-net contributors to the EU will get a free ride. And who will decide what equipment to buy as some countries have differing requirements to others? 
Lots of deeper discussion would be needed to clarify some points but I am unable to expand on these.

Thanks for this (both)

Obviously there would be a teething problems in the organisation of such a  force and there would be a great deal to sort out, but if we really have the best trained forces that's a saleable product/service with which we could negotiate an improved deal. 
Any such force would have to agree the level of contribution of each participating country and if we are currently the strongest, couldn't we agree to protect countries that aren't contributing as much - effectively protection money paid pro rata to contribution? And couldn't we raise money by providing training to other parts of the new force rather than staying a massive cost to the UK economy? We have the facilities, knowledge and people so why not work our assets better?
As regards procurement it has long been recognised that the MoD is one of the worst procuring organisations going and they get away with stuff that the NHS or Councils would get publicly slaughtered for often paying two or three times over the odds. Needs for different forces may vary but that would resolve itself very quickly as the structure of the new organisation was sorted out. Once it's established who is doing what and what they need we could then use the massive purchasing power of the EU to slash the cost.
Which would mean more money for education and the NHS etc...

Bollotom2014 wrote:I can only echo Glos' post and as a serving officer I have to be extremely careful as to what I post on a public forum. However, Lusty asked me to explain why a EU military would be a bad thing. In simplest terms and within my knowledge which is also in the public domain.

Despite Germany and The Netherlands having links, these are the only two EU nations with some integration (Since 1990s). There are other nations within the EU that don’t want an EU military arm, or won’t work one with the other. Germany has long been building an EU army in an almost secret way, like they did pre-WW2.
   We, UK, work hand in hand with various other EU nations forces and always have done while keeping our own Chain of Command and at times there have been language problems. This can lead to massive errors when faced with front line action.
    The complications of Chain of Command where one nation may control the forces of other nations.
    The possibility of wrongful orders being given as some EU nations only pay lip service to The Geneva Convention.
    The possibility of one nation’s troops being used for front line ops while others take a seat.
    The possibility of some nations committing atrocities when the Chain of Command is UK, as a for instance.
    The costs borne by the likes of UK, Germany, France and Italy will still be very high while most non-net contributors to the EU will get a free ride. And who will decide what equipment to buy as some countries have differing requirements to others? 
Lots of deeper discussion would be needed to clarify some points but I am unable to expand on these.

Looks like a list of why it won’t happen to me.

Props James O'Brien for making this parallel:

Brexit fits neatly into Marx’s opiate of the people theory: no matter what problems & privations we have to endure in this world, the rewards in the next world make it all worthwhile. You can’t prove it, you just have to believe. It’s why everything’s getting cultier by the day.

Big moment this, little doubt this is a political manoeuvre from Corbyn rather than a sudden adoration of the EU. Don't really see an alternative that satisfies the Irish border question though and glad to see a clear distinction in policy now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43189878

T.R.O.Y wrote:Big moment this, little doubt this is a political manoeuvre from Corbyn rather than a sudden adoration of the EU. Don't really see an alternative that satisfies the Irish border question though and glad to see a clear distinction in policy now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43189878  

If he wants Brexit in all but name only then why isn't he fighting to prevent Brexit happening in the first place?

Because it would be political suicide. Both parties are having to balance not upsetting leavers with the realities of what a hard Brexit would do, the regional assessment of a Hard Brexit was devastating.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Because it would be political suicide. Both parties are having to balance not upsetting leavers with the realities of what a hard Brexit would do, the regional assessment of a Hard Brexit was devastating.

I would have thought it would be a masterstroke politically and certainly what I would do in his position.

Brexit was the wrong decision as I think the majority of the country would agree now and in all likelihood if another referendum was held today the Remain vote would win.

The biggest group opposing Brexit are those under 25 and potential lifetime voters for the political party that wins their votes now.

The Labour Party itself is pro-Europe, so to its vast number of MP's and also the vast number of MP's of all parties in the rest of Westminster.

He therefore will be in a powerful position with just a few Tory dissenters, to win key votes when required.

The country WILL suffer financially after leaving the EU, I think everybody accepts that, so even if he failed to stop Brexit he would still have the high ground to say he tried to stop it and blame the Conservatives for forcing it through.

Surely it is a better strategy than pushing for - and in all probability moving towards what probably all politicians see as the least worse outcome of Brexit - namely Brexit in name only - and he would have the youth vote on his side and no doubt be swept to power at the following General Election.

Seems a win/win to me - if he stops Brexit he will win power and if he doesn't he will hold the youth vote and have the high ground going into the next general election.

Better than letting Brexit occur and him sitting on his hands simply watching it happen.

The reason Corbyn looks so shifty on brexit is because I suspect he actually supports it!

Thanks Sluffy it's an interesting theory and maybe you're right, but Labour's and the Tories professional strategists clearly disagree with you.

Staying in the Customs Union is clearly as far as they're willing to go on this, I don't agree with you that everyone agrees the country will suffer financially, unfortunately there are still a lot out there in both the mainstream media and Tory party who have dismissed the governments own forecasts.

While that narrative still exists there will be those who believe anything but a Hard Brexit is a betrayal of the referendum vote and will portray it as so.

xmiles wrote:The reason Corbyn looks so shifty on brexit is because I suspect he actually supports it!

Corbyn has spent his political life denouncing the EU, seeing it  as a rich man's club.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Thanks Sluffy it's an interesting theory and maybe you're right, but Labour's and the Tories professional strategists clearly disagree with you.

Staying in the Customs Union is clearly as far as they're willing to go on this, I don't agree with you that everyone agrees the country will suffer financially, unfortunately there are still a lot out there in both the mainstream media and Tory party who have dismissed the governments own forecasts.

While that narrative still exists there will be those who believe anything but a Hard Brexit is a betrayal of the referendum vote and will portray it as so.

Well the last time the professional Tory strategists got put to the test - presumably giving the green light for May to go to the country - was hardly a glowing success and the Labour ones probably had the same thoughts about Corbyn's future as a Labour party leader as most of his Shaddow Cabinet did on mass this time last year!

As for what Corbyn said today - it's all just political manoeuvring - see the BBC's analysis -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43197428


For what it is worth people like strong leaders and will vote for them - Thatcher kept getting re-elected, Trump got elected(!), would there even been a Brexit if Boris had not led the campaign? - if Corbyn took a decisive stand over Brexit now he may not win the battle but he would certainly become the next Prime Minister imo.

I know it’s political maneuvering I said that in my opening post?

This is a decisive move, fine if you want him to go further but the significance of this should not be underplayed it could be Corbyns route to office.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I know it’s political maneuvering I said that in my opening post?

This is a decisive move, fine if you want him to go further but the significance of this should not be underplayed it could be Corbyns route to office.

I think he would be a disaster personally.

I can even picture in my mind a scenario where he is beaten by Boris at the next General Election.

His moment is now but he's not bold enough to go for it.

Not much point going for Brexit in name only and somehow thinking he's achieved something - he's not going to build a socialist empire once he realises how many billions being outside the EU will cost the country - and how he can't stop immigration as many still will want.

Anyway, little to nothing I can do about it so I'll let the wheels move on and deal with things when they happen.

Yes the Matthew D'Ancona piece I read this morning said his team have realised that now is 'peak Corbyn' and have gone for it accordingly. Going for the Customs Union puts him that bit closer to remaining than the Tories that will make all the difference in the House of Commons, but still gives them an angle to say 'Brexit means Brexit' with the large number of Labour voting leavers.

It's a significant move, which i think you're underestimating.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Yes the Matthew D'Ancona piece I read this morning said his team have realised that now is 'peak Corbyn' and have gone for it accordingly. Going for the Customs Union puts him that bit closer to remaining than the Tories that will make all the difference in the House of Commons, but still gives them an angle to say 'Brexit means Brexit' with the large number of Labour voting leavers.

It's a significant move, which i think you're underestimating.

It's odd the way some Labour MPs obsess about the Labour voters who voted for brexit when twice as many Labour voters voted to remain, which is pretty much the opposite of the situation with Tory voters.