Article 50 trigger 29th March

ana wrong person

rose i of course agree and that is why the letter content was so naive and ridiculous and why our diplomats are busy trying to smooth ruffled feathers

I doubt that anyone would support me had I said a similar thing GGM2 !
So glad that you don't think we would be full of glee ( at deaths of innocent people) how very kind.

I don't think anyone would be 'full of glee' but the fact that May has put it onto the negotiating table means that withdrawing information about security has become a possibility otherwise she has completely weakened her position already by threatening something she will not do. Or are you willing to accept holding back information which could cause harm to other countries?

Actually, I thought that petra's post was nasty in the extreme. All that violent language about 'big guns' and approving using people's safety from terrorist attacks as a bargaining chip? Horrible.

Presumably written by someone who has very little empathy. Actually, if an attack with loss of life were to happen because we'd withdrawn our intelligence I would consider anyone who'd approved of this policy shedding tears over the carnage as a complete hypocrite.

Roses I've often thought you write with such certainty as though you are privy to Ministerial memoranda.

When GN members questioned whether what TM wrote in her letter constituted a threat to barter a trade agreement in exchange for security information, you wrote:

'That will never happen, we are part of Europe and terrorism is a huge threat to all.'

Would you be kind enough to explain to me how you think it will never happen as TM actually wrote: If however, we leave the EU without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on WTO terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.

Do you know what she means and why she would class the two issues as being inter-related? Officials weren't very sure and many were alarmed by this part of the letter.

It's all bluff and counter bluff, that's what.

I agree with maizies post. Hypocrite indeed

And no Ginny I would not be 'kind enough' ( patronising phrase) to explain anything to you.

Actually the default position isn't that clear because of Article 127. According to that we may well still remain a member of EEA which itself has trade and social agreements and ties with the EU. Maybe nobody's told David Davies about that either.

Is that because you have no defence rose?

Well, of course you agree with anything that Maizie says ww that is obvious to all.
There has been no apology from Maizie about what she said, and only lukewarm umming and erring from other Remain posters about it.I think Gransnet is sinking to a new low.
The rhetoric from the Remain group on here has got worse and worse, as the hysteria around leaving the EU gets ever wilder.
That's the trouble with social media, it encourages insults.

Oh do stop it. Both sides give as good as it gets, you are more than aware of that.

And yes if people support withdrawing support from security and people get maimed or killed as a result and those very same people express shock horror, how would you describe them. In tbise circunstances hypocrite seems quite tame and understated.

And I think the juxtaposition of 'big guns' with 'terrorism' was particularly distateful.

I will not apologise, roses.

Why is it that on here, no one can have a difference of opinion from the left-wing remain position without being either ridiculed or being subjected to rudeness bordering on bullying. It's just pathetic and childish and not worth joining in.

I assume it comes from unhappiness and hubris niggly that they didn't get what they wanted, in the GE and the referendum.

So true rosesarered. Nothing ever positive only negative posts.

Not surprised you sidestepped my question Roses, because you cannot be certain that it won't happen. TM linked those two most significant issues in quite a deliberate and shocking manner.

Stop making excuses for her. She knew exactly what effect that would have and if she didn't, she's naive. It is reckless to begin negotiations being deliberately provocative. No need to reply btw.

Have a nice day.

Oh. Interesting:

"Britain and Germany set to sign defence co-operation deal"

FT 19th March

Areas of co-operation are expected to include work on cyber security, training and maritime patrols. This year, for example, Britain’s new Wildcat helicopter will be deployed from a German frigate in the Mediterranean.

Sir Michael Fallon, UK defence secretary, has been talking to some EU countries about building up military links in a move to reassure them that Britain is committed to European security and the Nato alliance.

And:
"Can a European army save the EU?"

The writing is on the wall. Whether it's paying up fast to keep Trump happy or creating a tighter EU defense policy, the EU has to revolutionize its military-industrial complex.
So when Theresa May binds herself to Germany with a military pact, she is calculating that this keeps the door open for a slice of what ultimately may become a re-tooled European defense sector.
Where once intertwined economies underpinned Europe's stability, staving off the chance of internal conflict, a new type of European union might soon emerge.
Is the future of European unity one where not just business, but integrated and interdependent security cooperation mitigates against a repeat of the continent's dark history?
Is Europe's tomorrow one where we all make each other's guns, bullets, bombs, tanks and fighter jets? Where another intra-European war could not get off the ground without each other's help? You might call it a mutually-implausible conflict.
It may not be the ideal union for some, but it is safer than no union at all.

on/index.htmlutm_content=buffer8b8ea&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
(sorry, can't get the link to work)

Is it me, or has this defence co-operation pact with Germany been kept very quiet?

I heard it discussed two or three days ago on Radio 4. Don't quite know what to think!!

I think that with Putin on one side and maverick Trump on the other, both wanting the breakup of the EU, it could be a sensible move.

Not sure where it leaves people who voted leave for fear of a 'European Army'.

I think niggly that 'areas of cooperation' and strengthening Nato must only be a good thing.Nothing like an EU army.

From the CNN article it looks less like 'strengthening NATO' and more like having a viable alternative. Trump looks suspiciously like he might try to withdraw from NATO on the grounds that Europe isn't paying its way.

WW don't try to excuse the inexcusable. That was a vile post by Maisie and I'm surprised at you defending it, I had to down as an intelligent woman.

That ought to read 'I had you down as an intelligent woman'