Security co-operation unlikely to change post Brexit, despite threats UK Prime Minister Theresa May is warning that failure to negotiate an agreement on Britain's exit from the European Union could damage security cooperation. The tough line - contained in Wednesday's historic letter triggering Article 50 - has re-focused minds on the possible security implications of Brexit. "In security terms …
I could have been worse. Imagine what the letter would have looked like if the more unhinged members of the government had wound up in charge.
You mean there are ministers even *more* unhinged than Mayhem? I know there are several who are serious swivel-eyed loonies, but she is serious deep-down barking.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Halfmad
I can concede your interpretation of Mrs May's text as one possible interpretation.
But - It was phrased in a most undiplomatic manner. (My emphasis in the quote.)
The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.
The way in which the text flows can be taken as linking security agreements (and hence cooperation) inextricably with a trade agreement. That this is so, has been backed up by some of the reactions of our European neighbours.
It is difficult to believe that, Mrs May, as a seasoned politician, working with the help of professional diplomats, did not foresee this interpretation. The only two explanations that I can see for this are that she intended the paragraph to be taken as it was in Europe, a thinly veiled threat or she did not consult when drafting the letter - it simply wasn't proofread.
Neither of these inspire confidence.
Britain spends more of its economy on security than any EU country not named Greece. Its perfectly fine to put that on the table
You're trying to get Britain the best economic arrangement in the face of the EU, which is saying that Britain needs to come out of Brexit poorer to make a point about the costs of leaving the EU. I'd put the security card on the table in that case, to get my people the best economic deal possible and a secure economic future for as many British as possible. Its the EU members' fault that they underinvested on security and made themselves excessively dependent on Britain.
" I'd put the security card on the table in that case, to get my people the best economic deal possible and a secure economic future for as many British as possible."
So you're going to take your country out of an already set economic agreement between 27 countries, and have to re-negotiate a deal with them again with every chance of it being worse? That's a mighty good idea, I like that.
"Its the EU members' fault that they underinvested on security and made themselves excessively dependent on Britain."
Remind me again what EU countries backed America when going to war in Iraq? Because I distinctly remember France being against that.
The USA and the UK were warned what would happen if they invaded Iraq on a whim. It's funny when people talk about the terrorism problem now they don't recall that period in our history when the EU didn't want to back action in Iraq. And you have to ask yourself: who was right?
So if the EU is so virtuous (which they were on Iraq, though having Saddam/Baathists in power the last 15 years would have been another kind of disaster), then why are they complaining about less-virtuous Britain putting the security relationship on the table now? Its because the EU didn't want to invade another country (Iraq as an example), but they know that if they don't have the means to do that themselves if they needed to. The EU has farmed their defense out to other nations, and now they want to pretend there are no significant costs to doing that.
If the 27 families that live on your block rely on a security guard, and then they tell the security guard that we are going to make you poorer as a matter of policy, then maybe they should consider that the security guard might be a little less responsive the next time somebody complains about a prowler in the neighborhood.
"So if the EU is so virtuous (which they were on Iraq, though having Saddam/Baathists in power the last 15 years would have been another kind of disaster), then why are they complaining about less-virtuous Britain putting the security relationship on the table now?"
Well what sort of idiot goes to the EU and says "Give us a better trade deal or we won't help you with terrorism"? You refer to the 27 families and their reliance on a security guard. If you're the security guard and you said "Give me more money or I won't help keep an eye on your property", how do you think the other families would react - especially when you had a role in creating the problem of people attacking their property? I mean, where did Saddam get his Anthrax and Hawk fighter jets from? China?
"The EU has farmed their defense out to other nations, and now they want to pretend there are no significant costs to doing that."
Britain shares its ships with France. That wasn't France knocking on Britains door for that, it was the other way round.
You have completely missed the point in what the EU are pissed off with Frau May's comments. Read what another commentor has written, especially the bit in bold. This is a deliberate ploy to blackmail/scare the EU in to giving Britain a good deal, because May knows full well if she doesn't get it the idiots who have been banging on about getting Brexit will crucify her if she doesn't get the pie in the sky deals they think their entitled to.
I'd almost feel sorry for her, if she wasn't total scum.
And as for taking my people out of an existing agreement, I wasn't in favor of Brexit, but that ship has sailed. Humpty Dumpty is broken and he's not getting put back together again.
The question now is what what is the negotiating position that is going to best secure the economic future of the British people. Going to the EU as a supplicant with "Please let us sell to you sans tariffs" is not that position
@Marketing Hack
And as for taking my people out of an existing agreement, I wasn't in favor of Brexit, but that ship has sailed.
The ship has sailed, but there is still a high likelihood that it will break down before it gets to open water and has to be towed back to dock, having dumped the captain and officers overboard.
I'm a bit confused.
We have a string of politicians mentioning the good things that they want to keep after Brexit, including security co-operation, but a whole long list of other things, like the single market, no customs problems, access to the UK for 'useful' foreigners (nurses etc), financial services passporting etc
We've already got all these things, so why the ???? are we withdrawing from the EU and then wasting years and billions trying to get them back again, almost certainly without success.
Just curious. It seems an odd way to proceed.
Weeeellll ...
Now A50 has been delivered, we've moved into realpolitik (deliberate foreign word there to inflame the moronic). And in Realpolitik, no one - well no one in the EU27 - gives a rats arse what the UK may or may not want.
Any deal the UK does with the EU27 over security will have to be overseen by the ECJ and ECHR - thus meaning the UK will have to abide by those two courts. In fact, it's the same as now.
Oh, no, hang on. It's the same as now except the UK will have no say on the members of those courts.
I notice with interest that even the Minister for Brexit, the supremely Dim (sorry, David) Davies has started to back pedal on the "promises" made before yesterday. Now they're "ambitions"
So if getting out of the ECHR (yes, I know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. But the thickos in the office who voted leave don't. Or rather didn't. They are learning now that experts can sometimes be right) or ECJ was a priority for you, I'm sorry. Not.
I've noticed that those that want Brexit understand what Brexit means (or are at least satisfied with the definition they've accepted) and those that don't want Brexit don't understand what Brexit means.
Perhaps that is why people voted to Remain, because they don't understand what Brexit means.
@Alowe
Unfortunately, I can't tell if you've intended your post to be serious or if you have offered it in jest with a degree of sarcasm.
But for the avoidance of doubt, I did not vote to Remain because I did not understand the raging clusterfuck that Brexit is likely to be. (See - not certainty - just a balance of probabilities.)
I voted to Remain, because for all its faults - and there are many, I still believe that the EU has a greater upside than downside. There are the economics of the matter - but for me, even more importantly, there are the social aspects of the EU. Things like the working time directive which allowed people to say that they would not be compelled to work unsafe numbers of hours - a measure that the enlightened of Westminster didn't show initiative on. Things such as environmental protections where it's the EU that seems to take the lead.
Does the EU need amending - yes it does. But the problem with storming out is that you get no say on how any remedial actions will take place. And the irony is that in order to trade, the UK will have to accept the rules of the EU - without modification as was conceded by Mrs may in her letter.
We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.
…that it single-handedly defeated the IRA: prevented the bombing of the Horseguards' Parade, central Manchester and countless bombings in Northern Ireland.
Oh no, it didn't, but the EU-backed peace process managed to. Glad we're getting rid of that then!
I believe you make the mistake of assuming the job of the British Intelligence service is to protect the British people. It isn't. It's job is to protect the British establishment. As long as the British people were stupid enough to respond to every IRA outrage with the "we'll never give in" line, there was little to be gained from acting to save their lives. Of course, the British Public *could* have responded by educating itself as to the causes of the conflict, and putting pressure on it's elected leaders to work towards a solution. But that's just not British.
Unlike the British Public, the IRA *did* study their enemy. Hence the bombs in the City of London and lo !! 5 years later a deal. Mrs Thatcher would have approved of the efficiency savings the IRA demonstrated from 1974 to 1994.
(Incidentally it's the same brain-closed approach of "I've always voted <whatever>" which explains why political parties so supported can happily shit all over their supporters. After all, if you would only ever vote Labour, why should Labour do anything for you ?)
You can never prevent every nutter from slaughtering people.
And really, trying to claim that the EU is singlehandedly responsible for the Northern Ireland peace process is absurd. The biggest drivers are (in no particular order) that:-
1) The USSR fell in '91 and so funding for their overseas terrorism section got eliminated leading to a large number of terrorist groups across Europe abruptly disappearing in the '90's.
2) Nobody in Northern Ireland wanted to be blown up, and killing and maiming huge numbers of people by blowing up car bombs in random crowds attracted widespread international condemnation.
3) The American support line for weapons, money and general holidays where people were buying "brave fighters" drinks abruptly vanished after 9/11.
The EEC had no involvement in any of the above.
"Nice Community you have there - It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
Quite. It's just that Mrs May's approach rather reminds me of the Vercotti brothers rather than, say Vito Corleone.
Far be it for me to criticise the sensationalist title of the article, and I'm not trying to be pedantic, but wouldn't this title be more honest?
<b>Security co-operation unlikely to change post Brexit, despite veiled threat</b>
The reason I say this is too often I click on an article to find out why the title is what it is, only to find that it has been sensationalised beyond reasonable logic. True news doesn't need to be sensationalised to be heard.
Does Britain (even with 5-eyes backing) really contribute as much to security intelligence as the rest of the EU?
And are criminals/threats originating from Britain really equal to those from the continent? (Apart from bankers, of course).
The UK has more to lose than the EU here. I expect that to be reflected in any negotiations.
Prepare yourselves for for 2 years of talks
interrupted by various parties on both sides going "WE WONT ACCEPT THIS" in loud voices to the press... followed by the usual mid level guys having a quiet fireside chat over drinks and getting the text of an agreement together.
Both sides have a lot to lose if it goes badly, and no matter what the top guys spout off to the press, they'll be instructed to sign on the dotted line at the right time
And then hail the agreement as the best thing ever while spouting off to the press that the deal was what they wanted all along........
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
