Tags
It’s dog-eat-dog in the brutal post-Brexit world outside fortress Europe. Britain needs to feel it is able to stand up for itself – alone, proud and strong.
And naive lefty pacifists will happily leave us DEFENCELESS against threats from other countries.
As an example , Australia has just put two fingers up to our attempts to quickly negotiate a post-Brexit trade deal.
This comes just days after threats from Japan regarding UK access to the single market.
It’s exactly situations like this that show the naivety and danger from anti-nuclear campaigners.
If anti-Trident campaigners leave the UK DEFENCELESS by taking away our nuclear deterrent, they will have to answer this crucial question: what will they do during international trade deal negotiations if the UK no longer has its nuclear deterrent to fall back on as a last resort?
Australia may now be feeling pretty good with itself putting its former colonial power back in its place. Countries like Canada, New Zealand and India may also be expecting to do the same.
We need to show them they can’t push the UK around.
And when the UK finally triggers article 50 and the clock starts ticking on the two-year negotiations on the UK’s access to the single market, it may be useful for our negotiators to remind our EU opposition of the consequences of not reaching a deal satisfactory to Britain:
That we have the capability to wipe out their capital cities at the push of a button.
.
Lily-livered Brexiters too timid and too scared to stand up to their own leaders’ lies
The Brexit vote wasn’t democracy in action. It was populist ignorance on a grand scale.
Pride's Purge 
Your headline is completely misleading and incorrect. Australia quite clearly wants to establish preferential trading links with the UK and it is in their interest to do so. You suggest that Australia is sticking 2 fingers up regarding a post Brexit agreement, but the linked video shows no such thing. It clearly and simply states that the trade agreement cannot come into place until after we leave the EU (until then we have to operate under existing EU rules of course) The speaker then suggests that he guesses this will be around 2 1/2 years – 6 months until we invoke Article 50 and then 2 years before the actual exit.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Tom have you not thought that we could solve disarmament & lack of negotiating power in one shot. Yes I mean one shot – let’s just preemtively launch our nukes at those companies expressing doubts.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Australia echoes the exact same sentiments previously stated by USA and Canada – ” EU comes first”. Translated into non-diplomatic speak, it reads like this: Britain, join the queue, we want to wrap up our trade deals in making with the EU first, because it’s much more lucrative to spend time and resource on a trade deal with the single biggest trade bloc on the planet rather than a single country. You also need to get your act together and decide upon what kind or relationship you want to have with the EU, dear Britain – it will impact on our investment in your country, because you see…we think international or rather we like Britain as a springboard to the EU…if you can’t guarantee us that, stuff tariffs and long winded bureaucracy and Customs border controls for our exports, we locate to the EU. Giddy up, make up your mind and stop dithering…whatever trade deal we’ll negotiate with you afterwards depends in any case on what’s happening with your trade status (with EU) and by the way, you should have listened to the experts…trade deals are complex and take a long time. Back to diplomacy: “we are, of course, very excited and interested about our future trade deal with Britain; in the meantime we wish Britain good luck in determining and forging their new path in the world of global trade” (Queue exit, let’s concentrate on the real meat which is EU, silly Brits…if only they had realised beforehand, but they didn’t listen, blabblabla…). The end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on sdbast.
LikeLike
Urgent govt policy: remove trident from Scotland – those Scots nats/Remainers can’t be trusted – take control of our “defence” weapons – asap –
LikeLike
cracking satire there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hope you’re not exasperated Tom, this Trident-cosis has probably developed from a recessive trait that is susceptible to Type 1 Umshaac disease, ‘1 up man ship at all costs’ for the non medics.
It’s been centuries in the making and was likely initiated when Kings and Earls learnt from the Silk Road traders that Hadrian hadn’t left us the biggest wall on earth after all and that their mathematicians also needed decades of learning from the Arabic academics to catch up in fancy architecture, water systems, agriculture, medicine etc. so they pushed the boats out for a bit of fancy world domination and now 1200 years later we’ve got missiles on some to anhiliate humankind, even as far as the antipodes!!
LikeLike
Hell’s teeth – what sort of simpleton politician negotiates with a nuke hidden behind his back? Healthy trade flows from peace and concurrent amicable values.
You surely can’t be serious?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since when did connecting two totally unrelated concepts become satire?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tom, your bitterness about a democratic rejection of the EU is quite telling – It is as if your brain has been nuked.
Next you will be railing about Neptune and Poseidon’s tridents.
LikeLike
actually we have never the ability to press the button unilaterally since we failed to develop our own delivery system in the late 50’s and early 60’s and were forced to agree to locate the Polaris base within 25 miles of Glasgow. The USA government realised that the ability of the Russian to put a rocket into space to place a satellite meant they could hand pick a target in the USA and the USA had no defence , The British rocket took 20-30 to warm up and the Russian could get to the UK in 4 mins. The USA worked out that if they had a base on the edge of Europe the Russian would try and knock that out first before the USA home land so it was important for the subs to be at sea with Gibraltar as it is to day a place for R and R
The UK government did not mind the protest in principle which together with Peter Currell Brown the author of Small Creeps day we persuaded the Direct Action Committee against Nuclear War to support and was ten taken up by the Committee of 100. The UK government wanted a location at a different less populated part of Scotland but was forced give in. Now five decades later the same arm twisting has gone on although as any former military or geo political expert will tell you the USA is no long interested in coming to the aid of Europe via NATO and his building up allies and support re the Pacific rim re China to stop its economic colonial ambitions.
We do need to keep up with understanding the changing technology of Nuclear weaponry and other forms of civilian extermination method in order to provide for our defence.. In the same way we need quick mobile in and out troops backed up by the latest pilotless controllable targeting weaponry in relation to overseas operations. The reality is political gesturing in the me way Cameron never expected to have to hold a referendum, the new PM was bounced into saying year to the Trident submarines renewals by the USA before she would find out there was no UK interest involved. In the same way the USA CIA is more behind the stop Corbyn campaign than many members of the Tory party. The idea of any individual country standing up to the USA with its position on defence and trading is not acceptable to the establishment of political parties and global international finance and tradition
enterprise
LikeLike
“If anti-Trident campaigners leave the UK DEFENCELESS by taking away our nuclear deterrent, they will have to answer this crucial question: what will they do during international trade deal negotiations if the UK no longer has its nuclear deterrent to fall back on as a last resort?”
So what are you suggesting then? Nuke the bastards if we can’t get our own way?
That’ll work – NOT.
LikeLike