Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Has Trump ensured the UK rejoins the EU? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 12 in General
imageHas Trump ensured the UK rejoins the EU? – politicalbetting.com

Biden condemns Trump’s NATO comments: ‘it's dumb, it's shameful, it's dangerous, it's un-American’ pic.twitter.com/UbT03R95xP

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,147
    edited February 14
    First like Wellington and von Blücher.

    Hurrah for a European army.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513
    Second is the new first.
  • AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    The crisis in Labour seems to be, KS investigating it quickly and getting rid of muppets quickly. Can somebody explain the problem?

    Labour is still full of antisemites despite SKS claiming to have cleared them out?
    I believe it was the EHRC and BoD who said that.
  • AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    Absolutely Labour needs to chuck out these nutjobs and the initial response albeit within 24 hours was a touch slow but I am failing to see that this is anything like what Labour started with.

    From a betting POV, I'm struggling to see how this pushes the result much at all. I suppose a slim chance Rishi goes earlier.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,955
    The EU would find some way to cooperate with countries like the UK, Norway and Canada who were not in the EU. The UK also has defence agreements, separate to NATO with various countries and groups of countries (like the Scandis), which would form the basis of defence cooperation in a post-NATO world.

    The more likely outcome is that the UK abases itself to Trump in order to keep a favoured relationship with the US itself.
  • Relying upon a European army would be as foolish as relying upon Americans.

    Unification behind one critical control point is a recipe for failure, whether that critical control point is Washington or Brussels there is no solitary control point that is a good idea.

    You are safer with redundancy, where multiple elements can fail but you still succeed.

    A post-American NATO-style arrangement if it comes about should not be a unified Europe, it should be a diversified Europe [and others] coalition of the willing.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513
    From wikipedia, I have discovered that the chap that the sunk Russian ship is named after died on 14th February.

    Someone in Ukraine has a unique sense of humour.
  • I'm enjoying the debate about the change to the tax treatment of double cab pickup trucks. Essentially townies don't like the people who drive them in town and think its great. Those of us in the sticks realise its a disaster.

    "Just pay the tax" says one - £7k a year? Or "separate business and non-business use". How do you do that when your business is where you live? And separating business and non business use means driving scores of additional miles to swap vehicles which means less work done at more cost.

    I assume the HMRC / Treasury people have never been to the countryside.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513
    Presumably a European army would have to constantly relocate between two different sets of barracks every month for no apparent reason.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,057
    Why replace NATO if the US pulls out? NATO would still exist. See the EU and the UK for an example. The dynamic would change, and European nations would be rather uncomfortable having to increase defence spending, but I don't see a need for a European Army.

    Even in WW2 the British, US and Canada did not have a formal alliance.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,057

    Absolutely Labour needs to chuck out these nutjobs and the initial response albeit within 24 hours was a touch slow but I am failing to see that this is anything like what Labour started with.

    From a betting POV, I'm struggling to see how this pushes the result much at all. I suppose a slim chance Rishi goes earlier.

    Cannot see Rishi doing anything other than dragging it out as long as possible (or at least until the autumn).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880

    Presumably a European army would have to constantly relocate between two different sets of barracks every month for no apparent reason.

    What do you mean "no apparent reason". There would be a reason: ensuring French feathers were not too ruffled.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,001
    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880

    Why replace NATO if the US pulls out? NATO would still exist. See the EU and the UK for an example. The dynamic would change, and European nations would be rather uncomfortable having to increase defence spending, but I don't see a need for a European Army.

    Even in WW2 the British, US and Canada did not have a formal alliance.

    The biggest - near term - consequence of the US pulling out of NATO would be a (totally understandable) concern from European countries about relying on US weaponry.

    BAe Systems would, I suspect, suddenly remember it was a UK company again.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,310

    Presumably a European army would have to constantly relocate between two different sets of barracks every month for no apparent reason.

    Being constantly on the move would frustrate Russia's 'new' 'super-weapon' hypersonic missiles, I hear :wink:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940
    With the EU due to swing dramatically to the right after the elections this year, TSE is effectively advocating that we subordinate ourselves to a militaristic, right-wing, continental power.

    Isn't that the kind of thing that got people interned in 1940?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,866
    edited February 14
    FPT

    I'm enjoying the debate about the change to the tax treatment of double cab pickup trucks. Essentially townies don't like the people who drive them in town and think its great. Those of us in the sticks realise its a disaster.

    "Just pay the tax" says one - £7k a year? Or "separate business and non-business use". How do you do that when your business is where you live? And separating business and non business use means driving scores of additional miles to swap vehicles which means less work done at more cost.

    I assume the HMRC / Treasury people have never been to the countryside.

    The issue for HMRC is that that type of vehicle is being used by more and more people as a 2 for the price of 1 deal to avoid tax - so I can see why HMRC are cracking down on it.

    Easiest solution is to replace it with a single cab track when you come to replace it and buy a car for personal use -
  • Meanwhile, from an Associate Director at Savanta, in the light of their exciting poll this morning;

    Roses are red,
    £28bn could have taken its toll,
    But please don’t read too much,
    Into just one poll


    https://x.com/EmmaLevin_/status/1757709076564168934
  • There's not a snowballs chance in hell of the EU agreeing to an EU army, let alone the UK, so its moot.

    The Poles and other Eastern Europeans have been ramping up their own defences, to have defences they control. Quite rightly so. Why would they piss that away to have a unified European army that they can't rely upon?

    Had there been a unified army in 2022 under the control of someone like Merkel then it may have refused to agree to aid to Ukraine. Thank goodness it did not exist then, and instead diverse armies like the UK and the Poles and Americans and others could step up.

    We should not rely upon the Americans, but nor should we rely upon "Europe". Diversity is a strength not a weakness, it means that we can act more flexibly without relying upon the lowest common denominator.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Also, Trump doesn't unequivocally support anyone except those who support him. If we were willing to be completely subservient and a willing lapdog, then yes, he would I'm sure look upon us kindly.

    But if we were to disagree with him on something, or if someone else was even more obsequious, he'd drop us like third period French.
  • kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    Beefed up militaries under separate command is a strength not a weakness. Diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Redundancy is a strength, not a weakness.

    Having a solitary critical control point is a weakness. A critical one.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    Hard to believe that Trump would achieve something so worthwhile, even if unwittingly
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880

    With the EU due to swing dramatically to the right after the elections this year, TSE is effectively advocating that we subordinate ourselves to a militaristic, right-wing, continental power.

    Isn't that the kind of thing that got people interned in 1940?

    Ah yes, but if we were to join the EU, think of all those left wing Labour MEPs we'd be sending to Strasbourg.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    How would it work POLITICALLY tho. I just can’t see it

    You can’t have it run by 28 countries all with a veto. That’s impossible, it would never be deployed. So who would decide? A majority? The unelected EU president? Who?

    What if Paris and Berlin decided to “do a war”
    of which we disapprove? Would we seriously allow them to put our soldiers in harm’s way, and lose their lives, in a conflict we do not want, which does not benefit us? No

    And each country would have the same attitude. This is the whole problem of the EU turned up to 11 because it’s life and death

    It cannot work
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,001
    But none of this is happening cos he's not winning.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,877
    edited February 14
    We might rejoin the EU but it's certainly not going to be before the end of 2025. We'd require negotiations, another referendum (Or it being a manifesto commitment from Labour which isn't happening) candidate status for a while, perhaps changing to the Euro and more negotiations. All of that is taking us past the end of 2025.
  • eek said:

    FPT

    I'm enjoying the debate about the change to the tax treatment of double cab pickup trucks. Essentially townies don't like the people who drive them in town and think its great. Those of us in the sticks realise its a disaster.

    "Just pay the tax" says one - £7k a year? Or "separate business and non-business use". How do you do that when your business is where you live? And separating business and non business use means driving scores of additional miles to swap vehicles which means less work done at more cost.

    I assume the HMRC / Treasury people have never been to the countryside.

    The issue for HMRC is that that type of vehicle is being used by more and more people as a 2 for the price of 1 deal to avoid tax - so I can see why HMRC are cracking down on it.

    Easiest solution is to replace it with a single cab track when you come to replace it and buy a car for personal use -
    How does that work? I know of several local contractors who have these. They buy a double cab because they use the space. They have a business based at home (one is a farm), and when the nearest shop is 10 miles away the idea of separating business and non business is for the birds.

    Its great for fans of EVs as so far they are exempt - BIK is 2%. Maxus have just done a firesale on their first attempt (rear wheel drive only lol) to import a proper one. Ford are to launch an EV Ranger. Bye bye diesel in the medium term.

    But in the short term? Less work gets done at a higher cost. Well done Tories, well done...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    Even if Trump does beat Biden, still a big if having lost to him in 2020, I don't see what relevance it has to rejoining the EU?

    The EU excludes 2 other big militaries alongside the UK for starters, Turkey and Canada, both of which will be needed to contain Putin with or without US support
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,955
    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Aw bless.

    Do you genuinely think it makes a shiny shit of difference to Trump whether European countries spend 2% of GDP on defence? Do you truly believe that, because all the Baltic States have been spending more than 2% of their GDP on defence for many years that Trump would order US forces to fight in their defence?

    Are you really that naive?

    The 2% thing is just an excuse for Trump. He doesn't understand or believe in collective self-defence, and he is overawed by dictators.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    Unlikely. Even the lead of the Remain campaign now has a key role in a Government committed to Brexit. There’s only a few die hard headbangers who want to join the EU now. The reverse ukip.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    There's not going to be a single EU army for the entire continent. (Not least because French industrial and defence policy is based around buying French weapons, and an EU army might buy German instead.)

    There might very well be some increased cooperation and training and joint exercises and the like. But you're simply not going to have units that are full of people from different nationalities as part of some single unified EU army.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    At Waterloo of course one of the biggest current EU powers, France, was the one led by the warmonger we were fighting against, Napoleon
  • Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    How would it work POLITICALLY tho. I just can’t see it

    You can’t have it run by 28 countries all with a veto. That’s impossible, it would never be deployed. So who would decide? A majority? The unelected EU president? Who?

    What if Paris and Berlin decided to “do a war”
    of which we disapprove? Would we seriously allow them to put our soldiers in harm’s way, and lose their lives, in a conflict we do not want, which does not benefit us? No

    And each country would have the same attitude. This is the whole problem of the EU turned up to 11 because it’s life and death

    It cannot work
    What if Paris and Berlin decide not to, and we want to?

    What if a future Ukraine is threatened by a future Russia, and a future Merkel says "no we aren't getting involved" even though we want to send missiles over?

    Its remarkable how some people who champion diversity in theory suddenly demand uniformity and unity on everything else. Diversity across Europe is a strength, it means that independent UK and Polish militaries can act even if Germany isn't behind it, or vice-versa.
  • With the EU due to swing dramatically to the right after the elections this year, TSE is effectively advocating that we subordinate ourselves to a militaristic, right-wing, continental power.

    Isn't that the kind of thing that got people interned in 1940?

    Shut it Tankie.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793
    rcs1000 said:

    The UK will not be rejoining the EU.

    A perspective from one of our US correspondents...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Aw bless.

    Do you genuinely think it makes a shiny shit of difference to Trump whether European countries spend 2% of GDP on defence? Do you truly believe that, because all the Baltic States have been spending more than 2% of their GDP on defence for many years that Trump would order US forces to fight in their defence?

    Are you really that naive?

    The 2% thing is just an excuse for Trump. He doesn't understand or believe in collective self-defence, and he is overawed by dictators.
    No. A lot of Trump is bluster, some of it is for real. He loves things that make him look clever

    If he can get Europe to do a ton of spending and take some burden off the USA he’d sell that as a win because he’s so clever; NATO would survive

    We won’t know until and unless he wins in November. How exciting
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    That's the GOP line - but as Republican foreign policy wonks like Bolton make quite clear, it's bollocks.
    It seems quite likely he wants to leave NATO.

    The"deal maker" think is largely bollocks too. Unless you mean with the Russians ?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,464
    HYUFD said:

    At Waterloo of course one of the biggest current EU powers, France, was the one led by the warmonger we were fighting against, Napoleon

    And the UK was led by a murderous oligarchy who banged up and killed anyone who wanted a remotely popular vote.

  • Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    We all expect him to screw the Ukrainians, and that’s the most likely outcome. But it could go the other way.

    It only takes the Russians being a bit rude about him, or a good Ukrainian info ops campaign, and there’s every chance he’d be just as likely to start WW3. See his change of mind on Syria once he saw the photos of the kids.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Aw bless.

    Do you genuinely think it makes a shiny shit of difference to Trump whether European countries spend 2% of GDP on defence? Do you truly believe that, because all the Baltic States have been spending more than 2% of their GDP on defence for many years that Trump would order US forces to fight in their defence?

    Are you really that naive?

    The 2% thing is just an excuse for Trump. He doesn't understand or believe in collective self-defence, and he is overawed by dictators.
    Apart from anything else, it's quite likely the majority of NATO members will be spending over 2% of GDP on defence in 2024 (about 18 of them at current estimates).
    And that's 'thanks' to Putin, not Trump.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,955
    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    The Dutch already have a joint armoured unit (brigade?) with Germany. There's no need to have a big central project, when you can allow for natural, organic, cooperation.

    The emphasis would have to be on capability, rather than on bureaucracy.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,261

    First like Wellington and von Blücher.

    Hurrah for a European army.

    No problem on the von Blücher.

    That was sunk in the battle of Oslofjord by a retired officer using a Victorian vintage Whitehead torpedo in 1940.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    How would it work POLITICALLY tho. I just can’t see it

    You can’t have it run by 28 countries all with a veto. That’s impossible, it would never be deployed. So who would decide? A majority? The unelected EU president? Who?

    What if Paris and Berlin decided to “do a war”
    of which we disapprove? Would we seriously allow them to put our soldiers in harm’s way, and lose their lives, in a conflict we do not want, which does not benefit us? No

    And each country would have the same attitude. This is the whole problem of the EU turned up to 11 because it’s life and death

    It cannot work
    What if Paris and Berlin decide not to, and we want to?

    What if a future Ukraine is threatened by a future Russia, and a future Merkel says "no we aren't getting involved" even though we want to send missiles over?

    Its remarkable how some people who champion diversity in theory suddenly demand uniformity and unity on everything else. Diversity across Europe is a strength, it means that independent UK and Polish militaries can act even if Germany isn't behind it, or vice-versa.
    On this I agree with you. A European NATO without America has fundamental problems - probably insurmountable. Unless Putin actually invades the EU then i imagine a lot of these issues would get solved….

    But even then I wonder. If Putin invaded Romania would Britain or France send troops to defend Bucharest (without US help)? Hmm
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    How would it work POLITICALLY tho. I just can’t see it

    You can’t have it run by 28 countries all with a veto. That’s impossible, it would never be deployed. So who would decide? A majority? The unelected EU president? Who?

    What if Paris and Berlin decided to “do a war”
    of which we disapprove? Would we seriously allow them to put our soldiers in harm’s way, and lose their lives, in a conflict we do not want, which does not benefit us? No

    And each country would have the same attitude. This is the whole problem of the EU turned up to 11 because it’s life and death

    It cannot work
    It would work the way NATO currently works - a defensive alliance, if it came to that.
    No European army is going to 'do' an war of aggression. It wouldn't have the capacity or the motivation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    The header is wishful thinking by TSE and pretty much rubbish.

    It ignoresthe fact that 3 other key members of NATO apart from the UK - who would be very important in any new replacement organisation - are also not in the EU. Canada, Iceland and NOrway are even less likely to be interested in joining the EU than the UK and without them there is a very big gap in the Northern defence.

    And that is before we start considering Turkey, who might want to join the EU but who would not even be considered by many current EU members.

    Moreover the rest of NATO would want to do nothing that shut the door on the US rejoining under a different future president.

    Like I say, this is TSE's pipe dream.

    Rejoining the EU any time soon is pretty unlikely - but he can dream.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,042

    First like Wellington and von Blücher.

    Hurrah for a European army.

    Fighting another European army.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,261
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    AIUI we only get to 2% because Mr Cameron rolled various non-defence items into the Defence Budget, such as pensions.

    Rather a lot of smoke and mirrors.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    How would it work POLITICALLY tho. I just can’t see it

    You can’t have it run by 28 countries all with a veto. That’s impossible, it would never be deployed. So who would decide? A majority? The unelected EU president? Who?

    What if Paris and Berlin decided to “do a war”
    of which we disapprove? Would we seriously allow them to put our soldiers in harm’s way, and lose their lives, in a conflict we do not want, which does not benefit us? No

    And each country would have the same attitude. This is the whole problem of the EU turned up to 11 because it’s life and death

    It cannot work
    It would work the way NATO currently works - a defensive alliance, if it came to that.
    No European army is going to 'do' an war of aggression. It wouldn't have the capacity or the motivation.
    Without America, Britain is not going to commit to defending Bulgaria or Romania with British lives

    If Trump quits NATO I suspect we’d loyally support America in whatever new alliance it wanted. We will remain, militarily, a vassal state of DC
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,745
    Nice bit of trolling TSE 😂
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    edited February 14

    The header is wishful thinking by TSE and pretty much rubbish.

    It ignoresthe fact that 3 other key members of NATO apart from the UK - who would be very important in any new replacement organisation - are also not in the EU. Canada, Iceland and NOrway are even less likely to be interested in joining the EU than the UK and without them there is a very big gap in the Northern defence.

    And that is before we start considering Turkey, who might want to join the EU but who would not even be considered by many current EU members.

    Moreover the rest of NATO would want to do nothing that shut the door on the US rejoining under a different future president.

    Like I say, this is TSE's pipe dream.

    Yup. And part of the reason we would want to leave the door open for a sane US President to reverse the decision is that it would take many years for the western alliance to even begin to replace the crucial role the U.S. plays in acting as a C2 framework for all the rest of us. See Libya where Obama let the U.K. and France pretend to lead, while the whole thing was quietly run by the U.S.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,261
    On topic:

    NO !

    Next?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,057

    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    Beefed up militaries under separate command is a strength not a weakness. Diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Redundancy is a strength, not a weakness.

    Having a solitary critical control point is a weakness. A critical one.
    See WW2 for how it can work. D-Day - three national armies invaded Normandy, without a formal alliance, under a unified command structure. No need to make it too complex.
  • Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    How would it work POLITICALLY tho. I just can’t see it

    You can’t have it run by 28 countries all with a veto. That’s impossible, it would never be deployed. So who would decide? A majority? The unelected EU president? Who?

    What if Paris and Berlin decided to “do a war”
    of which we disapprove? Would we seriously allow them to put our soldiers in harm’s way, and lose their lives, in a conflict we do not want, which does not benefit us? No

    And each country would have the same attitude. This is the whole problem of the EU turned up to 11 because it’s life and death

    It cannot work
    It would work the way NATO currently works - a defensive alliance, if it came to that.
    No European army is going to 'do' an war of aggression. It wouldn't have the capacity or the motivation.
    The UK has the capacity to go on offensive actions, so a unified European army will.

    Or its not a unified army and supplementary to existing diverse national armies, in which case what's the point?

    Once you have an army, it has the possibility to do a war of aggression. The line gets blurred. Do we get involved in "peacekeeping" missions? If so, do we get involved preemptively? See the line from debating why we didn't get involved with Srebenica through to getting involved with Kosovo through to invading Iraq.

    If a unified European army ever exists, its only a matter of time until its involved in an offensive action. Just as its only a matter of time until the British army next is. It'll be called defensive, for political purposes though - we called invading Iraq a defensive action afterall.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
    That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.

    Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
  • Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
    Different time, different world.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,261

    The header is wishful thinking by TSE and pretty much rubbish.

    It ignores the fact that 3 other key members of NATO apart from the UK - who would be very important in any new replacement organisation - are also not in the EU. Canada, Iceland and Norway are even less likely to be interested in joining the EU than the UK and without them there is a very big gap in the Northern defence.

    And that is before we start considering Turkey, who might want to join the EU but who would not even be considered by many current EU members.

    Moreover the rest of NATO would want to do nothing that shut the door on the US rejoining under a different future president.

    Like I say, this is TSE's pipe dream.

    Yes, but what was in TSE's pipe at the time?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
    That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.

    Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
    Maybe a Thatcherite foriegn policy in the 1990s would have been better for everyone: no to Maastricht and yes to opening up to Russia.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,339
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes if the US pulls the plug Europe will have to organize its own defence. This can't be individual nations all with beefed-up militaries under separate command - that'd be nuts on every level - therefore you're looking at a Pan-European military under joint control. We should be (and would be) a part of this, a big part.

    How would it work POLITICALLY tho. I just can’t see it

    You can’t have it run by 28 countries all with a veto. That’s impossible, it would never be deployed. So who would decide? A majority? The unelected EU president? Who?

    What if Paris and Berlin decided to “do a war”
    of which we disapprove? Would we seriously allow them to put our soldiers in harm’s way, and lose their lives, in a conflict we do not want, which does not benefit us? No

    And each country would have the same attitude. This is the whole problem of the EU turned up to 11 because it’s life and death

    It cannot work
    It would work the way NATO currently works - a defensive alliance, if it came to that.
    No European army is going to 'do' an war of aggression. It wouldn't have the capacity or the motivation.
    Without America, Britain is not going to commit to defending Bulgaria or Romania with British lives

    If Trump quits NATO I suspect we’d loyally support America in whatever new alliance it wanted. We will remain, militarily, a vassal state of DC
    Trump and his acolytes might be a speed bump on the path towards it, but it is inevitable that by 2050 the western alliance will be one power block, the Chinese (probably with a much diminished Russia) another, and India a third. Even America will need allies, and the west remains the natural fit. Though “the West” will include Japan/Korea/Taiwan so might need a new name.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,745

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
    That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.

    Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
    Maybe a Thatcherite foriegn policy in the 1990s would have been better for everyone: no to Maastricht and yes to opening up to Russia.
    So what your saying is that if we end up in WW3 it's all Heseltine's fault? :D
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,111
    edited February 14
    Leon said:

    There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ

    What if Uncle Sam has gone into business with Russia to encourage the overthrow of Europe?
  • .

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
    That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.

    Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
    Maybe a Thatcherite foriegn policy in the 1990s would have been better for everyone: no to Maastricht and yes to opening up to Russia.
    We did open up to Russia.

    Its the Russians fault they turned away from us, not ours.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    Also, Britain SHOULD stick with America if Trump wins, because America under Trump will be way less Woke and annoying, because America under Trump will be entertaining and enterprising, and because it will be ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HILARIOUS watching “Sir” Kir Royale Starmer having to grovel to The Donald on a daily basis, then try and justify it to his MPs and voters
  • MattW said:

    First like Wellington and von Blücher.

    Hurrah for a European army.

    No problem on the von Blücher.

    That was sunk in the battle of Oslofjord by a retired officer using a Victorian vintage Whitehead torpedo in 1940.

    And the other Blucher was sunk at Dogger Bank in 1915.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    Leon said:

    There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ

    What if Uncle Sam has gone into business with Russia to encourage the overthrow of Europe?
    Join in. Demand the return of Aquitaine and Heligoland
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,744
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ

    What if Uncle Sam has gone into business with Russia to encourage the overthrow of Europe?
    Join in. Demand the return of Aquitaine and Heligoland
    We need our 26 lost counties first.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,168
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,147
    edited February 14

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
    She would have called out Trump for the dangerous threat he is and appeasers like you.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,529
    HYUFD said:

    At Waterloo of course one of the biggest current EU powers, France, was the one led by the warmonger we were fighting against, Napoleon

    We fought alongside the (proto) Germans. In fact, the Seventh Coalition can be seen as a pan-European army avant la lettre... :)
  • GIN1138 said:

    Nice bit of trolling TSE 😂

    I never troll on betting threads.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,955
    edited February 14

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
    2% was a target from another world. 3%, if it is spent well, might be enough.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,542
    Some of those bets and odds are barking mad. Not helped because I read Rory Stewart as Rod Stewart as PM by 2040 at 50/1. Although to be honest Rod Stewart as PM is not as daft as some of those bets and odds.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,168
    Leon said:

    There is no way the UK is joining a EU army if the USA fucks off. We will cling to Uncle Sam, as will Canada, Oz and NZ

    I'm not sure anyone will join a European army, not least of all Poland and France - they'd all want to retain national control over their men and bullets, and wouldn't want the European Commission directing it or risk it being subject to QMV.

    My guess is it'd be a specific European coalition/alliance governance structure - with lots of vetos - for anything big and important; anything "European" would be entirely tokenistic and so small it didn't matter, like a few support troops tidying up or training a few civvies in logistics in the Balkans or similar.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,168

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    What is shit for Kyiv is shit for the UK because Putin will not stop at Kyiv ergo Trump 2.0 is shit for the UK.
    Thatcher herself wanted to use Russia to balance the power of a reunified Germany. Was she a tankie?
    That was a very different Russia; over thirty years ago; before Putin, and when Russia was in the doldrums. Russia could have taken many different routes - as could a reunified Germany. Putin chose Russia's current route, to his shame.

    Russia could have become a very different - and from our perspective, better, country, had Putin and the oligarchs made different decisions.
    Not sure we helped, to be honest.

    We spent much of the 90s laughing at Russia, how far they'd fallen and how drunk Yeltsin was.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940
    Leon said:

    Something cheering. For the first time in 40 years, all the scaffolding has been removed from Salisbury Cathedral, and she can now be seen in all her purist beauty. Magnificent and peerless

    The perfect opportunity for a diplomatic outreach to Russia.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 194
    Leon said:

    Also, Britain SHOULD stick with America if Trump wins, because America under Trump will be way less Woke and annoying, because America under Trump will be entertaining and enterprising, and because it will be ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HILARIOUS watching “Sir” Kir Royale Starmer having to grovel to The Donald on a daily basis, then try and justify it to his MPs and voters

    🙄🙄🙄
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    edited February 14

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
    Errr:

    All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.

    France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.

    The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
  • ChelyabinskChelyabinsk Posts: 488
    edited February 14
    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    AIUI we only get to 2% because Mr Cameron rolled various non-defence items into the Defence Budget, such as pensions.

    Rather a lot of smoke and mirrors.
    Surely you can't object to standardising with our NATO allies?

    NATO collects defence expenditure data from Allies and publishes it on a regular basis. Each Ally’s Ministry of Defence reports current and estimated future defence expenditure according to an agreed definition of defence expenditure.... Personnel expenditure includes pensions paid to retirees...

    Pension payments made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments is included regardless of whether these payments are made from the budget of the MoD or other ministries.


    But if you're concerned that the UK is padding its defence spending, then you must presumably be relieved to learn that the UK spends a lower proportion of our defence budget on personnel (31.8%) than every other NATO power except Hungary (29.4%), and that we are one of only eight countries in NATO to meet both the guidelines for defence expenditure as proportion of GDP (2%) and equipment expenditure as percentage of defence expenditure (20%).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,529

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,464

    MattW said:

    First like Wellington and von Blücher.

    Hurrah for a European army.

    No problem on the von Blücher.

    That was sunk in the battle of Oslofjord by a retired officer using a Victorian vintage Whitehead torpedo in 1940.

    And the other Blucher was sunk at Dogger Bank in 1915.
    What's all this? Eeverone knows that Wellingtons and Bluchers are types of boot.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    AIUI we only get to 2% because Mr Cameron rolled various non-defence items into the Defence Budget, such as pensions.

    Rather a lot of smoke and mirrors.
    Surely you can't object to standardising with our NATO allies?

    NATO collects defence expenditure data from Allies and publishes it on a regular basis. Each Ally’s Ministry of Defence reports current and estimated future defence expenditure according to an agreed definition of defence expenditure.... Personnel expenditure includes pensions paid to retirees...

    Pension payments made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments is included regardless of whether these payments are made from the budget of the MoD or other ministries.
    Sure: but the US includes the entire Veteran Administration budget in its definition of military spending. That provides - for example - all the healthcare for retired US military personnel. While, in the UK for example, healthcare for ex soldiers is provided by the NHS and isn't included.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,926
    On topic why would anyone take any bet that tied their money up for many many years ?

    Bookies must be laughing all the way to the Leeds.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    Leon said:

    Something cheering. For the first time in 40 years, all the scaffolding has been removed from Salisbury Cathedral, and she can now be seen in all her purist beauty. Magnificent and peerless


    Worth traveling to from Russia for the day?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,542
    @kinabalu last thread re cats the word used was 'entice an animal' and the example given was as you described and they even interviewed a women who confronted a neighbour who let her cat into their house. Your only hope in avoiding getting banged up in future is the fact that, like most, a barrister interviewed on the program went into full rant mode as to how stupid the proposal was quoting the queue in court for rape cases and we shouldn't be concerned about prosecuting people if cats find a new part time owner.

    I think you are ok, but if you cross anyone here they might shop you to the plod. Your own fault by declaring your criminal activities on a public forum. :smiley:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,168

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
    2% was a target from another world. 3%, if it is spent well, might be enough.
    I did a quick back pocket the other day and I got to 3.6% being requirer to restore our 1990s capabilities - and that's after Options for Change and the Cold War.

    Defence has got much more expensive and high-tech, and we've also sold off a lot of land and infrastructure that'd need to be restored.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    Salisbury has a good claim to being the most beautifully situated of all the great European cathedrals
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,168
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
    Errr:

    All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.

    France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.

    The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
    I don't think 2% equates to being serious.

    It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The UK will not be rejoining the EU.

    A perspective from one of our US correspondents...
    Ah, I remember ahead of the last General Election, @Leon told me that - because I lived in California - I knew nothing about UK politics.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,261
    edited February 14

    From wikipedia, I have discovered that the chap that the sunk Russian ship is named after died on 14th February.

    Someone in Ukraine has a unique sense of humour.

    Another Ropucha class recommissioned as a submarine? Or TBF this one has been hit twice.

    They are becoming as rare as TOS-1 Heavy Flamethrowers ie thermobaric.

    Slightly blows the "keep it moving to keep it safe" theory.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,155
    rcs1000 said:

    With the EU due to swing dramatically to the right after the elections this year, TSE is effectively advocating that we subordinate ourselves to a militaristic, right-wing, continental power.

    Isn't that the kind of thing that got people interned in 1940?

    Ah yes, but if we were to join the EU, think of all those left wing Labour MEPs we'd be sending to Strasbourg.
    The journey, in certain quarters, from "we must stay in the EU because they are sophisticated continentals who civilise us" to "we must rejoin the EU to save the natives from themselves" has been amusingly rapid.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Something cheering. For the first time in 40 years, all the scaffolding has been removed from Salisbury Cathedral, and she can now be seen in all her purist beauty. Magnificent and peerless


    Worth traveling to from Russia for the day?
    It in spires them.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    But Trump approves of the UK. We spend his required 2% and he cherishes his Scotch ancestry and we are all umbilically linked via Five Eyes. Its not going anywhere

    Besides I think most of this is performative bluster. Trump wants to put the willies into underspending NATO countries. He will likely succeed because you never know - it’s Trump! - so the laggards will largely up their spending, then Trump can turn around and boast that he got a much better deal for America

    He’s the deal maker. That’s his thing

    Trump 2.0 would be pretty shit for Kyiv, tho

    Pretty much all the European NATO countries are now on the path to 2%. Everyone has announced big increases in spending, it just takes a couple of years to get there.

    The only European country who's taking it entirely seriously and putting its money where its mouth is is Poland.
    Errr:

    All the Baltics are well above 2%. As are Greece and Turkey.

    France was at 1.9%, but announced some pretty massive increases in spending last year, so they'll be up at 2.2-2.3% (the same level we'll be at) fairly soon.

    The real laggards are Italy (1.7%, but no real movement to close the gap) and Germany (1.4%, which is closing the gap, but it will inevitably take some time when you're so far behind the curve.)
    I don't think 2% equates to being serious.

    It's an arbitrary target, which you're right many aren't even meeting as it is, but it's already out of date.
    I think pretty much everyone has 20% real terms moves planned for the next three years. Now, you can argue that it should be more, but it's definitely heading in the right direction.
This discussion has been closed.