Reply to: Taking back control - US president decides who should be UK ambassador to US

[original PM]

MI6 are also saying do something about the Chinese or no trade deal? Looks like U.K. sovereignty is up for sale to anyone.

Everything is for sale it's about negotiating the right price.

[emoji3166]

[meridian]

I was being slightly sarcastic. The orange man-baby (as you so quaintly put it) might be gone next year, so whilst we should eventually see someone reasonable in the WH, there's little prospect of that happening in Brussels. Instead we have ourselves a passionate Federalist*. That's not my idea of a "good idea".

*She's wasn't considered competent enough to replace Merkel, you couldn't make it up...

I was assuming you were sarcastic :-)

Someone “reasonable” in the White House? What difference will that make? The USA is one of the three top economies in the world (besides the EU and China). They will dictate terms, we will bend over. We simply don’t have the economic clout alone to compete, and we’ve just shown (through the treatment of our Ambassador) that we don’t have the political clout either.

I happen to agree that the choice of Commission President isn’t the greatest one. It’s a good thing therefore that in reality they have very little actual clout.

[Mordac]

Considering we have a seat on the EU Council, 75/650 odd MEPs, and seats in the various commissions, vs an orange man-baby that thinks that the only good deal is one where he wins and the other side loses, that’s probably a good idea.

Glad you’re coming around to it.

I was being slightly sarcastic. The orange man-baby (as you so quaintly put it) might be gone next year, so whilst we should eventually see someone reasonable in the WH, there's little prospect of that happening in Brussels. Instead we have ourselves a passionate Federalist*. That's not my idea of a "good idea".

*She's wasn't considered competent enough to replace Merkel, you couldn't make it up...

[meridian]

You're right, it would be so much easier all round if we let Brussels hang on to it...

Considering we have a seat on the EU Council, 75/650 odd MEPs, and seats in the various commissions, vs an orange man-baby that thinks that the only good deal is one where he wins and the other side loses, that’s probably a good idea.

Glad you’re coming around to it.

[BlasterBates]

You're right, it would be so much easier all round if we let Brussels hang on to it...

Indeed, it will be no problem to negotiate a veto to stop Donald Trump pushing the UK around.

[Mordac]

MI6 are also saying do something about the Chinese or no trade deal? Looks like U.K. sovereignty is up for sale to anyone.

You're right, it would be so much easier all round if we let Brussels hang on to it...

[BlasterBates]

Looks like Trump might change his mind on Huawei, because he needs to to a deal with China.

How embarrassing a foreign policy flip-flopping to suit US interests.

Is Huawei a threat? ask Donald Trump. We might as well do away with our own intelligence services.

[meridian]

It's not just the US saying that. MI6 and lots of other people who know what they're talking about are saying pretty much the same about Huawei.

Has May been bribed with a free upgrade?

MI6 are also saying do something about the Chinese or no trade deal? Looks like U.K. sovereignty is up for sale to anyone.

[Mordac]

Even more taking back control
US tells UK how to deal with Chinese.
Save

It's not just the US saying that. MI6 and lots of other people who know what they're talking about are saying pretty much the same about Huawei.

Has May been bribed with a free upgrade?

[Eirikur]

Even more taking back control
US tells UK how to deal with Chinese.
Save

[Zigenare]

The tanker was heading to Syria, which is covered by EU sanctions. The fact that the tanker originated in Iran is somewhat irrelevant, surely?

Oi Mods! He's bringing "facts" into the discussion!

[Mordac]

It's all a bit messy. The EU is keeping low key about the Iranian tanker as they don't want to upset the UK during Brexit. However, the EU have said that there is no mandate to interject Iranian oil tankers. Indeed, the Iranian news has stated outright that the tanker was interjected by order of Trump and not the EU. Just to stir up matters, Iran has two forms of government running in parallel being the elected government and the supreme-leader with his revolutionary guard. The revolutionary guard are a law unto themselves and I have no doubt they are causing trouble with the shipping in the PG; the Iranian government will never admit that they don't have control over the revolutionary guard.

The tanker was heading to Syria, which is covered by EU sanctions. The fact that the tanker originated in Iran is somewhat irrelevant, surely?

[Mordac]

It's all a bit messy.

When you do "understatement", you do it well...

[Paddy]

So let me get this right now....

We've just had a spat with our closest ally, the U.S.
We're about to sever ties with our major trading partner, the EU.
We're jousting with a volatile middle-eastern nuclear power with our one and only ship in the Gulf...
We held up that Iranian tanker at Gibraltar on the premise that it violates EU (yes, please don't laugh) sanctions.

So, it begs the question : why? Why?

It's all a bit messy. The EU is keeping low key about the Iranian tanker as they don't want to upset the UK during Brexit. However, the EU have said that there is no mandate to interject Iranian oil tankers. Indeed, the Iranian news has stated outright that the tanker was interjected by order of Trump and not the EU. Just to stir up matters, Iran has two forms of government running in parallel being the elected government and the supreme-leader with his revolutionary guard. The revolutionary guard are a law unto themselves and I have no doubt they are causing trouble with the shipping in the PG; the Iranian government will never admit that they don't have control over the revolutionary guard.

[JozefBlofeld]

So let me get this right now....

We've just had a spat with our closest ally, the U.S.
We're about to sever ties with our major trading partner, the EU.
We're jousting with a volatile middle-eastern nuclear power with our one and only ship in the Gulf...
We held up that Iranian tanker at Gibraltar on the premise that it violates EU (yes, please don't laugh) sanctions.

So, it begs the question : why? Why?