Brexit - The UK referendum on leaving the EU - Reneging, reshmeging!

[Malifice]

On the flip side, the British wouldnt be dropping the Paras, Commandos and SAS in downtown Paris either.

They'd be rapidly wiped out by French land forces quickly also.

 

[Malifice]

Not even the Wehrmacht considered parachuting into London, as they were acutely aware without an immediate naval invasion big enough to not only secure a beach-head but also establish resupply from Berlin to Paris to Dover to London, whatever parachute infantry got past the RAF, would be wiped out in days by British land forces.

Google Operation Sea-Lion JeanLucGoddard for a modelling of just how difficult such an invasion of London would be.

Remember, after the French land these special forces they have a fleet of only three Mistral class troop transports (3), carrying a total of 16 troop transports to cross the Channel and land ground forces. They would be sunk in short order by the RAF and the RN, and anyone actually making the crossing would be wiped out in short order by the British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_French_Navy_landing_craft

Good luck resupply and reinforcing your para-dropped SF soldiers, or establishing a beach-head on the UK with that.

The French military is simply not set up for a naval invasion of the UK; it's geared towards a land conflict in the West. The Germans had the same problem in WW2.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

The UK has the edge in sophistication of equipment. It has a much greater edge in closer ties with its former colonial acquisitions in the Commonweath, allowing it to potentially bring a much larger force to bear.

Australia and others would sit out a white people vs white people war.

 

[Malifice]

Australia and others would sit out a white people vs white people war.

We didnt the last two times it happened.

 

[The Warlord]

Not even the Wehrmacht considered parachuting into London, as they were acutely aware without an immediate naval invasion big enough to not only secure a beach-head but also establish resupply from Berlin to Paris to Dover to London, whatever parachute infantry got past the RAF, would be wiped out in days by British land forces.

Google Operation Sea-Lion JeanLucGoddard for a modelling of just how difficult such an invasion of London would be.

Remember, after the French land these special forces they have a fleet of only three Mistral class troop transports (3), carrying a total of 16 troop transports to cross the Channel and land ground forces. They would be sunk in short order by the RAF and the RN, and anyone actually making the crossing would be wiped out in short order by the British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_French_Navy_landing_craft

Good luck resupply and reinforcing your para-dropped SF soldiers, or establishing a beach-head on the UK with that.

The French military is simply not set up for a naval invasion of the UK; it's geared towards a land conflict in the West. The Germans had the same problem in WW2.

Yeah its not 1940 any more dude like I keep saying.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

We didnt the last two times it happened.

There was an empire the last two times.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Why is a conflict between two nations whose military doctrines mostly plan for a defensive alliance between the pair even being debated anyway?

Next up, Man City v. Lakers who wins?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Ireland officially sat out World War II and they're right next door.

 

[Total Power]

The bigger question is what would an ethno-supremacist like meds do if that happens?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Scott Morrison: "Look Sabra I've made Australia's position on the London-Paris conflict clear blah blah blah mutual respect and free trade"

 

[Malifice]

Yeah its not 1940 any more dude like I keep saying.

I know. It's 2019.

Like I said, the French Navy has 3 Mistral class amphibious ships, carrying a total of 16 troop transports.

After landing your paratroopers in London (somehow evading 200 Typhoons, the anti-air frigates of the RN, AWACS and a radar and early detection system literally purpose built to stop an invasion from the East from happening) the French will need to establish a beachhead on the UK (likely across the Channel) in order to reinforce and re-supply those paratroopers.

How can France establish a beach-head with only 3 amphibious assault ships, and 16 troop transports before those paratroopers are wiped out by a British counter-offensive, bringing literally all their forces to bear on London?

The British sink those 3 Mistral class amphibious ships, and the French are ****ed.

It's not going to happen. The Wehrmacht did the numbers, and they were acutely aware that they would need absolute air-superiority AND a big enough Navy to not only have enough warships to counter the Royal Navy, but also enough troop transports to enable them to land enough troops in Dover without being driven back into the sea.

The only 2 x nations in the World capable of launching a successful invasion of the UK (at present, in 2019) are Russia and the US.

This isnt a pissing contest either; the British would have similar problems invading France. That said the British would have a better chance in such a Naval invasion though; I place a lot more value in the Royal Marines and SBS and Royal Navy to be able to establish a beach-head in France (bearing in mind the British also control Gibraltar, and by extension the Mediterranean).

It also helps that the British Typhoons are far better air-superiority aircraft than the French Rafales as well (but the Rafales have the Typhoons covered in ground attack).

You cant just land paratroopers in the middle of a foreign country and hope for the best. Paratroopers are used as part of a larger invasion force that follows immediately afterwards (like; within hours).

Otherwise you wind up with a few thousand (at best) light infantry in the middle of a country, basically surrounded and vastly outnumbered by an entire hostile Army with tanks, AFV's artillery and EW, and absoultely no way of re-supply or re-inforcement (something the defending nation doesnt have to worry about).

Without a ground invasion force, parachuting troops into a nation is pointless. And to get a ground invasion force to the UK to support those para-troopers, the French need a beach-head across the Channel, which they simply dont have the capability to establish against the UK military.

------------------------------------------------

Look at D-Day and the Allied Parachute landings there if you want to get historical. The Allied Paratroopers werent capturing cities; they were hitting and negating artillery support of the German coastal defences, to enable the Allied troops on Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword to land and create the beachhead. Once that beachhead was secure, the paratroops linked up with the main body and fought on as light infantry.

The Allies never considered dropping said paratroops on Berlin (or even Paris), because they'd be slaughtered within hours without ground support.

The Allies tried to take Amsterdam by airborne assault, and it failed spectacularly. Check out Operation Market Garden. Even that airborne assault (3 divisions of airborne infantry) was backed up by 2 armored divisions and 2 infantry divisions of ground forces, and the Allies had total air-superiority, and had already established supply lines through France and Belgium prior to the invasion, and they were fighting a Wehrmacht that were sorely under-supplied, neglected by Berlin and low on morale towards the end of the war.

 

[Malifice]

Why is a conflict between two nations whose military doctrines mostly plan for a defensive alliance between the pair even being debated anyway?

Because one of those nations is openly antagonizing the other and withdrawing from the EU. Such a withdrawal will leave it totally surrounded by (and in direct competition with) the EU.

While the other nation is doing this:

The leaders of France and Germany on Tuesday laid out their commitment to a future joint European Army, an idea that has sparked angry reactions from US President Donald Trump.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said closer defence ties agreed in a new friendship treaty aim to build a Franco-German "common military culture" and "contribute to the creation of a European army".

Both Macron and Merkel have pushed the idea of a joint European Army for the bloc that would be part of the wider transatlantic NATO alliance.

Merkel: Franco-German treaty a step toward 'European army'

The leaders of France and Germany on Tuesday laid out their commitment to a future joint European Army, an idea that has sparked angry reactions from US President Donald Trump.

www.thelocal.de

Note how the 'angry reaction' to a combined Franco-German military came not from the Russians, but from the Americans?

The Yanks are upset that their NATO partners... are integrating more closely!

Like I've been saying on here for ages, the Americans have been opposed to the EU and have been working against it for some time. They've successfully gained control of the EU's oil supply (from the Middle East) and have also created a conflict that has flooded the EU with refugees. They've done more to destabilize their NATO partners than anything the Russians could have dreamt of. I'm interested to see how this 'Trade war' with China affects the EU, because I have a sneaking suspicion that it's also aimed at the EU more-so than China.

The British meanwhile have turned their backs on Europe and allied even closer with the Yanks. It'll be interesting to see how the Yanks and Brits go in undermining the creation of an European Army.

 

[Father Jack]

Why is a conflict between two nations whose military doctrines mostly plan for a defensive alliance between the pair even being debated anyway?

Next up, Man City v. Lakers who wins?

In a war? Man City, as there'd be no Financial Fair Play to worry about

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Because one of those nations is openly antagonizing the other and withdrawing from the EU. Such a withdrawal will leave it totally surrounded by (and in direct competition with) the EU.

You're not seriously suggesting that the fallout of Brexit will be the inevitable fracture of cross-channel relations to the point where neither country views the other as a reliable defence partner, let alone a potential adversary? I'm sure that's not what you're saying, couldn't possibly be it.

While the other nation is doing this:

Merkel: Franco-German treaty a step toward 'European army'

The leaders of France and Germany on Tuesday laid out their commitment to a future joint European Army, an idea that has sparked angry reactions from US President Donald Trump.

www.thelocal.de

Note how the 'angry reaction' to a combined Franco-German military came not from the Russians, but from the Americans?

The Yanks are upset that their NATO partners... are integrating more closely!

Are you surprised? The whole point of NATO is a US-led, inter-operable force to present a united and seamless front against Russia. A Franco-German military alliance weakens the authority of the US and adds another layer of complexity into the system.

Like I've been saying on here for ages, the Americans have been opposed to the EU and have been working against it for some time. They've successfully gained control of the EU's oil supply (from the Middle East)

If you go back to the 1930's, you'll see America's foray into controlling the oil reserves in the middle east predates the EU by some margin.

and have also created a conflict that has flooded the EU with refugees.

Uh huh

They've done more to destabilize their NATO partners than anything the Russians could have dreamt of.

The US has always acted in its self interest and assumed its European partners are along for the ride, this isn't a recent development nor is it a deliberate action.

I'm interested to see how this 'Trade war' with China affects the EU, because I have a sneaking suspicion that it's also aimed at the EU more-so than China.

Uh huh

The British meanwhile have turned their backs on Europe and allied even closer with the Yanks. It'll be interesting to see how the Yanks and Brits go in undermining the creation of an European Army.

They'll probably wait until a change of government in one or the other and the whole thing will probably fall apart quite quickly. @me when they can even decide on a joint service rifle or agree to buy the same tank.

 

[QuietB]

Are you surprised? The whole point of NATO is a US-led, inter-operable force to present a united and seamless front against Russia. A Franco-German military alliance weakens the authority of the US and adds another layer of complexity into the system.

Makes you wonder why the USA have been dissing their relationship with the EU for the whole of Trumps term?

If I were the EU I would not be relying on the US either.

And the US. current attitude to their most important allies including GB makes Brexit even more batshit crazy.

 

[Total Power]

And the US. current attitude to their most important allies including GB makes Brexit even more bats**t crazy.

This is what intrigues me about Brexiters, they complain about EU telling them what to do, but silent about US bossing them around. Make no mistake, US will do what's best for them and UK will get royally shafted in their ultimate pursuit and desperation in getting a trade deal done.

 

[QuietB]

This is what intrigues me about Brexiters, they complain about EU telling them what to do, but silent about US bossing them around. Make no mistake, US will do what's best for them and UK will get royally shafted.

It's a conservative thing.

I wonder if Pauline will wears the Arch Bishop of Melbournes vestments in parliament in light of his comments today?

If parliament ever sits again that is

 

[Total Power]

Switzerland leads the way again. If this was not full information, what was Brexit? if this happened in UK, Brexiters will cry murder despite lying and spreading xenophobia about turks and brown guys are coming for you.

Maybe all countries including Australia can learn a thing or two from Switzerland the only true democracy in the world.

Swiss court orders historic referendum re-run

The supreme court scraps the result of a national referendum for the first time in modern Swiss history.

www.bbc.com

The result of a nationwide referendum has been overturned for the first time in modern Switzerland's history.

The poll, held in February 2016, asked the country's voters whether married couples and co-habiting partners should pay the same tax.

Voters rejected the proposal, with 50.8% against and 49.2% in favour.

But the supreme court has now voided the result on the grounds that voters were not given full information, and the vote must be re-run.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Unfortunately doesn’t explain why married couples pay more

 

[Total Power]

Unfortunately doesn’t explain why married couples pay more

The point being figures were misinterpreted and presently wrongly to the people. The issue of No-Deal Brexit was not presented to the people, neither the issue of the Irish backstop was presented to the people. The Turkish people joining the EU was a blatant and lie and refugees from EU can invade UK is another lie, overall the public been duped into believing No-Deal is a mandate. All lies and damned lies, the Brexit party doesn't have a manifesto and the UKIP mentioned no relevant points outside of "invasion is going to happen" and sending 350m/week (another false figure) to the NHS.

 

[Father Jack]

Respect the will of the people but only the will of the people as it existed when no one had the foggiest idea of what they were voting for. It's the only way

 

[Crankyhawk]

The point being figures were misinterpreted and presently wrongly to the people. The issue of No-Deal Brexit was not presented to the people, neither the issue of the Irish backstop was presented to the people. The Turkish people joining the EU was a blatant and lie and refugees from EU can invade UK is another lie, overall the public been duped into believing No-Deal is a mandate. All lies and damned lies, the Brexit party doesn't have a manifesto and the UKIP mentioned no relevant points outside of "invasion is going to happen" and sending 350m/week (another false figure) to the NHS.

I get that; I was also interested in the why married would pay more that’s all.

 

[Benny78]

Lol what a joke! If they want to delay brexit because they haven't decided on deals that's what they should've been deciding last 2 years.

UK is getting swamped with migrants. People want that to stop tomorrow. Being in the union means they're forced to take these quotas. Leave the union and UK can reduce migration.

 

[Total Power]

UK is getting swamped with migrants. People want that to stop tomorrow. Being in the union means they're forced to take these quotas. Leave the union and UK can reduce migration.

Wrong. UK has an opt-out and is not forced into migrant quotas. Whatever asylum seekers UK has taken from the EU is through their own approvals.

Such a scheme might compel most member states to accept more asylum seekers, but the UK is an exception. We have what's often referred to as an opt-out, although strictly speaking what happens is that EU laws on the likes of asylum and border control don't apply to the UK unless we choose to opt in.

The UK can't be forced to accept more refugees - Full Fact

The EU can't force Britain to take a "quota" of refugees from other EU countries. The UK can choose to opt in to any such EU plan.

fullfact.org

Here is the official EU word on it:

2.2. Legal basis The legal basis for the proposed Council Decision is Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the provisions of Protocol No 21 annexed to the TFEU on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the TFEU. The United Kingdom and Ireland may notify the Council, within three months after a proposal or initiative has been presented, or at any time after its adoption, that they wish to take part in the adoption and application of any such proposed measures

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/proposal_for_council_decision_establishing_provisional_measures_in_the_area_of_international_protection_for_it_gr_and_hu_en.pdf#page=8

It's strictly if they WISH TO.


As usual, disinformation and Brexit go hand in hand.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wrong. UK has an opt-out and is not forced into migrant quotas. Whatever asylum seekers UK has taken from the EU is through their own approvals.

Such a scheme might compel most member states to accept more asylum seekers, but the UK is an exception. We have what's often referred to as an opt-out, although strictly speaking what happens is that EU laws on the likes of asylum and border control don't apply to the UK unless we choose to opt in.

The UK can't be forced to accept more refugees - Full Fact

The EU can't force Britain to take a "quota" of refugees from other EU countries. The UK can choose to opt in to any such EU plan.

fullfact.org

Here is the official EU word on it:

2.2. Legal basis The legal basis for the proposed Council Decision is Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the provisions of Protocol No 21 annexed to the TFEU on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the TFEU. The United Kingdom and Ireland may notify the Council, within three months after a proposal or initiative has been presented, or at any time after its adoption, that they wish to take part in the adoption and application of any such proposed measures

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/proposal_for_council_decision_establishing_provisional_measures_in_the_area_of_international_protection_for_it_gr_and_hu_en.pdf#page=8

It's strictly if they WISH TO.


As usual, disinformation and Brexit go hand in hand.

Yeah, but that doesn't stop posters having to endure sitting next to brown people on the tube!!!!