Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 r_squared wrote:

Without exaggeration, this is the absolutely worst fething thing I have seen in my lifetime, and I've served in Afghanistan.

You are in Boston no? You have seen much worse things in that cess pit.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Conversely, being seen to be giving us a good deal may not sit well with some of their supporters as it means that, until France leaves, they are getting a worse deal for France.

Also, if the French are the driving force behind giving a "good" deal for us, then why would the other countries who didn't want to give us a "good" deal then suddenly change their tune and give France a "good" deal when France tried to leave? It's not like this is a court of law where precedent can win your case, just because country X got a specific deal doesn't mean that Y will get that deal, too.

There are factors beyond giving a 'good' deal for us and a 'bad deal' for them.

Sarkozy has always hated Juncker, the current EU President, and actively blocked Juncker's attempt to become President of the EU Council in 2009. So sticking one in his eye is part of the equation. Sarkozy's line at the moment is that Brexit is a signal to begin reforming Europe, and that a new treaty needs to be drawn up. Sarkozy's view of Europe is the abolition of Schengen, a Euro-centric IMF, a reduction in the legislative powers of the Commission, greater veto powers to national Governments, the office of European President to become French or German only, and an end to ever increasing integration. Understandably, if free movement is no longer a priority, that opens the door to retaining us in the common market, but without freedom of movement.

Juppé, on the other hand, says that 'everything is up' for negotiation, including freedom of movement, and actively declares to want to keep us in the single market. He wants to move the Calais border back to Dover, halt any membership talks with Turkey, create pan-European defence forces, and harden the Schengen border.

In both cases, you have men with very specific goals and future visions of Europe. But in both cases, freedom of movement is not a priority, and keeping us involved in Europe economically and militarily is. If either of them win, there's absolutely nobody else who will stop us getting what we want. We'll have to swallow a few lumps (so the border being shifted back or somesuch), but if Juncker is the only looking to punish us, and all the national governments are willing to work with us, we'll be alright.

And it really is just France at this stage. Germany wants to work something out for everyone, as does Italy, and Spain doesn't want to get involved. If France, Britain, Germany, and Italy all get together on this, Juncker will be completely outmaneouvred.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I've always said that basing our strategy on what happens in another country is a bad idea, as it leaves us hostage to fortune. What if Hollande wins? What if all the presidential candidates run on a ticket that says they'll drive a hard bargain with Britain?

Then what?

I'm not saying to 'base our strategy on it'. I'm just saying that it is entirely likely (and indeed, probable considering Hollande is the least popular French Premier since records began) that Hollande is about to be replaced, and most remaining obstruction to us getting what we want will dissolve with him. Doubly so if it's Sarkozy (who would do it just to spite Juncker if nothing else).

And if neither of them win and Hollande stays? We've lost nothing. Delaying until mid-next year gives us time to get our own house in order. Heck, we'd probably be doing it anyway. But if he loses? Massive advantage point to us. Watch and you'll see the FTSE gain half of it's lost value back in that one evening.

the office of European President to become French or German only

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

the office of European President to become French or German only

He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

the office of European President to become French or German only

He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...

They reveal there true colours...
Its a French/german empire.

Britain made a good choice leaving the corrupt, undemocratic edifice that is thte EU.
Anyone else is welcome to join the rebellion.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Exactly.

Has it occurred to people that Britain's idea of a good deal and the EU's idea of a good deal, are unlikely to match?

Like Orlando said, any unofficial back room deal pre-article 50, could easily be denied, and their details leaked out to embarrass the UK government, or put pressure on them from the British public, if they're seen to be damaging to Britain.

And any damage or pressure to Britain, could give the EU the upper hand in negotiations...

If we invoke article 50, get it official, get it all in the open, there is less chance of this happening...

It isn't possible to invoke article 50 because it's meaningless. It was written with the thought in mind that no-one would ever leave the EU. The article is going to have to be rewritten to actually create a process for the UK to follow.

 jhe90 wrote:


Britain made a good choice leaving the corrupt, undemocratic edifice that is thte EU.
Anyone else is welcome to join the rebellion.

Everytime someone uses that argument Khorne kills a kitten.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Britain made a good choice leaving the corrupt, undemocratic edifice that is thte EU.
Anyone else is welcome to join the rebellion.

Everytime someone uses that argument Khorne kills a kitten.

It's all blood for the blood god.

It seems that Brexiters don't like the SNP....
This is from a Yougov poll on the opinions of Brexiters.


As a SNP voter I am filled with pride.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Britain made a good choice leaving the corrupt, undemocratic edifice that is thte EU.
Anyone else is welcome to join the rebellion.

Everytime someone uses that argument Khorne kills a kitten.

It's all blood for the blood god.

Khorne cares not for what blood, only that it is blood.

Amazingly it seems that Brexiteers are not all that keen on the UKIP Party.

One is led to wonder what the feth they are thinking? I wish I could sometimes enter such a fantastic world without the use of mind-altering drugs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Amazingly it seems that Brexiteers are not all that keen on the UKIP Party.

One is led to wonder what the feth they are thinking? I wish I could sometimes enter such a fantastic world without the use of mind-altering drugs.

UKIP was a tool to deliver referendum and get a brexit. Farage plan was simple.
He achiced it.

 jhe90 wrote:
Farage plan was simple.

Collect the salary for an MEP while hardly ever bothering to turn up? Grow a terrible mustache? Give a huge boost to the SNP?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Amazingly it seems that Brexiteers are not all that keen on the UKIP Party.

One is led to wonder what the feth they are thinking? I wish I could sometimes enter such a fantastic world without the use of mind-altering drugs.

You can dislike the EU without liking UKIP. It really isn't that hard. Not everything is black and white, if that's how you see the world then I'm sorry for you.

Every election I vote for someone - does this mean that I like every single thing that person says? Of cause it doesn't - I vote for the person who mosy represents my views. Just because someone voted leave doesn't make them a UKIP supporter.

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

the office of European President to become French or German only

He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...

And yet weirdly, when I said that the EU was a Franco-German (mostly German) racket, some leavers called me a scare mongering liar.

Well, at least now the EU is really showing its true colours.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

the office of European President to become French or German only

He wants appointees to the office of European President to be restricted to French or German nationals only. His reasoning was that the two countries account for more than half the existing trade within Europe once Britain has left, so the small countries should suck it up and accept Franco-deutsche dominance. And if they don't like it, the door is to their left...

And yet weirdly, when I said that the EU was a Franco-German (mostly German) racket, some leavers called me a scare mongering liar.

Well, at least now the EU is really showing its true colours.

Yes, one politician suggesting something that would benefit his own country truly is evidence that a huge organization is or is not in a certain manner, in the same manner that Donald Trump proves that all Americans are idiots, Jimmie Åkesson (leader of the Sweden Democrats) proves that all Swedes are racist donkey caves, and Nigel Farage proves that all Britons are leeching scumbags, i.e. not at all.

jhe90 wrote:They reveal there true colours...
Its a French/german empire.

Britain made a good choice leaving the corrupt, undemocratic edifice that is thte EU.

Might I ask your opinion on Theresa May?

Anyone else is welcome to join the rebellion.

Ah yes, the valiant struggle that is putting down a mark on a piece of paper a couple of months ago in order to show Johnny Foreigner what's what. Fighting the good fight and all that. Shall I fetch the claymore from the shed? Perhaps we can put up a bulwark on the cliffs of Dover to fend off the EU's army of banned pesticides and standardised phone chargers.

jhe90 wrote:UKIP was a tool to deliver referendum and get a brexit. Farage plan was simple.
He achiced it.

Become an MEP and leech the taxpayer to the tune of £84,000 a year for the forseeable future despite never actually turning up to do his job? Be a member of the fisheries commission, never actually go to the fisheries commission meetings, and then complain about how unfair the mean old fisheries commission is? Grow a stupid moustache to make the fascism insults a teeny bit more on-the-nose? What exactly did he "achice"?

Future War Cultist wrote:And yet weirdly, when I said that the EU was a Franco-German (mostly German) racket, some leavers called me a scare mongering liar.

Well, at least now the EU is really showing its true colours.

It's weird how a french presidential candidate who isn't currently in a position of power and is uninvolved with the EU is somehow indicative of the position of the entire organisation. It's like that time that the retired postman down the road from me was somehow a spokesman for Royal Mail, or Steve who got a caution from the police for loitering once was a voice of authority regarding prison system reform.

In that it's complete fething nonsense.

Yeah, I'm kind of with Goliath on this one.

Bloody hell - some bad news about the Tory party in the media:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/17/inquiry-into-tory-bullying-scandal-finds-13-alleged-victims-of-mark-clarke

If he's guilty, he deserves everything he gets.

Still, knowing the history of the Tory party, I can't help but feel that this individual will be made to carry the can for a lot of unrelated things.

Election fraud? His fault.

BREXIT? Blame him...

The Tories have always been good at taking advantage of a crisis situation...

Well, Owen Smith has said something that puts almost everything implied about Corbyn to shame and suggested a dialogue with Daesh

One can only imagine how that would go:

OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"

It's like something out of a Monty Python sketch.

 Goliath wrote:
Well, Owen Smith has said something that puts almost everything implied about Corbyn to shame and suggested a dialogue with Daesh

One can only imagine how that would go:

OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"

It's like something out of a Monty Python sketch.

Smith has taken the logical stance since other than a dialogue we have more of the same hand wringing token efforts whilst ISIL do as they wish or going to war - which is hardly palatable.

JC has gone down the no talks route..I'll be waiting to see Jezzas bold strategy fleshed out (see above).

 Goliath wrote:
Well, Owen Smith has said something that puts almost everything implied about Corbyn to shame and suggested a dialogue with Daesh

One can only imagine how that would go:

OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"

It's like something out of a Monty Python sketch.

I disagree - I think there's an element of Realpolitik here. What you say about ISIL could be equally applied to Saudi Arabia, and yet, they're considered to be a key ally...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well, Owen Smith has said something that puts almost everything implied about Corbyn to shame and suggested a dialogue with Daesh

One can only imagine how that would go:

OS: "What are your demands?"
Daesh: "The establishment of a Caliphate and the conversion or death of all infidels!"
OS: "Well, we could do maybe the conversion or death of 25% of infidels? Would that suit you? We can throw in immediate diplomatic ties if that would help?"

It's like something out of a Monty Python sketch.

I disagree - I think there's an element of Realpolitik here. What you say about ISIL could be equally applied to Saudi Arabia, and yet, they're considered to be a key ally...

or we just send them unconditional surrender of all armed forces, territory, and cities in exchange for not killing them.
if not, let assad and russia lay seige and drive them out there own capital

Zero negotiation till they renounce violence , attacks on west and radicalization of western terorists.
might as well not plan on anything as never happen.

no legitimisation. there terrorists, and barbarians. they will be treated as such until they prove otherwise.
there choice to do so as they see fit. the path of peace or war.

 jhe90 wrote:

or we just send them unconditional surrender of all armed forces, territory, and cities in exchange for not killing them.

That's a short term solution. All that will happen then is that ISIS will get crushed, rebrand itself and then pop again elsewhere.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

or we just send them unconditional surrender of all armed forces, territory, and cities in exchange for not killing them.

That's a short term solution. All that will happen then is that ISIS will get crushed, rebrand itself and then pop again elsewhere.

Once you clear out the rats, you let Assad back and he knows how to keep the nut cases in line.
We might as well accept democrecy in the middle east is frankly a joke. coalitions can barely hold these fracuous countries remotely together.

Assad family kept Syria stable for decades. there not nice but we need strong leaders for stablity.
Gudaffi, we should never of got rid of him, he kept all the migrants, and the nut cases in country in line.

 jhe90 wrote:

Assad family kept Syria stable for decades. there not nice but we need strong leaders for stablity.
Gudaffi, we should never of got rid of him, he kept all the migrants, and the nut cases in country in line.

Why? What's it got to do with us? Why does it matter to Britain if there's a dictator, a democracy, or a ragtag hodgepodge of regions run by warlords? We don't trade with the place, and the civilian population has already mostly relocated to other nations. Unless we're willing to commit cultural eradication through occupation, or genocide, there's nothing we can do longterm. So we might as well stay out of it.

 jhe90 wrote:

Gudaffi, we should never of got rid of him, he kept all the migrants, and the nut cases in country in line.

..........

 jhe90 wrote:
no legitimisation. there terrorists, and barbarians. they will be treated as such until they prove otherwise.
there choice to do so as they see fit. the path of peace or war.

Hopefully you aren't naive enough to think bombs will solve this issue? Because that is never, never, NEVER going to work.

The guy is both right and wrong. Discussions is THE only way that has realistic way of ever resolving this for good. Bombs will not work. End of story.

But the ISIS won't have to be on the table. But the discussions will have to end up in that support of ISIS will eventually go away.

Solve issues that drives people to ISIS and you solve the ISIS. As long as reason why ISIS thrives remains unsolved no amount of bombs will solve it unless you go for genocide and that's not an option anybody should contemplate.

The thing Islamic State is most desperate for is legitimacy. They want to be acknowledged as the legitimate Islamic Caliphate to which all [true] Muslims owe their allegiance. Negotiating with them and suing for peace will only ensure that.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The thing Islamic State is most desperate for is legitimacy. They want to be acknowledged as the legitimate Islamic Caliphate to which all [true] Muslims owe their allegiance. Negotiating with them and suing for peace will only ensure that.

True. And that's why I don't think talking WITH them is going to work. However getting them out of picture will require talking(well and actions as well. But not action by bombs), not bombs.

Other party just won't be ISIS. But even then bombs won't solve the problem. Alas it might be neccessary for now but it won't solve it for good.