Gavin Williamson Sacked

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
I see Williamson hasn't made a statement to the house details the 'flaws in the procedures and the obvious stitch up that got him sacked'. Were they to exist and Williamson to have made a statement to that effect a couple of days ago, he would have been hailed as a politician of principle and probably got some kudos for hastening May's inevitable exit.

The silence is deafening. Another politician who prefers to follow rather than lead.

You would have though that with a reputation to clear, Williamson would have been a lot more vocal than he is.

Wordsmith
 
Let's try this again @pcar964 . I've searched Hansard and elsewhere for the evidence of your very important (if true) claim that "civil servants signed UK up to many EU Defence & Security programmes in 2017/8 (post Ref.) without ministerial ... approval". I haven't found it. The obvious problem is that without knowing what specific programmes you had in mind, I was searching for parliamentary evidence which doesn't exist if it wasn't reported. All I found was evidence of programmes which were reported. To conclude this interesting diversion, all you need to tell us is the name of some of the "many EU Defence & Security programmes in 2017/8" which civil servants signed the UK up to without ministerial approval. Thanks in advance!
For the brainless and lazy

Google: civil servants sign uk eu defence

1. “Once again, MPs are being side-lined by civil servants.

“MPs need to understand that the other nations in this project have signed up to a centralised EU framework. This already binds in the European Commission’s authority.”


2. When did the UK decide sign up to all these EU military structures? He replied: “12th September 2017”.

This was the date DExEU published a cross-departmental paper entitled Foreign policy, defence and development – a future partnership paper. This meant no one department could take responsibility directly.

It was in this paper Britain decided to sell out its armed forces.

But the EU already knew this was the plan. How? UK civil servant and defence advisor to the Cabinet Office, Alastair Brockbank, revealed later in an LSE speech to EU diplomats that the Government was always planning to have ‘no gap’ in the UK’s subordination to EU foreign and security policy including EU defence policy. He then went on to lay out the UK’s intentions to stay tied to EU defence structures. The only reason we know this is because he was secretly recorded and subsequently exposed in The Sun. To be clear: a UK civil servant told the EU we would sign up to their Common Defence Policy whilst the British Government said publicly we would not be part of it.


Nit picking expected as the rabbit-holers are never happy

Additional Refs:
1. MPs are ignoring the sell-out of our military to the EU - The Commentator
2. 'Hot air!' Minister rejects claims Brexit deal threatens UK defence and national security
3. Defence Secretary: UK 'Will Succeed' With Or Without Deal To Leave EU
4. If the Withdrawal Agreement is passed it will present a grave threat to our national security
5. Why be a soldier when your employers are the enemy? | The Conservative Woman
6. In search of lost Brexit: how the UK repeatedly weakened its own negotiating position
 
(a) Why are you going on yet again about Maggie and the EU?
To respond to your claim that Maggie was not anti-EU

1988 & 1995 speeches clearly show she was.
 
To respond to your claim that Maggie was not anti-EU

1988 & 1995 speeches clearly show she was.
You idiot (no offence). I apologised and said that I had misread your original post. Why are you still going on about it as if that hadn’t happened. Are you Russian?

Same goes for your longer post. Multiple a la Russe links and cut-and-pastes won’t hide the obvious flaw in your claim.

Your claim, remember, was that these oh so wicked EU defence and security programmes were signed up to by civil servants WITHOUT MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY. Theresa May or “the Government” signing up to things isn’t quite the same, is it?
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I see Williamson hasn't made a statement to the house details the 'flaws in the procedures and the obvious stitch up that got him sacked'. Were they to exist and Williamson to have made a statement to that effect a couple of days ago, he would have been hailed as a politician of principle and probably got some kudos for hastening May's inevitable exit.

The silence is deafening. Another politician who prefers to follow rather than lead.

You would have though that with a reputation to clear, Williamson would have been a lot more vocal than he is.

Wordsmith
He's gone on the offensive today, but over May's proposed dealings with Labour rather than the issue of his sacking

May's Brexit talks a mistake - Williamson

Was the lead story on the BBC earlier today, discounting some football match that is!
 
He's gone on the offensive today, but over May's proposed dealings with Labour rather than the issue of his sacking

May's Brexit talks a mistake - Williamson

Was the lead story on the BBC earlier today, discounting some football match that is!
Completely agree with him too. May is doing her utmost to destroy the last vestiges of trust and support from her own parliamentary party, local conservative associations and party voters.
 
You idiot (no offence). I apologised and said that I had misread your original post. Why are you still going on about it as if that hadn’t happened. Are you Russian?

Same goes for your longer post. Multiple a la Russe links and cut-and-pastes won’t hide the obvious flaw in your claim.

Your claim, remember, was that these oh so wicked EU defence and security programmes were signed up to by civil servants WITHOUT MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY. Theresa May or “the Government” signing up to things isn’t quite the same, is it?
FFS! What do you want? Do you want your answer with f***ing bells on?

You got your answer from @pcar964; isn't that enough?

The only possible gap in the answer above is the assertion "that it was agreed without ministerial authority". It was almost certainly agreed without parliamentary authority which is why you cannot find any reference in Hansard. I would have thought that any international agreements or treaties would need the scrutiny of parliament.

I would also say that on the balance of probabilities, that the agreements were made by the Cabinet Office without the knowledge of the then Minister of Defence. A situation that I find to be more than a little bizarre considering that anything like that would be completely within the MOD's remit.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I would also say that on the balance of probabilities, that the agreements were made by the Cabinet Office without the knowledge of the then Minister of Defence. A situation that I find to be more than a little bizarre considering that anything like that would be completely within the MOD's remit.
From the first link
"Defence minister Earl Howe joined counterparts from France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal in signing a “letter of intent”, supporting the multinational alliance"


If the Minister of State for Defence is signing something how can you claim that the MOD are not aware?

He's also deputy leader of HoL which IIRC is a Cabinet post, rather than Cabinet Office, so surely Cabinet were also aware.
 
He's also deputy leader of HoL which IIRC is a Cabinet post, rather than Cabinet Office, so surely Cabinet were also aware.
You'd think so wouldn't you, but with May telling her cabinet one thing on Brexit, her Brexit secretary another and sometimes both of them and parliament being kept in the dark on what Ollie Robbins was doing on her behalf I certainly wouldn't bet on it!
 
FFS! What do you want? Do you want your answer with f***ing bells on?

You got your answer from @pcar964; isn't that enough?

The only possible gap in the answer above is the assertion "that it was agreed without ministerial authority". It was almost certainly agreed without parliamentary authority which is why you cannot find any reference in Hansard. I would have thought that any international agreements or treaties would need the scrutiny of parliament.

I would also say that on the balance of probabilities, that the agreements were made by the Cabinet Office without the knowledge of the then Minister of Defence. A situation that I find to be more than a little bizarre considering that anything like that would be completely within the MOD's remit.
Thought this had died a death. But to be clear, all I was questioning is your friend's assertion that civil servants signed up on behalf of the United Kingdom to unspecified EU defence and security agreements without ministerial authority.

From your sentence "The only possible gap in the answer above is the assertion...", you seem to think yourself that I had a point. So no need for disagreement.

Obviously I didn't find anything in Hansard to identify secret agreements which hadn't been reported to Parliament. Equally obviously, Hansard does mention programmes which (like them or not) were openly reported and scrutinised, with Defence Ministers and others contributing and responding to the debate. For example:
Edit: corrected link
 
Last edited:
You idiot (no offence). I apologised and said that I had misread your original post. Why are you still going on about it as if that hadn’t happened. Are you Russian?

Same goes for your longer post. Multiple a la Russe links and cut-and-pastes
"You idiot" - remind me, what are site rules on ad-hom attacks?

"Russian / Russe links" - news to me that UK Express, Telegragph, TCW, Brexit etc are Russian news sites; doubt even New Statesman is.

The agreements were made by the Cabinet Office without the knowledge of the Minister of Defence and other relevant ministers and Parliament. UK is not EU where MEPs have no power and Comisars decide what happens. We don't even know if PMTM approved Sedwill's actions before he authorised signing. This should worry everyone.

European Committee A - 26 Apr 2018 - EU Defence: Permanent Structured Co-operation
That is one year After agreements signed
.
You proved me correct about rabbit-holer nit pickers, time you went back into yours and hibernate.
 
"You idiot" - remind me, what are site rules on ad-hom attacks?

"Russian / Russe links" - news to me that UK Express, Telegragph, TCW, Brexit etc are Russian news sites; doubt even New Statesman is.

The agreements were made by the Cabinet Office without the knowledge of the Minister of Defence and other relevant ministers and Parliament. UK is not EU where MEPs have no power and Comisars decide what happens. We don't even know if PMTM approved Sedwill's actions before he authorised signing. This should worry everyone.



That is one year After agreements signed
.
You proved me correct about rabbit-holer nit pickers, time you went back into yours and hibernate.
He'd plead veritas on the first point.
 
OK
"You idiot" - remind me, what are site rules on ad-hom attacks?

"Russian / Russe links" - news to me that UK Express, Telegragph, TCW, Brexit etc are Russian news sites; doubt even New Statesman is.

The agreements were made by the Cabinet Office without the knowledge of the Minister of Defence and other relevant ministers and Parliament. UK is not EU where MEPs have no power and Comisars decide what happens. We don't even know if PMTM approved Sedwill's actions before he authorised signing. This should worry everyone.



That is one year After agreements signed
.
You proved me correct about rabbit-holer nit pickers, time you went back into yours and hibernate.
OK, I appreciate that you wont get it, more than happy to leave it there. Incidentally, "a la Russe" does not mean "Russian" but I was wrong to use foreign type phrases with you. If you are interested in the subject there are lots of relevant Hansard/TheyWorkForYou links which might be of interest if you ever find the time, here for example is one of several from this month:
 
"You idiot" - remind me, what are site rules on ad-hom attacks?
That wasn't an ad hom attack. To qualify as one, he would have to be trying to undermine your position by pointing out that you are an idiot (and are therefore wrong) rather than positing a credible argument against it, whereas what he is doing is pointing out that you are an idiot for persisting in trying to argue a position that is not being disputed, and was only previously challenged due to a misreading of your post.
 
Are you Russian?

Same goes for your longer post. Multiple a la Russe links and cut-and-pastes

You proved me correct about rabbit-holer nit pickers, time you went back into yours and hibernate.

Here's some more "Russian" links


Spectator: A Very English Coup d’Etat | Coffee House

Express: Rees-Mogg demands inquiry over civil servants 'hoodwinking' voters with 'KitKat' Brexit

Veterans for Britain: UK defence, how UK civivl servants are not acting in the UK's interest and how May is selling us out.

Veterans for Britain: The Tory HQ social media operation embedded in Veterans For Britain
"Why has campaign group Veterans For Britain been so slow off the mark to identify EU military unificattion as the reason for Britain's defence cuts? After five years of lobbying and research, UK Column's David Ellis has worked out that Conservative Campaign Headquarters gatekeepers at V4B are responsible, including men who sit in the same office as a Tory minister and men aspiring to be Tory Members of Parliament in their own right. The lid is only now coming off the Tories' sixty-year commitment to European military unification."

Kit Kat Tapes
1. The Brexit Whitehall Defence ‘Kit Kat’ Agreements
2. UK civil servants have been conspiring to secretly keep the UK tied to the EU post-Brexit.
3. UK civil servants running Gov't?
4. Steve Baker Spills All

.
It's obvious to all that you will not admit remain PM & civil servants have acted undemocratically and without parliamentary approval as you agree with their actions.
 
EU Defence Policy: 2 May 2019: Hansard Written Answers - TheyWorkForYou

Relevant how? Two years After agreement signed without parliamentary debate or approval.

You are as evasive and distracting as May's sycophants. Sock puppet Joe_Private - LMAOROTF
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top