The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

So you're down with Germans dying when we could've stopped it but didn't because we want better tariffs on washing machines?

That's not even fair to suggest. You could just as easily spin it around and say that the EU could prevent it by coming to a sensible agreement over trade tariffs, or dropping their claims for this absurd divorce settlement. A lack of an agreement depends on BOTH sides not agreeing. It's not a one-sided discussion.

Yes security cooperation is incredibly important. But there is inherent value in us providing that cooperation. It's not unfair for us to state that value. Let's not tie our hands behind our backs for these negotiations. We'd stand even less chance of meeting those Brexit 'promises' that Worthy is constantly reminding everyone on.

Yes it is absurd that we should have to pay for stuff we committed to.

I always find it absurd that when I cancel a contract I get a final bill for payments outstanding. It is a scandal....

[bedwetter2]

^^ I just think it's great Brexits can now get on with delivering all its promises. Can't wait.

Try not to get fence splinters in your posterior.

[bedwetter2]

There's clearly a qualitative difference reserving things like "trade" for negotiations, and security co-operation.

Imagine if it turned out German security forces had information about the attack on Parliament the other week but Merkel stopped them saying anything as a negotiating chip. Your head would've exploded.

I would suggest this is a false viewpoint. No one is suggesting that certain prior knowledge of a terrorist attack would or should be withheld, but there is an awful lot of intelligence which is collected by the UK which would provide background and information on intentions of potential enemies to the rest of the EU.

There is a cost to most things, defence included, and whilst the majority of the EU has not invested as much in security and defence as the UK they have seen fit to spend it on other things. Therefore, in general, the EU is deficient in it's collective defence. So what is the problem in playing to our strengths when in negotiation with the 27 (soon to be 29 when Macedonia and Serbia join, ha ha ha.)?

[Lord Kangana]

I think we'd have much to worry about if the EU knew more about the last few terrorist incidents on our shores than we did. Or indeed didn't. So not sure exactly what our extra funding achieved there.

And also not sure why small countries are intrinsically funny, but each to their own.

[Prufrock]

You're either prepared to withhold important security information or not. If you're not, when it comes to it, prepared to withold it, then it has no value as a negotiating ploy; if you are prepared to withold it, that's unconscionable. If the boot were on the other foot and there was a story that the EU had put British lives in danger in order to get a better deal, the Daily Mail would spontaneously combust, and rightly so.

That's clearly and qualitatively different to bartering on trade which is fair game for both sides.

[bedwetter2]

I think we'd have much to worry about if the EU knew more about the last few terrorist incidents on our shores than we did. Or indeed didn't. So not sure exactly what our extra funding achieved there.

And also not sure why small countries are intrinsically funny, but each to their own.

Mainly because they tend to be both economic basket cases and totally out of step with the the policies formed by the Brussels EU clique.

[bedwetter2]

You're either prepared to withhold important security information or not. If you're not, when it comes to it, prepared to withold it, then it has no value as a negotiating ploy; if you are prepared to withold it, that's unconscionable. If the boot were on the other foot and there was a story that the EU had put British lives in danger in order to get a better deal, the Daily Mail would spontaneously combust, and rightly so.

That's clearly and qualitatively different to bartering on trade which is fair game for both sides.

Clearly you have little knowledge of what GCHQ does or indeed MI6 to a lesser degree. I am not talking about an imminent attack by a spotty jihadi, tragic though that may be for the people involved. No, most of the money is spent on the bigger scale stuff; you know, the nuanced strategies for avoiding conventional or non-conventional country on country conflict and devising means of defending against the weapons of an enemy. That is the trade off and quite rightly so if the rest of the EU are not interested in defending themselves.

[Rjs37]

So you're down with Germans dying when we could've stopped it but didn't because we want better tariffs on washing machines?

That's not even fair to suggest. You could just as easily spin it around and say that the EU could prevent it by coming to a sensible agreement over trade tariffs, or dropping their claims for this absurd divorce settlement. A lack of an agreement depends on BOTH sides not agreeing. It's not a one-sided discussion.

Yes security cooperation is incredibly important. But there is inherent value in us providing that cooperation. It's not unfair for us to state that value. Let's not tie our hands behind our backs for these negotiations. We'd stand even less chance of meeting those Brexit 'promises' that Worthy is constantly reminding everyone on.

Yes it is absurd that we should have to pay for stuff we committed to.

I always find it absurd that when I cancel a contract I get a final bill for payments outstanding. It is a scandal....

At what point do we get our share of the assets that have been accumulated then? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a bill but the amount they've been talking about has indeed been absurd. They never expected anyone to ever leave, so they're having to make it up as they go along.

Interesting (and really in-depth) article about the brexit bill and some of the possible scenarios:
http://bruegel.org/2017/03/brexit-bill- ... questions/

[Prufrock]

You're either prepared to withhold important security information or not. If you're not, when it comes to it, prepared to withold it, then it has no value as a negotiating ploy; if you are prepared to withold it, that's unconscionable. If the boot were on the other foot and there was a story that the EU had put British lives in danger in order to get a better deal, the Daily Mail would spontaneously combust, and rightly so.

That's clearly and qualitatively different to bartering on trade which is fair game for both sides.

Clearly you have little knowledge of what GCHQ does or indeed MI6 to a lesser degree. I am not talking about an imminent attack by a spotty jihadi, tragic though that may be for the people involved. No, most of the money is spent on the bigger scale stuff; you know, the nuanced strategies for avoiding conventional or non-conventional country on country conflict and devising means of defending against the weapons of an enemy. That is the trade off and quite rightly so if the rest of the EU are not interested in defending themselves.

You're free to ave whatever side conversations you want. That isn't what I was talking about, isn't what was brought up by May, isn't what the Europeans have been kicking off about, and isn't what Johnson has had to row back on today. Either May was threatening actual safety, which we all seem to agree is out of order, or she wasn't but made the Europeans think she was, so that's helpful.

[bedwetter2]

You're either prepared to withhold important security information or not. If you're not, when it comes to it, prepared to withold it, then it has no value as a negotiating ploy; if you are prepared to withold it, that's unconscionable. If the boot were on the other foot and there was a story that the EU had put British lives in danger in order to get a better deal, the Daily Mail would spontaneously combust, and rightly so.

That's clearly and qualitatively different to bartering on trade which is fair game for both sides.

Clearly you have little knowledge of what GCHQ does or indeed MI6 to a lesser degree. I am not talking about an imminent attack by a spotty jihadi, tragic though that may be for the people involved. No, most of the money is spent on the bigger scale stuff; you know, the nuanced strategies for avoiding conventional or non-conventional country on country conflict and devising means of defending against the weapons of an enemy. That is the trade off and quite rightly so if the rest of the EU are not interested in defending themselves.

You're free to ave whatever side conversations you want. That isn't what I was talking about, isn't what was brought up by May, isn't what the Europeans have been kicking off about, and isn't what Johnson has had to row back on today. Either May was threatening actual safety, which we all seem to agree is out of order, or she wasn't but made the Europeans think she was, so that's helpful.

It wasn't just my conversation and you must be ahead of me if, as you say, Boris has retreated on anything. I hadn't seen that. Guardian I assume? Are you sure it was what May brought up?
I'm sure you must have noticed that Merkel came away from Washington with a face like a slapped arse because she had been told that Germany and others were not pulling their weight. It just so happens that the Nato underspend thing is tied up in EU policy; so much so that the EU is plotting to build a Euroarmy (a b'Eurocratic' nightmare if ever I heard one) so they don't have to pay viable costs for Nato. Can you imagine it? The thing that remainers such as Clegg had been denying was happening?

Anyway, we should not be casting aside any negotiating tactic. That old saying 'anything is fair in love or war' should be the Uk team's motto. You can bet the EU will and are playing dirty.

[BWFC_Insane]

So you're down with Germans dying when we could've stopped it but didn't because we want better tariffs on washing machines?

That's not even fair to suggest. You could just as easily spin it around and say that the EU could prevent it by coming to a sensible agreement over trade tariffs, or dropping their claims for this absurd divorce settlement. A lack of an agreement depends on BOTH sides not agreeing. It's not a one-sided discussion.

Yes security cooperation is incredibly important. But there is inherent value in us providing that cooperation. It's not unfair for us to state that value. Let's not tie our hands behind our backs for these negotiations. We'd stand even less chance of meeting those Brexit 'promises' that Worthy is constantly reminding everyone on.

Yes it is absurd that we should have to pay for stuff we committed to.

I always find it absurd that when I cancel a contract I get a final bill for payments outstanding. It is a scandal....

At what point do we get our share of the assets that have been accumulated then? I'm not saying there shouldn't be a bill but the amount they've been talking about has indeed been absurd. They never expected anyone to ever leave, so they're having to make it up as they go along.

Interesting (and really in-depth) article about the brexit bill and some of the possible scenarios:
http://bruegel.org/2017/03/brexit-bill- ... questions/

What? We're already getting it. Via research grants, infrastructure grants, regional development funds etc....

Those are the schemes we committed to. Makes sense to maintain the projects till 2020 we pay our share. Otherwise that would be a financial mess.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

It's quite simple. We pay up for the payment cycle we committed to and we enjoy the benefits and access we currently enjoy. At the end of it whatever the new agreement that is made kicks in. If the EU want to limit our access and benefit before the end of the payment cycle then we tell them to fcuk off.

I voted remain, but I do admit to getting tired of hearing the EU and Maybot posturing. Just get on with it.

[malcd1]

It's quite simple. We pay up for the payment cycle we committed to and we enjoy the benefits and access we currently enjoy. At the end of it whatever the new agreement that is made kicks in. If the EU want to limit our access and benefit before the end of the payment cycle then we tell them to fcuk off.

I voted remain, but I do admit to getting tired of hearing the EU and Maybot posturing. Just get on with it.

This is my thinking as well.

[Worthy4England]

Good to see Michael Howard offering to single handedly send the Armada packing. What a tit.

[Hoboh]

Good to see Michael Howard offering to single handedly send the Armada packing. What a tit.

I know, far cheaper and easier to nuke Madrid.

[BWFC_Insane]

Definitely good to be starting a war of words with Spain. Definitely a country who have no hold over us in the Brexit negotiations. Not like any Brits are there, or ever go there.....oh.....

[Bruce Rioja]

Definitely good to be starting a war of words with Spain. Definitely a country who have no hold over us in the Brexit negotiations. Not like any Brits are there, or ever go there.....oh.....

And this'll be helpful. One can only hope that the version sold in Spain carries a different cover.

[TANGODANCER]

Is there a band waggon anywhere The Sun doesn't jump on? "Our boys"...for football, cricket, rugby, politics when they see who's winning, or soldiering, in they go with both feet and few, if any, brains. Oxygen wasters...

[Bruce Rioja]

Is there a band waggon anywhere The Sun doesn't jump on? "Our boys"...for football, cricket, rugby, politics when they see who's winning, or soldiering, in they go with both feet and few, if any, brains. Oxygen wasters...

And, on the very same page they're attempting to sell their readership a £15 holiday to Spain

[Lord Kangana]

As a mate of mine said, can't wait for the Spanish to conquer us. Decent grub, afternoons off and our footballers get to play like Iniesta. What's not to like?

It's almost as if the EU supports it's members interests. What a set of treacherous c*nts....We really are stacked to the rafters with thick-as-f*ck-nuggets.