@Malmesbury Are we taking at cross purposes ? Or are you really comparing West Germany's defensive contribution to NATO with what I'm talking about ? A military capable of sustaining a Pax Europa ? Of defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Finland from the Russians ? It would be utterly unlike any military they've had since WW2.
Try to convince the German finance minister to triple defence expenditure to protect Greece ect.
My friend in the CDU tells me that Germany will be increasing defence spending... But I doubt it'll be 3x
83% by any chance? That's what they'd need to do to meet the NATO minimum. Would be a huge bonanza for the UK defence industry if Europe increased defence spending by the required €117bn.
I think it's inevitable (and a net positive for Rolls Royce, BAe, Safran and Airbus) that there will be meaningful increases in spending. I doubt Germany will get to 2% any time soon, but the structural declines in European defence spending are over.
For the German military to be in such bad shape after all they had in 1990 suggests they really ran it down since.
They diverted spending from the military to reviving the East. It was probably the right call.
Certainly.
But it looks like they've left their rearming for 5-10 years too long.
Lots of comments about the 'new world order'. We don't know what this means, but in all probability it means Putin achieving its long term policy objectives: a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, an isolated and divided UK, and a weakened, neutralised EU. From any objective standpoint, the UK would be best off staying in the EU and using its influence there. But all these arguments were rejected by the people (the idiots) in the referendum and we have to respect that decision. The outcome of Brexit is that the Scots will have their own populist revolt and vote for independence (look at the odds). The Kremlin is meddling here as well, basing a number of new media outlets in Edinburgh. Corbyn and the SNP have already both proved themselves happy/foolish enough to do Putins bidding. Putins aim is to turn Scotland against England/RUK then ultimately to weaken our defensive capabilities and then remove our nuclear deterrent. We will just pretty much be an isolated island on the edge of Europe, split in to two or more countries, with no global influence. What is happening at the moment is absolutely tragic and humiliating, it is the unravelling of Britain as a diplomatic superpower and the abdication of power and influence on the world stage. And leading this is the tragic and pathetic figure of Boris Johnson. Britains tragedy is seconded by the demise of the US as a global superpower, as it abdicates any principled stance of liberal interventionalism and disintegrates in to decadence and overt self interest, perfectly represented by Donald Trump. Basically this is a nightmare, there are no positive angles, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The only consolation is that conflict with Russia may have been averted, but this is at the expense of the rule based international order that has generally held peace for seven decades.
There you go again "The people (the idiots)".
If people like you had actually bothered to listen to the people's views, you wouldn't be in your current predicament.
It's not my predicament. Its our collective predicament. People just laughed at Cameron when he said leaving the EU would increase the risk of war. People laughed at the 'experts' from the vast majority of world leaders through to military generals. Brexit was a peasants revolt led by know nothing idiots and the deluded. Of course there are many, valid criticisms of the EU. But a vote for Brexit was a vote for the break up of the UK and total chaos, which is now unfolding in a predictable way. I accepted on June 24th that I am now in a minority within this country. I accept we lost. I accept that the decision has to be implemented and I want it to be 'owned' by the people that led us to it.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Juppé leads in the latest polling in the first round, by a 1-6 point margin depending on turnout (this is the first time the centre-right primary has been open). He would beat Sarkozy by 14-18 points in the second round.
I am very long on Juppé but on current trends you could afford to wait will next week and still get him at 1.5 maybe which would be fantastic value and lower risk.
@Malmesbury Are we taking at cross purposes ? Or are you really comparing West Germany's defensive contribution to NATO with what I'm talking about ? A military capable of sustaining a Pax Europa ? Of defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Finland from the Russians ? It would be utterly unlike any military they've had since WW2.
Try to convince the German finance minister to triple defence expenditure to protect Greece ect.
My friend in the CDU tells me that Germany will be increasing defence spending... But I doubt it'll be 3x
83% by any chance? That's what they'd need to do to meet the NATO minimum. Would be a huge bonanza for the UK defence industry if Europe increased defence spending by the required €117bn.
I think it's inevitable (and a net positive for Rolls Royce, BAe, Safran and Airbus) that there will be meaningful increases in spending. I doubt Germany will get to 2% any time soon, but the structural declines in European defence spending are over.
I don't tbink it follows.
More than likely we are looking at the end of NATO, and replacing that with an EU force without expeditionary capability, largely an effective border force.
To me that looks fine and dandy. Russia is no real threat, and who else is? The Yanks pulling out is long overdue.
Pacifists. You're all clueless.
Can you please make your mind up. Is Putin our sworn enemy or our new bestie?
Neither?
Though it is probably time for the USAF to go home too.
I don't want Trumpsbombers flying from British soil.
The whole point is to ensure that eastern Europe doesn't fall into the Russian sphere of influence. That's why we invited them to NATO in the first place. After the migrant crisis the Eastern bloc is turning against the EU. Ensuring they stay in NATO and keeping the Americans interested is in our interests. A pacifist Lib Dem might not get it, but then again selling out your supporters is something you're used to I guess. Selling out Eastern Europe to fall into Putin's sphere probably doesn't mean much, as long as we unilaterally disarm. Fool.
@Malmesbury Are we taking at cross purposes ? Or are you really comparing West Germany's defensive contribution to NATO with what I'm talking about ? A military capable of sustaining a Pax Europa ? Of defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Finland from the Russians ? It would be utterly unlike any military they've had since WW2.
Try to convince the German finance minister to triple defence expenditure to protect Greece ect.
My friend in the CDU tells me that Germany will be increasing defence spending... But I doubt it'll be 3x
83% by any chance? That's what they'd need to do to meet the NATO minimum. Would be a huge bonanza for the UK defence industry if Europe increased defence spending by the required €117bn.
I think it's inevitable (and a net positive for Rolls Royce, BAe, Safran and Airbus) that there will be meaningful increases in spending. I doubt Germany will get to 2% any time soon, but the structural declines in European defence spending are over.
For the German military to be in such bad shape after all they had in 1990 suggests they really ran it down since.
They diverted spending from the military to reviving the East. It was probably the right call.
Certainly.
But it looks like they've left their rearming for 5-10 years too long.
Reaping the rewards of the EMU crisis to rebuild their economy instead of spending on defence. Germany is now nothing more than a mercantile nation, they didn't want to hit Russia with sanctions initially because German exporters to Russia might lose out. Spineless.
Liberal, rational, centrist politicians need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask, why are they losing?
They can say simply that the voters are stupid (the Matthew Parris approach). They don't know how lucky they are. Perhaps, the answer is to end democracy, so they can remain in power a bit longer.
Or maybe, the answer requires a bit of hard thinking. Are they doing things that are wrong?
It's an excellent question and one that exercises me as someone who thinks liberalism is a force for good.
The problem is that the liberal consensus and ascendancy that held sway in the West since the Second World War in response to that catastrophe is widely seen to have failed and is breaking down. So we are returning to the 1930's - excepting genocide by mad dictators and global war, but the other aspects of that grim decade - which saw the death of liberalism just as we are seeing again now.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
I just don't agree with the idea the primary epoch we are in "post war". There was a post-war consensus, destroyed by Thatcheritism, which was replaced by Blairism which we may or may not now be coming out of. Arguably on an international level you could merge free market economics under the second two, but the idea that prior to 1973 our attitude to free trade is the same as now is impossible for me to agree with.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Corbyn and the SNP have already both proved themselves happy/foolish enough to do Putins bidding.
In what sense?
Disarm Trident/ remove it from Scotland's shores.
The SNP has been explicitly opposed to nuclear weapons since the 60s, so presumably they've been doing Krushchev's, Brezhnev's, Andropov's, Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's bidding also. Remarkable consistency.
Edit: forgot about Chernenko.
Given there is still debate over whether Chernenko was actually alive during any of his time in power.....
Lots of comments about the 'new world order'. We don't know what this means, but in all probability it means Putin achieving its long term policy objectives: a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, an isolated and divided UK, and a weakened, neutralised EU. From any objective standpoint, the UK would be best off staying in the EU and using its influence there. But all these arguments were rejected by the people (the idiots) in the referendum and we have to respect that decision. The outcome of Brexit is that the Scots will have their own populist revolt and vote for independence (look at the odds). The Kremlin is meddling here as well, basing a number of new media outlets in Edinburgh. Corbyn and the SNP have already both proved themselves happy/foolish enough to do Putins bidding. Putins aim is to turn Scotland against England/RUK then ultimately to weaken our defensive capabilities and then remove our nuclear deterrent. We will just pretty much be an isolated island on the edge of Europe, split in to two or more countries, with no global influence. What is happening at the moment is absolutely tragic and humiliating, it is the unravelling of Britain as a diplomatic superpower and the abdication of power and influence on the world stage. And leading this is the tragic and pathetic figure of Boris Johnson. Britains tragedy is seconded by the demise of the US as a global superpower, as it abdicates any principled stance of liberal interventionalism and disintegrates in to decadence and overt self interest, perfectly represented by Donald Trump. Basically this is a nightmare, there are no positive angles, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The only consolation is that conflict with Russia may have been averted, but this is at the expense of the rule based international order that has generally held peace for seven decades.
There you go again "The people (the idiots)".
If people like you had actually bothered to listen to the people's views, you wouldn't be in your current predicament.
It's not my predicament. Its our collective predicament. People just laughed at Cameron when he said leaving the EU would increase the risk of war. People laughed at the 'experts' from the vast majority of world leaders through to military generals. Brexit was a peasants revolt led by know nothing idiots and the deluded. Of course there are many, valid criticisms of the EU. But a vote for Brexit was a vote for the break up of the UK and total chaos, which is now unfolding in a predictable way. I accepted on June 24th that I am now in a minority within this country. I accept we lost. I accept that the decision has to be implemented and I want it to be 'owned' by the people that led us to it.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia did have a dip in population, but it's on the up again:
Liberal, rational, centrist politicians need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask, why are they losing?
They can say simply that the voters are stupid (the Matthew Parris approach). They don't know how lucky they are. Perhaps, the answer is to end democracy, so they can remain in power a bit longer.
Or maybe, the answer requires a bit of hard thinking. Are they doing things that are wrong?
It's an excellent question and one that exercises me as someone who thinks liberalism is a force for good.
The problem is that the liberal consensus and ascendancy that held sway in the West since the Second World War in response to that catastrophe is widely seen to have failed and is breaking down. So we are returning to the 1930's - excepting genocide by mad dictators and global war, but the other aspects of that grim decade - which saw the death of liberalism just as we are seeing again now.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
I just don't agree with the idea the primary epoch we are in "post war". There was a post-war consensus, destroyed by Thatcheritism, which was replaced by Blairism which we may or may not now be coming out of. Arguably on an international level you could merge free market economics under the second two, but the idea that prior to 1973 our attitude to free trade is the same as now is impossible for me to agree with.
I mean liberalism in a very broad international sense. Thatcherism, and more importantly the conservative majority achieved by Ronald Reagan, were in some ways a rejection of that liberalism but they still stayed within the system. What's happening now is quite different. Whether Thatcher or Reagan would approve is unanswerable because they are dead, but it goes beyond what they did.
Liberal, rational, centrist politicians need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask, why are they losing?
They can say simply that the voters are stupid (the Matthew Parris approach). They don't know how lucky they are. Perhaps, the answer is to end democracy, so they can remain in power a bit longer.
Or maybe, the answer requires a bit of hard thinking. Are they doing things that are wrong?
It's an excellent question and one that exercises me as someone who thinks liberalism is a force for good.
The problem is that the liberal consensus and ascendancy that held sway in the West since the Second World War in response to that catastrophe is widely seen to have failed and is breaking down. So we are returning to the 1930's - excepting genocide by mad dictators and global war, but the other aspects of that grim decade - which saw the death of liberalism just as we are seeing again now.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
I just don't agree with the idea the primary epoch we are in "post war". There was a post-war consensus, destroyed by Thatcheritism, which was replaced by Blairism which we may or may not now be coming out of. Arguably on an international level you could merge free market economics under the second two, but the idea that prior to 1973 our attitude to free trade is the same as now is impossible for me to agree with.
On the economic point you're surely correct and it's why if you take the post war period as a whole you would have to be particularly blinkered to think that Britain without the EU is a beacon of free trading liberalism.
That said, that's not primarily what defines the change of epoch we're experiencing at present. What's breaking down is the post Cold War consensus of a unipolar geopolitics led by the US through a variety of international organisations, the very ones we were assuming would be so stable that we could safely depart the EU and fall into their embrace. That is being shown to be an utterly misguided wish.
@Malmesbury Are we taking at cross purposes ? Or are you really comparing West Germany's defensive contribution to NATO with what I'm talking about ? A military capable of sustaining a Pax Europa ? Of defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Finland from the Russians ? It would be utterly unlike any military they've had since WW2.
Try to convince the German finance minister to triple defence expenditure to protect Greece ect.
My friend in the CDU tells me that Germany will be increasing defence spending... But I doubt it'll be 3x
83% by any chance? That's what they'd need to do to meet the NATO minimum. Would be a huge bonanza for the UK defence industry if Europe increased defence spending by the required €117bn.
I think it's inevitable (and a net positive for Rolls Royce, BAe, Safran and Airbus) that there will be meaningful increases in spending. I doubt Germany will get to 2% any time soon, but the structural declines in European defence spending are over.
I don't tbink it follows.
More than likely we are looking at the end of NATO, and replacing that with an EU force without expeditionary capability, largely an effective border force.
To me that looks fine and dandy. Russia is no real threat, and who else is? The Yanks pulling out is long overdue.
Pacifists. You're all clueless.
Can you please make your mind up. Is Putin our sworn enemy or our new bestie?
Neither?
Though it is probably time for the USAF to go home too.
I don't want Trumpsbombers flying from British soil.
The whole point is to ensure that eastern Europe doesn't fall into the Russian sphere of influence. That's why we invited them to NATO in the first place. After the migrant crisis the Eastern bloc is turning against the EU. Ensuring they stay in NATO and keeping the Americans interested is in our interests. A pacifist Lib Dem might not get it, but then again selling out your supporters is something you're used to I guess. Selling out Eastern Europe to fall into Putin's sphere probably doesn't mean much, as long as we unilaterally disarm. Fool.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
Meanwhile I see that I'm still getting hundreds of emails per hour. So much for private enterprise helping NHS efficiency as it'll take ages to sort out the important stuff tomorrow.
Meanwhile I see that I'm still getting hundreds of emails per hour. So much for private enterprise helping NHS efficiency as it'll take ages to sort out the important stuff tomorrow.
Our firewall must be good. I have had no more emails at work than usual.
Lots of comments about the 'new world order'. We don't know what this means, but in all probability it means Putin achieving its long term policy objectives: a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, an isolated and divided UK, and a weakened, neutralised EU. From any objective standpoint, the UK would be best off staying in the EU and using its influence there. But all these arguments were rejected by the people (the idiots) in the referendum and we have to respect that decision. The outcome of Brexit is that the Scots will have their own populist revolt and vote for independence (look at the odds). The Kremlin is meddling here as well, basing a number of new media outlets in Edinburgh. Corbyn and the SNP have already both proved themselves happy/foolish enough to do Putins bidding. Putins aim is to turn Scotland against England/uch be an isolated island on the edge of Europe, split in to two or more countries, with no global influence. What is happening at the moment is absolutely tragic and humiliating, it is the unravelling of Britain as a diplomatic superpower and the abdication of power and influence on the world stage. And leading this is the tragic and pathetic figure of Boris Johnson. Britains tragedy is seconded by the demise of the US as a global superpower, as it abdicates any principled stance of liberal interventionalism and disintegrates in to decadence and overt self interest, perfectly represented by Donald Trump. Basically this is a nightmare, there are no positive angles, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The only consolation is that conflict with Russia may have been averted, but this is at the expense of the rule based international order that has generally held peace for seven decades.
There you go again "The people (the idiots)".
If people like you had actually bothered to listen to the people's views, you wouldn't be in your current predicament.
It's not my predicament. Its our collective predicament. People just laughed at Cameron when he said leaving the EU would increase the risk of war. People laughed at the 'experts' from the vast majority of world leaders through to military generals. Brexit was a peasants revolt led by know nothing idiots and the deluded. Of course there are many, valid criticisms of the EU. But a vote for Brexit was a vote for the break up of the UK and total chaos, which is now unfolding in a predictable way. I accepted on June 24th that I am now in a minority within this country. I accept we lost. I accept that the decision has to be implemented and I want it to be 'owned' by the people that led us to it.
The problem is that people like you thought that the answer to all criticisms of the EU was More Europe.
Meanwhile I see that I'm still getting hundreds of emails per hour. So much for private enterprise helping NHS efficiency as it'll take ages to sort out the important stuff tomorrow.
Public or private, one misclick on a reply all and you are screwed
We've not figured out to run an economy with automation, nor an Internet media that can discriminate between any old gobshite and someone who knows what they are talking about.
So we fall back to classic right wing demagogues, their easy solutions and scapegoats
Liberal, rational, centrist politicians need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask, why are they losing?
They can say simply that the voters are stupid (the Matthew Parris approach). They don't know how lucky they are. Perhaps, the answer is to end democracy, so they can remain in power a bit longer.
Or maybe, the answer requires a bit of hard thinking. Are they doing things that are wrong?
It's an excellent question and one that exercises me as someone who thinks liberalism is a force for good.
The problem is that the liberal consensus and ascendancy that held sway in the West since the Second World War in response to that catastrophe is widely seen to have failed and is breaking down. So we are returning to the 1930's - excepting genocide by mad dictators and global war, but the other aspects of that grim decade - which saw the death of liberalism just as we are seeing again now.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
I just don't agree with the idea the primary epoch we are in "post war". There was a post-war consensus, destroyed by Thatcheritism, which was replaced by Blairism which we may or may not now be coming out of. Arguably on an international level you could merge free market economics under the second two, but the idea that prior to 1973 our attitude to free trade is the same as now is impossible for me to agree with.
I mean liberalism in a very broad international sense. Thatcherism, and more importantly the conservative majority achieved by Ronald Reagan, were in some ways a rejection of that liberalism but they still stayed within the system. What's happening now is quite different. Whether Thatcher or Reagan would approve is unanswerable because they are dead, but it goes beyond what they did.
I don't disagree if what you want to say is that we are entering a new era, I think we are. But I think it is the third, maybe the fourth, such era in the last hundred years.
Meanwhile I see that I'm still getting hundreds of emails per hour. So much for private enterprise helping NHS efficiency as it'll take ages to sort out the important stuff tomorrow.
Public or private, one misclick on a reply all and you are screwed
@Malmesbury Are we taking at cross purposes ? Or are you really comparing West Germany's defensive contribution to NATO with what I'm talking about ? A military capable of sustaining a Pax Europa ? Of defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Finland from the Russians ? It would be utterly unlike any military they've had since WW2.
Try to convince the German finance minister to triple defence expenditure to protect Greece ect.
My friend in the CDU tells me that Germany will be increasing defence spending... But I doubt it'll be 3x
83% by any chance? That's what they'd need to do to meet the NATO minimum. Would be a huge bonanza for the UK defence industry if Europe increased defence spending by the required €117bn.
I think it's inevitable (and a net positive for Rolls Royce, BAe, Safran and Airbus) that there will be meaningful increases in spending. I doubt Germany will get to 2% any time soon, but the structural declines in European defence spending are over.
I don't tbink it follows.
More than likely we are looking at the end of NATO, and replacing that with an EU force without expeditionary capability, largely an effective border force.
To me that looks fine and dandy. Russia is no real threat, and who else is? The Yanks pulling out is long overdue.
Pacifists. You're all clueless.
Can you please make your mind up. Is Putin our sworn enemy or our new bestie?
Neither?
Though it is probably time for the USAF to go home too.
I don't want Trumpsbombers flying from British soil.
The whole point is to ensure that eastern Europe doesn't fall into the Russian sphere of influence. That's why we invited them to NATO in the first place. After the migrant crisis the Eastern bloc is turning against the EU. Ensuring they stay in NATO and keeping the Americans interested is in our interests. A pacifist Lib Dem might not get it, but then again selling out your supporters is something you're used to I guess. Selling out Eastern Europe to fall into Putin's sphere probably doesn't mean much, as long as we unilaterally disarm. Fool.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
Never been praying for it, because I know it'll happen. It is already happening.
Er....
TSE means like a man who has broken up with his wife, has learnt to forget about her because he is too busy seeing other people/getting on with his life.
Meanwhile I see that I'm still getting hundreds of emails per hour. So much for private enterprise helping NHS efficiency as it'll take ages to sort out the important stuff tomorrow.
Our firewall must be good. I have had no more emails at work than usual.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia had a terrible birth rate for a long time. Getting back to c. 1.7 does not make their pyramid look healthy.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
@Malmesbury Are we taking at cross purposes ? Or are you really comparing West Germany's defensive contribution to NATO with what I'm talking about ? A military capable of sustaining a Pax Europa ? Of defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Finland from the Russians ? It would be utterly unlike any military they've had since WW2.
Try to convince the German finance minister to triple defence expenditure to protect Greece ect.
My friend in the CDU tells me that Germany will be increasing defence spending... But I doubt it'll be 3x
83% by any chance? That's what they'd need to do to meet the NATO minimum. Would be a huge bonanza for the UK defence industry if Europe increased defence spending by the required €117bn.
I think it's inevitable (and a net positive for Rolls Royce, BAe, Safran and Airbus) that there will be meaningful increases in spending. I doubt Germany will get to 2% any time soon, but the structural declines in European defence spending are over.
I don't tbink it follows.
More than likely we are looking at the end of NATO, and replacing that with an EU force without expeditionary capability, largely an effective border force.
To me that looks fine and dandy. Russia is no real threat, and who else is? The Yanks pulling out is long overdue.
Pacifists. You're all clueless.
Can you please make your mind up. Is Putin our sworn enemy or our new bestie?
Neither?
Though it is probably time for the USAF to go home too.
I don't want Trumpsbombers flying from British soil.
The whole point is to ensure that eastern Europe doesn't fall into the Russian sphere of influence. That's why we invited them to NATO in the first place. After the migrant crisis the Eastern bloc is turning against the EU. Ensuring they stay in NATO and keeping the Americans interested is in our interests. A pacifist Lib Dem might not get it, but then again selling out your supporters is something you're used to I guess. Selling out Eastern Europe to fall into Putin's sphere probably doesn't mean much, as long as we unilaterally disarm. Fool.
Sadly people aren't bothered. They don't see whats in it for us.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia did have a dip in population, but it's on the up again:
Russia has had a lot of population peaks and troughs over the last century.
The generation born between the wars is now dying off, but much or Russias population growth is from migration from former Soviet states, Ukraine in particular, but also the 'stans. Much is ethnically Russian, with the otber side of the coin being that these places are becoming less etbnically Russian.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
The fact that the EU's answer to everything is more Europe is starting to be more of a problem...
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia did have a dip in population, but it's on the up again:
Liberal, rational, centrist politicians need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask, why are they losing?
They can say simply that the voters are stupid (the Matthew Parris approach). They don't know how lucky they are. Perhaps, the answer is to end democracy, so they can remain in power a bit longer.
Or maybe, the answer requires a bit of hard thinking. Are they doing things that are wrong?
It's an excellent question and one that exercises me as someone who thinks liberalism is a force for good.
The problem is that the liberal consensus and ascendancy that held sway in the West since the Second World War in response to that catastrophe is widely seen to have failed and is breaking down. So we are returning to the 1930's - excepting genocide by mad dictators and global war, but the other aspects of that grim decade - which saw the death of liberalism just as we are seeing again now.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
i don't see any reason why liberalism needs to die. It's just become associated with very unpopular causes. Hostility towards nation states, mass migration, and putting the boot into people who speak out of turn.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia did have a dip in population, but it's on the up again:
The absorption of the Crimea?
A couple of million, looks about right for Crimea.
This is not true. SeanT said he was in a pub in London and it was really busy.
Sounds unlikely, though. My understanding was that tourism had done rather well out of Brexit due to the fall in the pound.
Hotels in London might be more driven by business traffic that leisure and as the amount of business transacted definitely has fallen post-Brexit that might explain the empty hotel rooms
@Malmesbury Are we taking at cross purposes ? Or are you really comparing West Germany's defensive contribution to NATO with what I'm talking about ? A military capable of sustaining a Pax Europa ? Of defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Finland from the Russians ? It would be utterly unlike any military they've had since WW2.
Try to convince the German finance minister to triple defence expenditure to protect Greece ect.
My friend in the CDU tells me that Germany will be increasing defence spending... But I doubt it'll be 3x
83% by any chance? That's what they'd need to do to meet the NATO minimum. Would be a huge bonanza for the UK defence industry if Europe increased defence spending by the required €117bn.
I think it's inevitable (and a net positive for Rolls Royce, BAe, Safran and Airbus) that there will be meaningful increases in spending. I doubt Germany will get to 2% any time soon, but the structural declines in European defence spending are over.
For the German military to be in such bad shape after all they had in 1990 suggests they really ran it down since.
They diverted spending from the military to reviving the East. It was probably the right call.
Certainly.
But it looks like they've left their rearming for 5-10 years too long.
Reaping the rewards of the EMU crisis to rebuild their economy instead of spending on defence. Germany is now nothing more than a mercantile nation, they didn't want to hit Russia with sanctions initially because German exporters to Russia might lose out. Spineless.
Twas ever thus. Back in the day the Germans baulked at financing its share of export sales of Eurofighter, leaving us and the French to pick up the tab, but they had no objection to providing the kit.
The euro too is a zero sum game so the extent of Club Med suffering is balanced by German (and other Northern European) gain. The EU has been a busted flush for ages, now it's been called, and the US is staying in too.
Lots of comments about the 'new world order'. We don't know what this means, but in all probability it means Putin achieving its long term policy objectives: a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, an isolated and divided UK, and a weakened, neutralised EU. From any objective standpoint, the UK would be best off staying in the EU and using its influence there. But all these arguments were rejected by the people (the idiots) in the referendum and we have to respect that decision. The outcome of Brexit is that the Scots will have their own populist revolt and vote for independence (look at the odds). The Kremlin is meddling here as well, basing a number of new media outlets in Edinburgh. Corbyn and the SNP have already both proved themselves happy/foolish enough to do Putins bidding. Putins aim is to turn Scotland against England/uch be an isolated island on the edge of Europe, split in to two or more countries, with no global influence. What is happening at the moment is absolutely tragic and humiliating, it is the unravelling of Britain as a diplomatic superpower and the abdication of power and influence on the world stage. Andstance of liberal interventionalism and disintegrates in to decadence and overt self interest, perfectly represented by Donald Trump. Basically this is a nightmare, there are no positive angles, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The only consolation is that conflict with Russia may have been averted, but this is at the expense of the rule based international order that has generally held peace for seven decades.
There you go again "The people (the idiots)".
If people like you had actually bothered to listen to the people's views, you wouldn't be in your current predicament.
It's not my predicament. Its our collective predicament. People just laughed at Cameron when he said leaving the EU would increase the risk of war. People laughed at the 'experts' from the vast majority of world leaders through to military generals. Brexit was a peasants revolt led by know nothing idiots and the deluded. Of course there are many, valid criticisms of the EU. But a vote for Brexit was a vote for the break up of the UK and total chaos, which is now unfolding in a predictable way. I accepted on June 24th that I am now in a minority within this country. I accept we lost. I accept that the decision has to be implemented and I want it to be 'owned' by the people that led us to it.
The problem is that people like you thought that the answer to all criticisms of the EU was More Europe.
Actually I'm a Eurosceptic, I was just able to see the bigger picture.
This is not true. SeanT said he was in a pub in London and it was really busy.
Sounds unlikely, though. My understanding was that tourism had done rather well out of Brexit due to the fall in the pound.
Hotels in London might be more driven by business traffic that leisure and as the amount of business transacted definitely has fallen post-Brexit that might explain the empty hotel rooms
The rise of AirBnB, might have had an effect as well. A pretty big one.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
These EUphiles can't separate Brussels from Warsaw, it seems.
No that would be the Leavers who voted for Brexit because too many people from the latter decided to take up our offer to move here.
And what has that got to do with us turning our back on those countries?
The Poles fought alongside us in WW2 after we went to war, ostensibly over their country. Poland was only freed from tyranny a full 50 years later. After they finally rejoined the European mainstream the UK then votes to Leave it because, having unilaterally opened the door to them, too many took up our offer to move here. To me that's a source of great shame.
And we wonder why people don't believe stuff even in the serious media...tip stop printing total bullshit that is easily verifiable like the times claiming May meeting Obama in the Whitehouse.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen, and no need. A bit of tinkering around the edges possibly, but better to wind down NATO and enjoy a new peace dividend. Yankee go home, and welcome to Ivan.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Actually it does, its a basket case in every conceivable manner, its showing all the signs of a state on its knees, gangsterism, elected dictatorship, political suppression, an economy that is lacking diversification and fake strongman stuff on the international stage to look glorious.
You have to look at its leader, he can play poker but he is an ex KGB desk jockey who prances about on a horse trying to look macho. In reality he is as weak and vain as the country he governs. They are welcome to the regime they have but fuck I'd fight every single one of them if they came anywhere near the door.
These EUphiles can't separate Brussels from Warsaw, it seems.
No that would be the Leavers who voted for Brexit because too many people from the latter decided to take up our offer to move here.
And what has that got to do with us turning our back on those countries?
The Poles fought alongside us in WW2 after we went to war, ostensibly over their country. Poland was only freed from tyranny a full 50 years later. After they finally rejoined the European mainstream the UK then votes to Leave it because, having unilaterally opened the door to them, too many took up our offer to move here. To me that's a source of great shame.
But we are both still in NATO, so I am not seeing your point. We've done very well out of cheap labour from Eastern Europe. They have suffered a massive brain drain thanks to us (well, maybe not brain drain in some cases, but a significant exodus of the young).
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen, and no need. A bit of tinkering around the edges possibly, but better to wind down NATO and enjoy a new peace dividend. Yankee go home, and welcome to Ivan.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
I don't think that people generally are discounting those values, I do not even think that most Trump voters are rejecting such things.
Trump is a tool for people who want greater economic security, they aren't endorsing the stupid stuff he says, they are using him as a means to say "we are mad as hell and not going to take it any more". It's a measure of their anger that they will vote for someone as bad as Trump. His election is the mother of all wakeup calls to the left that has lost its focus on economic security, and the right that seems to think that if aggregated data about the economy and trade looks good then peoples personal struggles will be magically taken care of by the invisible hand.
But we are both still in NATO, so I am not seeing your point. We've done very well out of cheap labour from Eastern Europe. They have suffered a massive brain drain thanks to us.
Do you think we would maintain our Article 5 commitment for one second longer than the US does?
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
In your pacifist Lib Dem eyes, maybe. To the rest of the world it will be a less safe place and to the US they will be completely unreliable allies. If Europe demilitarises then the idea that it could be a world power stand up against China or the US would be more of a joke than it is today. Only in your weird pacifist EUphile world does this make sense. I'd love for the EU to pursue the policy as all of Eastern Europe will decide to leave the EU, as would France if you try to take away their nukes. Germany, the cheapskates, would even have to increase spending if they were responsible for the safety of the remaining group.
Dear me, I see that Alastair has misquoted one of Lord Prescott's most memorable contributions to the political lexicon. It wasn't the tectonic plates which had moved, but the Teutonic plates.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia did have a dip in population, but it's on the up again:
The absorption of the Crimea?
Note that the rate of decrease flattens off a couple of years BEFORE Crimea.
Meanwhile I see that I'm still getting hundreds of emails per hour. So much for private enterprise helping NHS efficiency as it'll take ages to sort out the important stuff tomorrow.
I'm not sure that having hundreds of employees who are too dumb to not "reply all" to an email sent to over a million people is really the fault of "private enterprise"...
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen, and no need. A bit of tinkering around the edges possibly, but better to wind down NATO and enjoy a new peace dividend. Yankee go home, and welcome to Ivan.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
Putin would love that!
I know, that unlikely move into Poland suddenly might look a lot more tempting!
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
If Pax Americana ends then we'll need a Pax Europa. Which in practical terms means a Pax Germanica. We aren't a million miles away from actually asking the Germans to rearm. They've the wealth, population and industrial mass to lead the EU's defence of it's eastern borders. But it would be a hell of a psychological and political switch ( as well as taking time ).
Nah. We asked the Germans to rearm in 1949, and they did.
West German forces formed the backbone of NATO forces on the Rhine for almost 40 years.
Don't be silly. Germany is deliberately and rightly a military pigmy relative to it's size and wealth. But that is/was part of the deal with Pax Americana. If Pax American ends then all is in flux. And as you are well aware free Europe's front line is now much further west than the Rhine. There is simply more Europe to defend these days.
I'm not being silly. I'm simply challenging your assertion that asking the Germans to rearm is a big deal, and a huge psychological/political switch.
We asked them to do it within 4 years of Hitler's death. They did, and it wasn't a big deal.
Hmm - Germany created a defence force. It spends comparatively nothing on defence. As Europe's richest, most populous country it should by rights have its biggest and most powerful military, as a permanent seat on the Security Council. A German military capability in line with its financial might and number of inhabitants would dwarf what we have. Are we really comfortable with that? What would Germany's neighbours think?
Don't know about anyone else but I'm totally comfortable with that.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Actually it does, its a basket case in every conceivable manner, its showing all the signs of a state on its knees, gangsterism, elected dictatorship, political suppression, an economy that is lacking diversification and fake strongman stuff on the international stage to look glorious.
You have to look at its leader, he can play poker but he is an ex KGB desk jockey who prances about on a horse trying to look macho. In reality he is as weak and vain as the country he governs. They are welcome to the regime they have but fuck I'd fight every single one of them if they came anywhere near the door.
Its a shit-hole state.
Putin has showed the way forward in terms of foreign influence, with his troll farms and Wikileaks. No need for tanks, when you can get the Americans to rise up and depose their own leaders and destabilise their own countries.
The risk is that rather like the Germans putting Lenin on a sealed train with just the same objective, they may well get a similar blowback. One of several reasons that the German army collapsed in 1918 was that the hundreds of thousands of troops transferred from the East brought Bolshevism and defeatism with them. Russias trolls may well go freelance...
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
If Pax Americana ends then we'll need a Pax Europa. Which in practical terms means a Pax Germanica. We aren't a million miles away from actually asking the Germans to rearm. They've the wealth, population and industrial mass to lead the EU's defence of it's eastern borders. But it would be a hell of a psychological and political switch ( as well as taking time ).
Nah. We asked the Germans to rearm in 1949, and they did.
West German forces formed the backbone of NATO forces on the Rhine for almost 40 years.
Don't be silly. Germany is deliberately and rightly a military pigmy relative to it's size and wealth. But that is/was part of the deal with Pax Americana. If Pax American ends then all is in flux. And as you are well aware free Europe's front line is now much further west than the Rhine. There is simply more Europe to defend these days.
I'm not being silly. I'm simply challenging your assertion that asking the Germans to rearm is a big deal, and a huge psychological/political switch.
We asked them to do it within 4 years of Hitler's death. They did, and it wasn't a big deal.
Hmm - Germany created a defence force. It spends comparatively nothing on defence. As Europe's richest, most populous country it should by rights have its biggest and most powerful military, as a permanent seat on the Security Council. A German military capability in line with its financial might and number of inhabitants would dwarf what we have. Are we really comfortable with that? What would Germany's neighbours think?
Don't know about anyone else but I'm totally comfortable with that.
Why wouldn't we be ?
Germany not having to spend 2% of gdp on defence must give them a comparative advantage on other stuff.
Meanwhile I see that I'm still getting hundreds of emails per hour. So much for private enterprise helping NHS efficiency as it'll take ages to sort out the important stuff tomorrow.
I'm not sure that having hundreds of employees who are too dumb to not "reply all" to an email sent to over a million people is really the fault of "private enterprise"...
The email does not appear to have gone to a million people when you see it. Yes, you don't need to reply all, but the messages are filtering through VERY slowly from the initial boom this morning.
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia did have a dip in population, but it's on the up again:
The absorption of the Crimea?
Note that the rate of decrease flattens off a couple of years BEFORE Crimea.
Agreed. Three things helped: Putin's campaign against alcoholism mean Russians are living longer, pro-natal policies boosted the birth rate, and immigration of ethnic Russians was encouraged.
None of those things takes away from the fact there is a diminishing cohort of women of childbearing age having substantially less than the replacement number of children. Russia needs to have a TFR close to 2.5-2.7 to stabalise their population pyramid.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
If Pax Americana ends then we'll need a Pax Europa. Which in practical terms means a Pax Germanica. We aren't a million miles away from actually asking the Germans to rearm. They've the wealth, population and industrial mass to lead the EU's defence of it's eastern borders. But it would be a hell of a psychological and political switch ( as well as taking time ).
Nah. We asked the Germans to rearm in 1949, and they did.
West German forces formed the backbone of NATO forces on the Rhine for almost 40 years.
Don't be silly. Germany is deliberately and rightly a military pigmy relative to it's size and wealth. But that is/was part of the deal with Pax Americana. If Pax American ends then all is in flux. And as you are well aware free Europe's front line is now much further west than the Rhine. There is simply more Europe to defend these days.
I'm not being silly. I'm simply challenging your assertion that asking the Germans to rearm is a big deal, and a huge psychological/political switch.
We asked them to do it within 4 years of Hitler's death. They did, and it wasn't a big deal.
Hmm - Germany created a defence force. It spends comparatively nothing on defence. As Europe's richest, most populous country it should by rights have its biggest and most powerful military, as a permanent seat on the Security Council. A German military capability in line with its financial might and number of inhabitants would dwarf what we have. Are we really comfortable with that? What would Germany's neighbours think?
Don't know about anyone else but I'm totally comfortable with that.
Why wouldn't we be ?
Germany not having to spend 2% of gdp on defence must give them a comparative advantage on other stuff.
And now cumulate that 1% of GDP underspend for 20 years. A nice little bonus.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
In your pacifist Lib Dem eyes, maybe. To the rest of the world it will be a less safe place and to the US they will be completely unreliable allies. If Europe demilitarises then the idea that it could be a world power stand up against China or the US would be more of a joke than it is today. Only in your weird pacifist EUphile world does this make sense. I'd love for the EU to pursue the policy as all of Eastern Europe will decide to leave the EU, as would France if you try to take away their nukes. Germany, the cheapskates, would even have to increase spending if they were responsible for the safety of the remaining group.
Why would Europe want to "stand up to" China or the USA militarily?
They are no threat to us, and neither is Russia. Islamists are, but fighting them is not a battle to be fought by tanks or missiles. Intelligence, light special forces and drones are what is needed, and the backbone to use them.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of 'liberalism'.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
Comments
But it looks like they've left their rearming for 5-10 years too long.
People just laughed at Cameron when he said leaving the EU would increase the risk of war. People laughed at the 'experts' from the vast majority of world leaders through to military generals.
Brexit was a peasants revolt led by know nothing idiots and the deluded. Of course there are many, valid criticisms of the EU. But a vote for Brexit was a vote for the break up of the UK and total chaos, which is now unfolding in a predictable way.
I accepted on June 24th that I am now in a minority within this country. I accept we lost. I accept that the decision has to be implemented and I want it to be 'owned' by the people that led us to it.
Juppé leads in the latest polling in the first round, by a 1-6 point margin depending on turnout (this is the first time the centre-right primary has been open). He would beat Sarkozy by 14-18 points in the second round.
I am very long on Juppé but on current trends you could afford to wait will next week and still get him at 1.5 maybe which would be fantastic value and lower risk.
http://www.europe1.fr/politique/primaire-a-droite-juppe-en-tete-dans-les-sondages-mais-en-baisse-sarkozy-et-fillon-en-hausse-2899526
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/798289546068824064
This is not true. SeanT said he was in a pub in London and it was really busy.
*runs and hides*
HILLARY 48%
I joined the Tories in May 1997 after that shellacking is evidence of that.
That said, that's not primarily what defines the change of epoch we're experiencing at present. What's breaking down is the post Cold War consensus of a unipolar geopolitics led by the US through a variety of international organisations, the very ones we were assuming would be so stable that we could safely depart the EU and fall into their embrace. That is being shown to be an utterly misguided wish.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from.
We've not figured out to run an economy with automation, nor an Internet media that can discriminate between any old gobshite and someone who knows what they are talking about.
So we fall back to classic right wing demagogues, their easy solutions and scapegoats
Much easier than dealing with the actual problem.
You can't make this up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html?_r=1
That is Osborne's "rehabilitation".
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
The generation born between the wars is now dying off, but much or Russias population growth is from migration from former Soviet states, Ukraine in particular, but also the 'stans. Much is ethnically Russian, with the otber side of the coin being that these places are becoming less etbnically Russian.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/leisureandtourism/timeseries/gmaz/ott
The euro too is a zero sum game so the extent of Club Med suffering is balanced by German (and other Northern European) gain. The EU has been a busted flush for ages, now it's been called, and the US is staying in too.
I was about to do my A Levels in May/June 1997 and well she didn't want me distracted by other things.
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
It goes up to 2016Q2, i.e. one week after Brexit.
What it does show is that overseas visitors' earnings 2016Q2 down (0.9%) on 2015Q2, 2016Q1 earnings down (2.2%) on 2015Q1
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
You have to look at its leader, he can play poker but he is an ex KGB desk jockey who prances about on a horse trying to look macho. In reality he is as weak and vain as the country he governs. They are welcome to the regime they have but fuck I'd fight every single one of them if they came anywhere near the door.
Its a shit-hole state.
Trump is a tool for people who want greater economic security, they aren't endorsing the stupid stuff he says, they are using him as a means to say "we are mad as hell and not going to take it any more". It's a measure of their anger that they will vote for someone as bad as Trump. His election is the mother of all wakeup calls to the left that has lost its focus on economic security, and the right that seems to think that if aggregated data about the economy and trade looks good then peoples personal struggles will be magically taken care of by the invisible hand.
July 2016 earnings up 2.3% on July 2015
August 2016 earnings up 6.2% on August 2015
So earnings having fallen in the first half of 2016 were replaced by earnings having risen during July and August.
Too early to tell definitively yet but certainly a promising sign.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
The risk is that rather like the Germans putting Lenin on a sealed train with just the same objective, they may well get a similar blowback. One of several reasons that the German army collapsed in 1918 was that the hundreds of thousands of troops transferred from the East brought Bolshevism and defeatism with them. Russias trolls may well go freelance...
Germany not having to spend 2% of gdp on defence must give them a comparative advantage on other stuff.
None of those things takes away from the fact there is a diminishing cohort of women of childbearing age having substantially less than the replacement number of children. Russia needs to have a TFR close to 2.5-2.7 to stabalise their population pyramid.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
They are no threat to us, and neither is Russia. Islamists are, but fighting them is not a battle to be fought by tanks or missiles. Intelligence, light special forces and drones are what is needed, and the backbone to use them.