Brexit - merged threads

[Stonepark]

The sanctions which were based on what exactly ..... Refusal to roll over and accept regime change to suit USA/Uk/Israeli interests based on numerous false flags alleging use of WMD's, just like the Iraq war?

[Retsdon]

4 hours ago, Stonepark said:

The sanctions which were based on what exactly ..... Refusal to roll over and accept regime change to suit USA/Uk/Israeli interests based on numerous false flags alleging use of WMD's, just like the Iraq war?

Careful!

[pinfireman]

As Barclay points out, a forecast 15 years out that assumes the Government takes no action is not likely to be the most reliable

[oowee]

Thats all right then  moving in the right direction. 

[Raja Clavata]

12 hours ago, pinfireman said:

As Barclay points out, a forecast 15 years out that assumes the Government takes no action is not likely to be the most reliable

And this is precisely what we are dealing with here, they haven’t got a scooby.

So, assuming the 90 is the midpoint of three point estimate, I wonder what the bookends would be.

[Raja Clavata]

The subject of Iran, various sanctions and the liberties certain states are taking in the high seas are topics probably worthy of a separate thread but our inability to protect our own vessels in such a critical region shows just how under prepared for a post Brexit world the UK is.

The costs of regaining a level of credibility / deterrent should be factored into the overall bill for Brexit and Boris should explain how the books balance against this and all the other promises of lower taxes and higher public spending.

[Yellow Bear]

22 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

but our inability to protect our own vessels in such a critical region shows just how under prepared for a post Brexit world the UK is.

But we are not yet in a post brexit period and the EU have given no backing to UK ships, the initial action was in response to EU sanctions so it shows just what a ineffective grouping the EU actually is. 

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

But we are not yet in a post brexit period and the EU have given no backing to UK ships, the initial action was in response to EU sanctions so it shows just what a ineffective grouping the EU actually is. 

This.

And the prospect of any kind of Corbyn government further reducing armed forces capability.

[Raja Clavata]

27 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

But we are not yet in a post brexit period and the EU have given no backing to UK ships, the initial action was in response to EU sanctions so it shows just what a ineffective grouping the EU actually is. 

The issue isn’t the EU, the issue is the UK being able to stand up for itself independently. 

I don’t know all the facts about the seizure of the Iranian tanker off Gibraltar but am pretty sure the lack of comment from the EU can be used whichever way you see fit.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

The issue isn’t the EU, the issue is the UK being able to stand up for itself independently. 

Read that back to yourself and think about 😂

[Raja Clavata]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Read that back to yourself and think about 😂

You know full well the context in which I made that statement. What I find ironic, funny would be the wrong word, is that if we get sucked into conflict with Iran then you can kiss goodbye to your beloved delusions of Brexit, possibly for good.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

You know full well the context in which I made that statement. What I find ironic, funny would be the wrong word, is that if we get sucked into conflict with Iran then you can kiss goodbye to your beloved delusions of Brexit, possibly for good.

Now THAT is funny, why is that then ?

And the context is absolutely perfect, you want to stay in the the EU , AND have an independent armed forces ? Theyve told you straight thats not happening once proper federalism takes hold.

There wont be any war with Iran, and if there is , do you not think the US wont be doing 95 % of the heavy lifting ?
When Blair took us into Iraq and Afghan did he stop all government motions ?

Dont be silly 

[Capt Christopher Jones]

worth a listen

 

[Raja Clavata]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Now THAT is funny, why is that then ?

And the context is absolutely perfect, you want to stay in the the EU , AND have an independent armed forces ? Theyve told you straight thats not happening once proper federalism takes hold.

There wont be any war with Iran, and if there is , do you not think the US wont be doing 95 % of the heavy lifting ?
When Blair took us into Iraq and Afghan did he stop all government motions ?

Dont be silly 

So you’re blaming the EU for our military shortfalls in capability? Not surprising since you lot appear to blame everything on the EU.

This is the second time you’ve contradicted yourself within a few days on this thread - do you want to have a rethink on your statement on probability of conflict with Iran🤪

With Blair / Iraq you’re comparing apples to pears  (salmon to kippers maybe) with BoJo and Iran. For all his failings Blair was a leader, BoJo is a clown and it’s not even clear him becoming PM is a fornality. Brexit has sidelined pretty much everything else in the past three years. Will BoJo be able to even form a credible government? Probably the only thing preventing the opposition lodging an immediate no confidence is fear of a counter measure of suspending parliament.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

So you’re blaming the EU for our military shortfalls in capability? Not surprising since you lot appear to blame everything on the EU.

Where did I say that ?

This is the second time you’ve contradicted yourself within a few days on this thread - do you want to have a rethink on your statement on probability of conflict with Iran🤪

Err no.. where have I contradicted myself, I think youre getting confused again.

With Blair / Iraq you’re comparing apples to pears  (salmon to kippers maybe) with BoJo and Iran. For all his failings Blair was a leader, BoJo is a clown and it’s not even clear him becoming PM is a fornality. Brexit has sidelined pretty much everything else in the past three years. Will BoJo be able to even form a credible government? Probably the only thing preventing the opposition lodging an immediate no confidence is fear of a counter measure of suspending parliament.

See now youre REALLY CONFUSED. What on earth are you talking about ?!

Bojo might well be a clown, but Im pretty sure hes going to be PM , and HE hasnt taken us into war because the US told him to .

Personally I think youre getting a bit over excited about no confidence votes and whether or not he can form a government, do you want a GE ?
Where labour will lose seats to the BP ?
Or do you think thees no chance of that either.
Your bias is seriously clouding your judgement.

 

[Gordon R]

I am bemused that Brexit has been brought up in relation to a potential conflict with Iran. Bizarre doesn't quite hack it.

We are and will remain a member of NATO. The EU has no army, navy, air force of their own and hasn't lifted a finger in the current situation.  Just how would staying in the EU help anyone? 

Tenuous connection expected.😂

[Raja Clavata]

35 minutes ago, Capt Christopher Jones said:

worth a listen

 

Very good speech, nothing I can take exception to.

Interesting opening comment about the time, wonder if anyone else picked up the significance of that...

27 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Your standard defence is to accuse others of being confused. Very Trumpesque and clearly seen through.

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

the initial action was in response to EU sanctions 

There's a difference between prohibiting your own citizens and businesses from engaging in commerce with a country and using that same prohibition as a fig leaf to seize and hold the assets of a 3rd party. Syria is not under sanction by the UN Security Council and so Britain is on very thin legal ice using unilateral EU sanctions as a pretext to board and hold an Iranian tanker that was only in EU waters to take on food. The deafening silence from European capitals about what happened in  Gibraltar actually suggests that the EU itself wasn't consulted at all before its Syrian sanctions were weaponized to support Bolton's beef with Iran. Why should the EU support Britain? We got into this situation of our own free will, almost certainly at the behest of the Americans. 

Incidentally, this is what the UN is saying about the US - EU sanctions on Syria.https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/05/1010062

[Rewulf]

24 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Your standard defence is to accuse others of being confused. Very Trumpesque and clearly seen through.

When you point out to me WHERE I blamed the EU for our lack of armed forces , and where I contradicted myself, THEN you can use the 'Trumpesque' argument 😂

Until then, by your lack of clarification, you are just wriggling.

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

There's a difference between prohibiting your own citizens and businesses from engaging in commerce with a country and using that same prohibition as a fig leaf to seize and hold the assets of a 3rd party. Syria is not under sanction by the UN Security Council and so Britain is on very thin legal ice using unilateral EU sanctions as a pretext to board and hold an Iranian tanker that was only in EU waters to take on food. The deafening silence from European capitals about what happened in  Gibraltar actually suggests that the EU itself wasn't consulted at all before its Syrian sanctions were weaponized to support Bolton's beef with Iran. Why should the EU support Britain? We got into this situation of our own free will, almost certainly at the behest of the Americans. 

Incidentally, this is what the UN is saying about the US - EU sanctions on Syria.https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/05/1010062

It says here the UN does support sanctions on Syria, among others https://complyadvantage.com/knowledgebase/sanctions-2/sanctioned-countries/syria/

Your link is the opinion of one UN 'special rapporteur' over a year ago.

'Special Rapporteurs and independent experts are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary and the experts are not paid for their work.'

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Rewulf

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

When you point out to me WHERE I blamed the EU for our lack of armed forces , and where I contradicted myself, THEN you can use the 'Trumpesque' argument 😂

Until then, by your lack of clarification, you are just wriggling.

I asked you the question, I think you'll find the clue was the question mark at the end of the sentence 🙄

Is not "There is not going to be a war with Iran, and if there is..." a contradiction? It's not something I'd usually pick up on but as much or your retort is based around accusations of confusion and contradiction, well... 😛 

[Retsdon]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

It says here the UN does support sanctions on Syria, among others https://complyadvantage.com/knowledgebase/sanctions-2/sanctioned-countries/syria/

Your link is ill-informed. Here is an article from June of this year detailing who is imposing sanctions on Syria. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2019/04/25/briefing-just-how-smart-are-sanctions-syria

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I asked you the question, I think you'll find the clue was the question mark at the end of the sentence 🙄

What question ? Try quoting it, youre wriggling like a proper kipper now 

 

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Is not "There is not going to be a war with Iran, and if there is..." a contradiction? It's not something I'd usually pick up on but as much or your retort is based around accusations of confusion and contradiction, well... 😛 

Thats not even what I said ! and I see youve conveniently left the bit off the end for the context.

 

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

There wont be any war with Iran, and if there is , do you not think the US wont be doing 95 % of the heavy lifting ?

I said WE  wont be going to war with Iran, if the Americans do (which is unlikely IMHO) , they will usually ask for UK support, and we might chuck a few tomahawks at them that are reaching their shelf life.
So if you want to call that a contradiction (my 2nd one apparently, (but you cant point the first out) fill your boots 😐

[Retsdon]

On 21/07/2019 at 15:22, poontang said:

No law was passed the day before the seizure overriding any international convention. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar issued Regulations and notice to enforce the sanctions on 4th July.

Perhaps what is most interesting about this seizure is that it was carried out pursuant to the ‘Sanctions Regulations 2019’ enacted by Gibraltar on 3 July, just one day before the seizure.  Those Regulations give the Chief Minister of Gibraltar powers to designate a vessel as a “Specified Ship” if he “has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship … has been, or is likely to be, involved in a breach of the EU Regulation”.  The EU Regulation in question is Regulation (EU) No. 36/2012 and a “Specified Ship Notice” was issued in Gibraltar on 3 July 2019 naming the Grace 1. 

From the Tatham article linked to above.

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Your link is ill-informed. Here is an article from June of this year detailing who is imposing sanctions on Syria. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2019/04/25/briefing-just-how-smart-are-sanctions-syria

Fair enough ,I stand corrected.
So when the UN tried to sanction Syria, the Chinese and Russia vetoed them.
And the the US, EU and other NATO members just went and sanctioned them anyway ?

Makes you wonder why we even argue over such things as 'what the UN does' 

It appears they are a complete waste of time.