UK & EU Politics Thread

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Looks like there's trouble in Paradise: Poland, the EU, and something about Article 7...

By an amazing coincidence, our PM is in Warsaw this week...

If May has even an ounce of political acumen, she'll be offering to mediate between Brussels and Warsaw for a compromise deal between those two.

Seeing as we're leaving, and seeing as the Poles trust us, that's not beyond the realms of possibility of Britain being seen as a 'neutral' broker.

And a few months down the line, when Brexit talks are in full swing, May can say to Juncker: remember the time we helped you with Poland?

Opportunity is knocking on the door here. Seize the fething day!

**Herzlos**

Why would anyone let May, who has no charisma, backbone, presence and can't be trusted, mediate on anything?

Any involvement from us will be seen for what it is; an attempt to interfere in A50 discussions on the EU27 side.

But it's a moot point; she has no political acumen.

May could give Barnier a kidney and it still wouldn't help her get consessions; she's just that outclassed.

**Mr. Burning**

More on an absolute shambles within the Met and the police/CPS as a whole:

Collapse of rape trials

appalling, says attorney general

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42431171

The collapse of two rape cases in one week was an "appalling failure" of the criminal justice system, Attorney General Jeremy Wright has said.

Two young men were cleared when it emerged that Met Police officers had failed to disclose crucial evidence.

Around 30 rape cases about to go to trial are to be reviewed immediately and "scores" more will be looked at.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick admitted that police and prosecutors had made mistakes.

She said the 30 cases would not be reinvestigated, but would be reviewed to make sure everything that should have been disclosed had been.

The police have a duty to disclose any material to the defence that might support their case. If disclosure fails, innocent people go to jail, says the BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman.

"We need to learn lessons," Ms Dick told BBC Radio London, and insisted her officers were professional and fair with a "very complex job" to do.

Collapsed rape trial accused 'betrayed'
Why disclosure failings can prove crucial
'It's just sheer incompetence' - says prosecutor
Isaac ItiaryImage copyrightSOCIAL MEDIA
Image caption
Isaac Itiary was charged with raping a child in July but the case collapsed
The trial of student Liam Allan, 22, was thrown out at Croydon Crown Court last week.

The case collapsed three days into the trial when the police were ordered to hand over phone records showing the alleged victim had pestered Mr Allan for casual sex.

Days later, another prosecution case collapsed against Isaac Itiary, who was facing trial at Inner London Crown Court, accused of raping a child.

He was charged in July but police only disclosed "relevant material" in response to his defence case statement as his trial was about to start.

The same Met Police officer had worked on both men's cases. He remains on full duty.

The Met said it would review both these cases separately, as well as carrying out the wider review of other live rape cases.

'Deeply worrying'
Justice minister Dominic Raab said it was "absolutely right" for the Met to carry out the review, adding: "The basic principle of British justice is at stake."

"The proper disclosure obligations in these two cases have not been discharged, and that is deeply worrying," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

"This is not a new thing. It should be made easy by technology," he added.

Grey line
Analysis
By BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw

The cases of Liam Allan and Isaac Itiary are very different.

As far as Mr Allan is concerned, the Met has accepted the case "clearly went wrong".

Crucial information was disclosed to defence barristers so late that the trial was already well under way.

In Mr Itiary's case, procedures appear to have been followed, though it's possible police could have acted more quickly.

What the cases have done is shine a light on the importance of following disclosure rules.

Undoubtedly the squeeze on resources, with cuts in the Crown Prosecution Service and policing and a national shortage of detectives, together with the increased caseload for sexual offences units, have played their part.

An inspection report this year also pinpointed inadequacies in training and supervision.

Some see the problems as a direct result of a misplaced culture of "believing" the victim, where police don't look for or withhold contradictory evidence - but that's an assertion for the attorney general's inquiry to examine.

Grey line
Last week, Attorney General of England and Wales Jeremy Wright ordered a review to look at disclosure processes - including codes of practice, guidelines and legislation relating to sex offences and other crimes - which is expected to report back next year.

Speaking to the BBC, Mr Wright said the two cases of the young men were "obviously appalling failures of the criminal justice system".

"We need to understand and understand urgently what went wrong in those cases," he said.

He added that there were already concerns about the disclosure system due to the large amounts of digital information that needed filtering and sifting to find evidence that ought to be disclosed.

I'm going to say that in the two cases above the information that defence requested was deliberately withheld.
Desperation to secure convictions and thus solved cases stats to be increased has resulted in the breaking of the law.

Legal Aid desperately needs a rethink as these cases would have gone unnoticed without some diligence on the part of barristers and legal firms involved.
The CPS needs a very urgent independent review into how they treat cases.

The police can go feth themselves though.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

So how do you feel about the idea that the Tories, freed from the EU, will try to relax environmental regulations in order to "streamline business"?

Our relationship with the EU will have a significant potential impact on our immediate envionrment, as well as potentially any sort of large scale disaster recovery.

If something needs to be done now, then I believe the nimbleness of only having to get an emergency vote quickly through the Commons, is a great advantage in comparison to the glacial pace of change in the EU.

The idea of England's green and pleasant land is fully ingrained into the nation's psyche. People will stand up for that with or without the EU. Don't expect people just to roll over easily.

But the UK doing lots on its own will have exactly zero effect on the things you are worried about. It will do nothing to prevent rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels, rising global temperatures etc.

Even if Britain stayed in the EU, there's not much we could do about China and India, big polluters in this regard.

...

That's not true, of course.

The EU is a large powerful trading bloc with the ability to go toe to toe with China -- The EU agreed with China on the Paris Accord, for example.

While the UK was one of the three most powerful members of the EU, we had a lot of say in EU environmental policy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
..

Spoiler:

So May and Bojo but no Corbyn huh ?

via

http://popbitch.com/2017/12/commons-as-muck/

According to Parliament’s figures, 2,040 individuals work at the House Of Commons (in both full and part-time capacities) – so that’s roughly 16 attempts per person to access pornography in September. Or, to put it another way, every single employee in the HoC trying to peek at porn every other day.

However, this makes the assumption that everyone working in the House Of Commons is equally horny – and we know from the volume of pornography allegedly on Damian Green’s computer that that simply cannot be possible. If everyone was perpetually as horny as Damian Green, even less would get done in Parliament.

So perhaps it’s more useful to divorce these numbers from people, and look at it in terms of time.

There are (famously) 30 days in September. 32,164 attempts to access of porngraphy across 30 days works out at an average of 1,072 attempts a day.

That’s 45 attempts an hour, or, if you prefer, one attempt made every 80 seconds.

.... welll.... have to admire the work ethic there eh ....

Presumably this was the Brexit team looking for impact ass sessments.

Or some kind of dodgy pun.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Why would anyone let May, who has no charisma, backbone, presence and can't be trusted, mediate on anything?

Any involvement from us will be seen for what it is; an attempt to interfere in A50 discussions on the EU27 side.

But it's a moot point; she has no political acumen.

May could give Barnier a kidney and it still wouldn't help her get consessions; she's just that outclassed.

It's strange times indeed when I agree with both Jouso and Herzlos in the same day!

Bt yeah, you're right - May would struggle to outwit a dead parrot.

None the less, this is a golden opportunity. You're forgetting that legally, we're still EU members, so why couldn't we talk to Poland or Brussels about this?

Hell, use a smokescreen and talk to Poland under the cover of NATO if need be. Say that because of Russia, we're only in Warsaw to sell them more guns or something. Something. Anything.

If I were May, I'd dropping into Hungary as well. This EUunited front of the 27 is not as solid as Tusk, Juncker, and Barnier would have us believe. There are cracks and tensions there.

I keep banging this drum, but God damn it, what I wouldn't give for a Foreign Sec. with the acumen and diplomatic skill to be all over these division like a bad rash.

What a missed opportunity...

**Herzlos**

That's every 80 seconds per 24 hours?

It's every 23 seconds over an 8 hour working day.

**Disciple of Fate**

Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary and Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal with that aftermath.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

None the less, this is a golden opportunity. You're forgetting that legally, we're still EU members, so why couldn't we talk to Poland or Brussels about this?

Because it's blatant interfering. Why do they need an intermediary anyway? The eu knows what it's doing. Same with Hungary; we aren't allowed to court them individually.

What a missed opportunity...

Brexit in a nutshell. Were you ever expecting anything else?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.

Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.

Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNP MPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.

From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?

It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.

**Disciple of Fate**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.

Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.

Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNP MPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.

From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?

It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.

Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

None the less, this is a golden opportunity. You're forgetting that legally, we're still EU members, so why couldn't we talk to Poland or Brussels about this?

Because it's blatant interfering. Why do they need an intermediary anyway? The eu knows what it's doing. Same with Hungary; we aren't allowed to court them individually.

What a missed opportunity...

Brexit in a nutshell. Were you ever expecting anything else?

Blatant intefering? See my above point about the SNP and the EU. It's common knowledge what the SNP stand for, and to be fair to the EU, we're not getting Juncker and Tusk having meetings with Alyn Smith, a very pro-EU SNP MEP. That would be a blatant breach of protocol, and Tusk and Juncker are too smart for that.

But Smith is meeting with MEPs who have the ear of Juncker and Tusk, so we can draw our own conclusions from that.

I have no grudge against the EU for doing this - I'd do the same in their position, but I see nothing wrong with May getting cosy with Warsaw or Budapest.

It's old school realpolitik

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.

Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.

Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNP MPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.

From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?

It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.

Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?

Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?

It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

And how do we pay for those troops in Estonia when apparently there’s No Magic Money Tree?

**Herzlos**

I can bet you a million quid the uk offering to station troops there wouldn't go down well with anyone. We can't play at realpolitik because the eu forbids it, end of. We'd get caught or screw it up, because we're hopeless, and it'd get messy.

If we were to meddle for our advantage we'd be best to keep politicians out of it.

As I understand it, the snp are courting the eu, to make sure they understand we're leaving against our will and don't want screwed.

**Disciple of Fate**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.

Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.

Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNP MPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.

From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?

It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.

Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?

Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?

It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.

But NATO already guarantees UK support for them against Russia. Meanwhile the EU is the most important political and economic block in Europe that Poland could use against Russia, which the UK is leaving. There really doesn't seem to be any leverage beyond putting a few more troops in Poland, which both Poland and the UK know is just mere peanuts against tens of thousands of Russians on the other side of the border. Those few thousand extra troops might make up what Poland sees as a negative Brexit personally, as the UK leaving is politically damaging to Polish power inside the EU. Its hardly going to make Poland side with the UK as Poland needs the EU even more with the UK out.

**r_squared**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42431095

This has me quite concerned. The veiled, and not so veiled, threats against countries who don't support the US' position on Jerusalem. At the moment it seems like the US is starting to throw it's weight around, and it looks like they don't mind burning some bridges to do that. I know that our "special" relationship is a one-sided joke, but this sort of rhetoric and bullying does not bode well for our future relations.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
I can bet you a million quid the uk offering to station troops there wouldn't go down well with anyone. We can't play at realpolitik because the eu forbids it, end of. We'd get caught or screw it up, because we're hopeless, and it'd get messy.

If we were to meddle for our advantage we'd be best to keep politicians out of it.

As I understand it, the snp are courting the eu, to make sure they understand we're leaving against our will and don't want screwed.

Ah, but you're forgetting the trump card here: this has nothing to do with the EU - it's one NATO member helping out another NATO member.

Of course, Estonia is also an EU member, but if it were kept in strictly NATO channels, there's not a lot the EU could do.

Brussels wouldn't be told to mind its own business - nothing as harsh as that, but the paperwork would have NATO headings embossed on it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42431095

This has me quite concerned. The veiled, and not so veiled, threats against countries who don't support the US' position on Jerusalem. At the moment it seems like the US is starting to throw it's weight around, and it looks like they don't mind burning some bridges to do that. I know that our "special" relationship is a one-sided joke, but this sort of rhetoric and bullying does not bode well for our future relations.

Trump is threatening to cut off aid money to nations who don't support the USA on this, but seeing as we paid off our WW2 loans 10 years ago, what could they do?

**Disciple of Fate**

r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42431095

This has me quite concerned. The veiled, and not so veiled, threats against countries who don't support the US' position on Jerusalem. At the moment it seems like the US is starting to throw it's weight around, and it looks like they don't mind burning some bridges to do that. I know that our "special" relationship is a one-sided joke, but this sort of rhetoric and bullying does not bode well for our future relations.

Seeing as how its likely that almost every country is going to vote against the US, there are going to be a lot of bridges in need of burning. At the end of the day its only going to be strong-arming the countries that don't really 'matter' on the international stage, that are more susceptible to this pressure. Incredibly counterproductive to US foreign policy, but then again

**Vaktathi**

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.

Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.

Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNP MPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.

From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?

It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.

Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?

Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?

It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.

But NATO already guarantees UK support for them against Russia. Meanwhile the EU is the most important political and economic block in Europe that Poland could use against Russia, which the UK is leaving. There really doesn't seem to be any leverage beyond putting a few more troops in Poland, which both Poland and the UK know is just mere peanuts against tens of thousands of Russians on the other side of the border. Those few thousand extra troops might make up what Poland sees as a negative Brexit personally, as the UK leaving is politically damaging to Polish power inside the EU. Its hardly going to make Poland side with the UK as Poland needs the EU even more with the UK out.

If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, nobody will be looking to Brussels - we'll all be on the phone to Washington and the HQ of the 1st Marine Division.

As a side note, does the US military still have the 1st Marine Division? They have de-activated historical units over the years, so I'm not sure on this, and I'm on an old phone here so it's fiddly to check things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And how do we pay for those troops in Estonia when apparently there’s No Magic Money Tree?

Two weeks ago, there was an article in The Guardian saying we could pay the EU the 50 billion by printing more money with QE, and it wouldn't affect the national debt that much.

If push came to shove i.e something as serious as a war, it's always an option. Granted, not a perfect option.

**Vaktathi**

Yes, the Marine 1ID exists, but it's probably not going to be the first unit to respond, particularly given that it's based in San Diego.

**Disciple of Fate**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Talk to them about what though? The reason Hungary amd Poland are at odds with the EU is their increasingly authoritarian tendencies in certain aspects. Supporting them for the UK's gain is both very cynical given what's happening and also a 'nice' departure gift to the populations in question who will deal woth that aftermath.

Of course it's cynical - that's nature of international politics and diplomacy. We'll be best friends on security co-operation, because it's in both our interests, but on other issues, each side will be looking for any advantage to gain the upper hand. After all, Britain is leaving.

Just for a minute, forget my support of the SNP. The EU are happy to have semi-official meetings with SNP MPs and MEPs, and this is the SNP that wants out of Britain don't forget, so the EU are happy to stoke divisions in Britain.

From a realpolitik stance, why shouldn't Britain do the same to the EU?

It's nothing personal, it's business, as the old saying goes.

Realpolitik to offer what though? As it stands the EU is very unlikely to actually succesfully undertake action against either. So what does UK support give them that they don't already have?

Eastern Europe has concerns about Russia. Trump seems to be luke warm about NATO these days. Britain could say, hey Estonia, want a few thousand more British troops in your country?

It could be something as simple as that. It's diplomacy 101.

But NATO already guarantees UK support for them against Russia. Meanwhile the EU is the most important political and economic block in Europe that Poland could use against Russia, which the UK is leaving. There really doesn't seem to be any leverage beyond putting a few more troops in Poland, which both Poland and the UK know is just mere peanuts against tens of thousands of Russians on the other side of the border. Those few thousand extra troops might make up what Poland sees as a negative Brexit personally, as the UK leaving is politically damaging to Polish power inside the EU. Its hardly going to make Poland side with the UK as Poland needs the EU even more with the UK out.

If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, nobody will be looking to Brussels - we'll all be on the phone to Washington and the HQ of the 1st Marine Division.

As a side note, does the US military still have the 1st Marine Division? They have de-activated historical units over the years, so I'm not sure on this, and I'm on an old phone here so it's fiddly to check things.

But the moment bullets start flying a few thousand British troops won't be worth looking at either, seeing as they would have the same function a speed-bump on the road has. Poland would have to look to its immediate NATO neighbours for serious support. But this is all basic NATO stuff, nothing that the UK can really pressure Poland with unless they choose the Trump NATO act.

Also yes, the 1st Marine Division still exists as one of three marine divisions, likely the last to be ever scrapped if ever comes one day.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Vaktathi wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.

Yeah, I'm slightly concerned about who will fill the vacuum, now that the USA seems to be 'retreating' from the world stage.

The last time the USA retreated, it was the 1920s, and most of the world was the British Empire, so Britain was none too bothered, but these days?

Who knows...

**Disciple of Fate**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.

Yeah, I'm slightly concerned about who will fill the vacuum, now that the USA seems to be 'retreating' from the world stage.

The last time the USA retreated, it was the 1920s, and most of the world was the British Empire, so Britain was none too bothered, but these days?

Who knows...

As of now nobody has the presence to really step in, so we would be moving to a multipolar world of the EU, the BRIC and the US likely, possibly some other regional players. Further into the future? Possibly China, if the PRC manages to hold steady and actually develops a comprehensive approach and drive to take over a hegemonic position, but there doesn't seem to be such an inclination in China currently. If it develops, it will be very different to Western hegemony, that is the only sure thing.

**Vaktathi**

I would assume whatever administration comes in after this one will attempt to return things to the pre-trump era, as long as stuff doesnt get too weird, id expect a return to that status quo for as long as it would have otherwise been sustainable, but we'll see what happens.

It's certainly been interesting to see how much Germany's position has risen in the meantime, and China looks to be eagerly exploiting the US retreat.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Vaktathi wrote:
Yes, the Marine 1ID exists, but it's probably not going to be the first unit to respond, particularly given that it's based in San Diego.

San Diego? How far is that away from Eastern Europe?

I really need to check up on what the US military actually has in Europe before I make sweeping statements like this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it too much. The US ship of state is going to basically be rudderless for another 3 years and statements like that are playing to internal politics, there's nothing to back such threats up and certainly no domestic will to really care.

Yeah, I'm slightly concerned about who will fill the vacuum, now that the USA seems to be 'retreating' from the world stage.

The last time the USA retreated, it was the 1920s, and most of the world was the British Empire, so Britain was none too bothered, but these days?

Who knows...

As of now nobody has the presence to really step in, so we would be moving to a multipolar world of the EU, the BRIC and the US likely, possibly some other regional players. Further into the future? Possibly China, if the PRC manages to hold steady and actually develops a comprehensive approach and drive to take over a hegemonic position, but there doesn't seem to be such an inclination in China currently. If it develops, it will be very different to Western hegemony, that is the only sure thing.

History shows us that having one or two global super powers running the show usually results in stability, but if you have 4 or 5 powers, you end up with armed camps and a 1914 situation.

**Herzlos**

Do you honestly think the eu would be fooled by some NATO headed paper?

**Whirlwind**

bouncingboredom wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:
You never want to use the military as a tool for a country's own political ends because as noted before it represents a powerful role for the armed forces. you never want to have to use your military force and should only be for the defence and protection of people.
If you're worried about our military going on some sort of WWII-esque rampage across the low countries, I wouldn't worry to much. The army would struggle to field a properly functioning and supported armoured division at the moment. We do have a wide range of capabilities that make us a very useful, very capable ally when needed though, whether it's fighting pirates, Islamic nutjobs, or out-of-control dictators. We don't intentionally set out to build and utilise our armed forces for the sole purpose of brokering influence around the world, it's more a beneficial side effect that they offer.to receive them.

You still don't really seem to get it. It's not what I think the government will do, it's about what you think is acceptable as without challenge that leads to the populace slowly not recognising what they are saying actually means.

**r_squared**

bouncingboredom wrote:
...Now I think someone asked earlier about what I thought were the possible benefits of a "hard" brexit?

Let me preface this by saying I would prefer us to come to some kind of agreement with the EU. It doesn't have to be a super duper deal to end all deals, I was only expecting something modest on certain elements of mutual interest to both parties. But I'm of the opinion that no deal is better than a bad deal; a bad deal by my definition being one that retains many of the negative elements of being in the EU while sacrificing most of the opportunities that brexit presents (some of the more onerous/ridiculous regulations, having to pay money to the EU, the ongoing legal supremacy of the ECtHR, the unrestricted movement of people). A no deal in this regard is I think the better option. It's also worth noting that for May to be able to negotiate seriously she needs to have the ability to walk away at any moment. Even if she has no intention of actually exercising that option, she at least needs to have it in her back pocket and the EU needs to know that she does. Otherwise they're just going to curb stomp the government throughout the talks, something they've been doing to a degree so far.

Walking away without a deal offers the opportunity to forge our own path. Will it be easy? No. But then nothing that's ever been worth doing was easy. Is it a tremedous challenge to make a success of? Yep. But then facing great challenges has always been something that we have excelled at as a nation, not least because of our creativity and adaptability. I'm a firm believer that great challenges bring out the best in people. When we look across the atlantic and see what the Americans took from going to the moon, it was more than just the bragging rights to one of history's truly great achievements. The Apollo program brought out the best in America; the brightest and best minds, pulling together as a team and applied to a singular task that broke new ground and achieved something wonderous. It's why i find the attitude of some on the remain side so disheartening, because I'd prefer to see some of those bright minds applying themselves to the task at hand and helping the country to be the best that it possibly can be.

I know a lot of people are afraid of the no deal option, but from what I can tell a lot of that seems to stem from the fact that neither side adequately explained what that actually entails. For example, in the case of dealings with countries like America and China it changes virtually nothing because there's no deals in place between the EU and these countries anyway. But even in cases where the EU does have a deal, such as the new deal with Japan, not that much dramatically changes at this initial stage either. That's largely due a clause in the WTO rules known as "Most Favoured Nation" (sometimes referred to as Most Preferred Nation). In essence what this means is that when two groups who are party to the WTO rules (such as the EU countries and Japan) strike a deal, they must offer the same tariff rates to all other WTO members. This also covers things such as intellectual property. In effect, when the EU negotiates a tariff reduction with one country it is negotiating the same deal with all countries, including the EU. Now granted there are a lot less obvious benefits derived from a deal beyond mere tariffs and plenty of stuff that isn't covered as such by WTO rules, but a good chunk of it is.

And this is where I'd like to see our innovative streak kick in, where i'd like to see our intellectual talent deployed to its fullest. One of the major problems that the EU has when negotiating trade deals, in common with the US, is the vast scope of the geography involved. The EU is not negotiating for a country, it's negotiating for a continent, which partly explains why the EU has no deal with China but New Zealand does. The reason we can't access the incredibly low cost solar panels that China has been pumping out of late is because of the EU's need to protect large solar power manufacturers in places like Germany. This is the perennial problem for the EU; the difficulty in achieveing concensus across such a broad range of interests. Here is where I think we not only have an advantage, but with a bit of ingenuity could set about breaking the mold of international trade. By keeping our deals more tightly focused and limited to a more narrow range of issues I believe we could set a new trend in what would effectively be mini-deals, designed to cover only those most pressing factors between ourselves and a partner nation. By the necessity and self imposed pressure of needing to get things moving I genuinely think we can radically reshape the nature of international trade negotiations between certain nations.

It's a tough ask, but like I said earlier I think we thrive under tough circumstances. Steel is after all forged in the heat of the crucible...

Just a couple of points. I appreciate the positivism, I think you and DINLT are kindred spirits in that regards, however just to make sure I'm clear...

The ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) is not part of the EU and we will still be subject to that, I'm guessing you meant the ECJ (European Court of Justice)?
I definitely agree that we need to get a deal that is at least positive, but I recognise that the chances are it will absolutely not be better than the one we had in economic terms. If we do get a deal, then we do need to maintain as much of our own independence and freedom to negotiate as possible,but I don't think there will be much wriggle room in that regard. I think the whole premise of threatening to walk away from the table with no deal is blatantly false and actually counter-productive. There's no point in making an insincere threat, and the EU knows our threats to walk are insincere, and therefore pointless. They are concerned, however, that May's weakness in her own party will make achieving a deal harder for her to guarantee, and they are really not happly about that at all. Bizarrely, our strength comes not from threatening to walk away, but May's weakness as a leader.

WTO rules are a base framework for those to use who haven't negotiated a better deal, we shouldn't be relying on them for very long at all if possible. They don't cover a huge amount of legislation and agreement wrt to air travel, science and security for example. It will take a huge amount of effort and expense to sort out those deals and agreements all over again from scratch, and we will very much be the weaker cousin if we come to sort out a deal with the EU after spending time operating under WTO rules. It really should be avoided, which is why the vast majority of other nations try to avoid relying on them solely.

Your last paragraph is basically talking about the UK rationalising and specialising, however we actually have already done this as a service economy. The problem is that the service economy relies on being a member if the single market, or a deal being struck that means we can continue to rely on the banks. Hopefully they will come up with something that allows our economy to continue to function as it is for the time being before we restructure it into something else, maybe a giant silicon valley? Tech companies and IT innovation across the whole country. You never know.

That's actually vastly preferable in my mind to a reliance on the spivs and speculators of the city. It would in fact be a hugely positive thing to come out of this mess, if only we had a Govt with some vision and leadership to not feth it up.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.

Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,

and it's not much better for Britain with rising sea levels.

Sea levels will rise, but the rest is largely uncertain. One potential theory is the gulf stream will move south because of extra cold water from the poles. That would make the UK more akin to what Canada experiences at the same latitude. The EU would then get mild and very wet (especially on the coast). We simply don't know how everything will pan out and that's the great risk with climate change. We are charging headlong, in reality ignoring the experts with a blind hope it will be all right on the night. What is probably likely to happen though is that it will generate mass migration that makes what is going on now seem like nothing.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Do you honestly think the eu would be fooled by some NATO headed paper?

Of course not. The point I;m trying to make is that NATO is NATO and the EU is the EU. Sure, they'll co-operate on some things, but they'll have their secrets they keep from each other.

It's like the FBI and some small town sherriff department. Yeah, they're on the same side, want to catch the bad guy, but their official channels will be seperate from each other.

Let's not forget that there are non-EU NATO members, including some that are in Europe, Iceland and Norway being prime examples.