[Politics] Brexit

Garry Nelson's teacher · Jul 23, 2019

ManOfSussex said:
I believe the etiquette and convention is just to say 'corrected for you'. Like this:

Corrected for you.

A distinct improvement on the original!

Lincoln Imp · Jul 23, 2019

Publius Ovidius said:
I have no idea why people seem outraged and surprised about this tanker business. Royal Marines boarded an Iranian tanker off Gib...what did people think the Iranians were going to do. This is a civilisation that has been around before we were running around in skins and a very proud nation who regard our society as beneath them. We have no idea how to get out of this. We are too rapped up in our own petty squabbles.

If we have no support from the EU( who can blame them really) then we should let it go and get the Swedish tanker back ...I assume it is only called a British tanker because it flies under a flag of convenience.

As someone said, the Iranian business doesn't have much to do with Brexit, but isn't it the case that the UK had no more authority in law to seize their tanker than they had to seize ours?

Fitzcarraldo · Jul 23, 2019

pastafarian said:
France and Germany have already agreed support for a maritime protection mission involving European countries, so looks like you , and your thumbers HWT and thunder bolt will be disappointed that they havnt told us to piss off. Cant quite understand the objection to it
Surely protecting shipping against Iran acting illegally is important.
The US are talking about their own multinational maritime fleet as well, but we have said we don’t share the policy aims of “maximum pressure” toward Iran that the US administration favours so wont be joining their one.
Anyway, shouldn’t your post be in the Iran thread as it has nothing to do with Brexit.

'Maritime protection mission involving European countries'. Linguistic gymnastics to avoid saying a European Naval Force, which is what it is.

nicko31 · Jul 23, 2019

Publius Ovidius said:
I have no idea why people seem outraged and surprised about this tanker business. Royal Marines boarded an Iranian tanker off Gib...what did people think the Iranians were going to do. This is a civilisation that has been around before we were running around in skins and a very proud nation who regard our society as beneath them. We have no idea how to get out of this. We are too rapped up in our own petty squabbles.

If we have no support from the EU( who can blame them really) then we should let it go and get the Swedish tanker back ...I assume it is only called a British tanker because it flies under a flag of convenience.

We're out of our depth. Really shouldn't have got involved with this one, perhaps the Tories think a war will save them like the Falklands saved Thatcher in 1982

pastafarian · Jul 23, 2019

Garry Nelson's teacher said:
'Now I'm not surprised in the least at pastafarian editing posts and then quoting them, lying in a pathetic attempt to prove how clever he is.'

Sorry to sound naïve but do people (or person) really do this sort of thing? Isn't there some sort of rule or at least a convention with an associated sanction? Or is being 'called out' sanction enough? Bloody hell: we are a cricketing nation!

Would appear if you are watford zero it is now fair game to alter what someone actually writes in their post without the obligatory "edited for you".
In fairness he comes across as that sort anyway.
Editing someones post to remove the irrelevant crap and NOT alter the words written has always been fair game, especially when the irrelevant crap is irrelevant crap .

Raleigh Chopper said:
Because we are trying to get out of Europe and we stand up and turn our backs and come out with childish snidey rants by Farage and Widdecombe towards the EU. That's why.
And why hasn't the news reported this agreement they are still saying we are trying to set it up.
Apparently Europe has no ships in that area right now anyway and help from the US was turned down as May did not want to upset Iran.
That was the point, not point scoring just what I am reading and listening to.

The BBC did report the news though that France and Germany have agreed to be on board with a multinational effort.
I thought we were trying to get out of the political union that is the EU, news to me we are trying to get out of Europe.
I have absolutely no idea where other European nations currently have their naval vessels deployed, i suspect it wouldnt take too long to deploy to the area though if any other European country agreed to be on board with the idea. These boats seem quite fast nowadays. Swiss navy might struggle to get there though.
But as i said, nothing to do with brexit anyway.

ManOfSussex · Jul 23, 2019

nicko31 said:
We're out of our depth. Really shouldn't have got involved with this one, perhaps the Tories think a war will save them like the Falklands saved Thatcher in 1982

Them and whose army though? We haven't got the forces or Navy we had in 1982. It'll be a bit chastening for some of those Tories with delusions of grandeur, but as Britannia no longer rules the waves I suspect the extent of our response will just be a very strongly worded letter to Tehran highlighting our deep displeasure and telling them how really, really cross Her Majesty's Government is and if they don't give that ship up pronto, they'll not be getting a comprehensive free trade deal from us.

Baldseagull · Jul 23, 2019

pastafarian said:
France and Germany have already agreed support for a maritime protection mission involving European countries, so looks like you , and your thumbers HWT and thunder bolt will be disappointed that they havnt told us to piss off. Cant quite understand the objection to it
Surely protecting shipping against Iran acting illegally is important.
The US are talking about their own multinational maritime fleet as well, but we have said we don’t share the policy aims of “maximum pressure” toward Iran that the US administration favours so wont be joining their one.
Anyway, shouldn’t your post be in the Iran thread as it has nothing to do with Brexit.

There is an interesting side note that is Brexit relevant. NATO is not going to get involved with this issue, our European partners are, yet anytime any EU joint forces is talked about, you leavers shit yourselves about an EU Army, and say we don't need any EU level cooperation as we have NATO.

pastafarian · Jul 23, 2019

Baldseagull said:
There is an interesting side note that is Brexit relevant. NATO is not going to get involved with this issue, our European partners are, yet anytime any EU joint forces is talked about, you leavers shit yourselves about an EU Army, and say we don't need any EU level cooperation as we have NATO.

I thought that was it, other European countries are going to get involved, they dont need the permission of the EU to be involved.Have the EU even said they are going to deploy "EU joint forces" and a EU navy to the gulf?Have we asked to EU to form a EU led Navy taskforce ? I must have missed it. I thought it was simply a request to other European countries to form a multinational fleet to protect shipping.

Baldseagull · Jul 23, 2019

Lincoln Imp said:
As someone said, the Iranian business doesn't have much to do with Brexit, but isn't it the case that the UK had no more authority in law to seize their tanker than they had to seize ours?

Syria is under sanctions from the US, the UK, the EU, and the UN. There is a legitimate case for stopping shipping supplying them oil.

nicko31 · Jul 23, 2019

ManOfSussex said:
Them and whose army though? We haven't got the forces or Navy we had in 1982. It'll be a bit chastening for some of those Tories with delusions of grandeur, but as Britannia no longer rules the waves I suspect the extent of our response will just be a very strongly worded letter to Tehran highlighting our deep displeasure and telling them how really, really cross Her Majesty's Government is and if they don't give that ship up pronto, they'll not be getting a comprehensive free trade deal from us.

We could have a lot with common with Iran soon both living under trade sanctions. Slight difference is ours are imposed on ourselves by ourselves.

nicko31 · Jul 23, 2019

Continuity deals so far in the event of no deal...

Central America (signed 18 July)
Andean countries (15 May)
Norway and Iceland (2 April)
Caribbean countries (22 March)
Pacific Islands (14 March)
Liechtenstein (28 February)
Israel (18 February)
Palestinian Authority (18 February)
Switzerland (11 February)
The Faroe Islands (1 February)
Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January)
Chile (30 January)

28 to go, anyone see any issues with these being done and dusted by 31/10?

Is there much incentive as we're choosing to do away with so many tariffs? Canada for example aren't interested.

Reality hurts....

Mellotron · Jul 23, 2019

Aaaaaand another MP quits over the threat of No Deal Brexit...

Baldseagull · Jul 23, 2019

pastafarian said:
I thought that was it, other European countries are going to get involved, they dont need the permission of the EU to be involved.Have the EU even said they are going to deploy "EU joint forces" and a EU navy to the gulf?Have we asked to EU to form a EU led Navy taskforce ? I must have missed it. I thought it was simply a request to other European countries to form a multinational fleet to protect shipping.

The reason we took the Iranian Tanker was to enforce EU sanctions on Syria, the ship was in EU waters, I would be surprised if the EU did not fund at least some of the costs of operations incurred due to this fact. If it is EU funded, does it then become a problem for you?
We and several other EU nations have signed up to creating a European Intervention Initiative, which would be outside of the EU, but it came out of thinking around PESCO, and was agreed at a PESCO meeting. The reason for placing it outside of the EU is purely to avoid delays by democracy in deploying the force, i.e. it ceases to be so effective in responding quickly if 28 votes have to come in before it can move, but it is likely that the EU will fund operations that are taken in the interests of the EU.

pastafarian · Jul 23, 2019

Baldseagull said:
The reason we took the Iranian Tanker was to enforce EU sanctions on Syria, the ship was in EU waters, I would be surprised if the EU did not fund at least some of the costs of operations incurred due to this fact. If it is EU funded, does it then become a problem for you?
.

Why would it be a problem? We are still in the EU and we are obligated to enforce EU sanctions that we agreed to.

Baldseagull said:
We and several other EU nations have signed up to creating a European Intervention Initiative, which would be outside of the EU, but it came out of thinking around PESCO, and was agreed at a PESCO meeting. The reason for placing it outside of the EU is purely to avoid delays by democracy in deploying the force, i.e. it ceases to be so effective in responding quickly if 28 votes have to come in before it can move, but it is likely that the EU will fund operations that are taken in the interests of the EU.

In conclusion then, the requests we put in over the weekend to other European foreign ministers (and not a request to the EU) for a multinational mission to protect shipping, is nothing to do with Brexit and nothing to do with anything governed by the European Union.
Glad that is cleared up.

Thunder Bolt · Jul 23, 2019

nicko31 said:
Continuity deals so far in the event of no deal...

Central America (signed 18 July)
Andean countries (15 May)
Norway and Iceland (2 April)
Caribbean countries (22 March)
Pacific Islands (14 March)
Liechtenstein (28 February)
Israel (18 February)
Palestinian Authority (18 February)
Switzerland (11 February)
The Faroe Islands (1 February)
Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January)
Chile (30 January)

28 to go, anyone see any issues with these being done and dusted by 31/10?

Is there much incentive as we're choosing to do away with so many tariffs? Canada for example aren't interested.

Reality hurts....

There are just 35 working days in Parliament before 31st October.

Baldseagull · Jul 23, 2019

pastafarian said:
Why would it be a problem? We are still in the EU and we are obligated to enforce EU sanctions that we agreed to.

In conclusion then, the requests we put in over the weekend to other European foreign ministers (and not a request to the EU) for a multinational mission to protect shipping, is nothing to do with Brexit and nothing to do with anything governed by the European Union.
Glad that is cleared up.

Nothing to do with Brexit, lots to do with the EU though.

If we had just been enforcing UK sanctions on Syria, on a vessel that was passing through UK waters, you think we would get the same response from the countries we have asked for assistance? EU member states are assisting, because it is EU sanctions that have led to this, the EU will probably cover the costs of operations, but you carry on saying nothing to do with the EU.

Deleted member 22389 · Jul 23, 2019

Baldseagull said:
Nothing to do with Brexit, lots to do with the EU though.

If we had just been enforcing UK sanctions on Syria, on a vessel that was passing through UK waters, you think we would get the same response from the countries we have asked for assistance? EU member states are assisting, because it is EU sanctions that have led to this, the EU will probably cover the costs of operations, but you carry on saying nothing to do with the EU.

You mean the EU will cover costs from the money we have already paid in. The EU political organisation wouldn't exist without our and other countries membership fees.

The Clamp · Jul 23, 2019

Ludicrous choice of PM but at least it means Brexit ain’t gonna happen.

Baldseagull · Jul 23, 2019

bashlsdir said:
You mean the EU will cover costs from the money we have already paid in. The EU political organisation wouldn't exist without our and other countries membership fees.

No, it covers costs from the budget that it has for such things, which we pay into, but OK mate, it's a bit late in the process to be bothered doing a cost benefit analysis, you have to understand though that we get more out of membership of the EU than just the money they spend here?

Honestly, the argument that we pay in X but only get Y spent in the UK is for idiots, do you think there will be extra money available for the NHS if we leave and don't make EU contributions? Don't be an idiot, and don't get all butthurt because I used the word idiot, you said something daft.

Is it PotG? · Jul 23, 2019

The Clamp said:
Ludicrous choice of PM but at least it means Brexit ain’t gonna happen.

With your happy-go-lucky stance on life, I thought your rose tinted lenses would see that this might well boost the whole matter once more.

KtF.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

Remain

Leave

Wouldn’t vote

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

We wunt be druv

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

I've asked for soup

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Deleted member 22389

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Thrifty non-licker

Share this page