Trade deals are done because they are win-win. If they're not win-win, they won't be done.
The UK perhaps has up to a quarter of the EU's economy in services, so it'd be done for the same reasons TTIP was done: to boost both the UK and US economies in services trade.
I imagine it'd be focused on non-tariff barriers, ease of visas for business travel, and temporary working, and removing customs duties.
Generally I agree, but not this time. The UK government needs a deal with the US for political Brexit cover, to maintain the pretence that Brexit is the new international order. Trump's agenda is to cut the US trade deficit. I think there's a shape of a deal. The US doesn't offer us anything but we give more access, in particular in agriculture, which is one of the few areas the EU is protectionist in. Maybe not massively lose/lose overall - except for our (mostly Brexit-voting) farmers who will be stuffed and will join their fishermen brethren in seeing their interests traded away by our governments.
Reading the hatchet jobs on Jeremy Hunt this morning, it's clear why good and successful people are being dissuaded from entering politics.
This is a company that he founded and worked to run before he become an MP, he did the right thing and placed his shares in trust and has had no input into the company since he joined the government, no-one is suggesting anything inappropriate about his shareholding, dividends or cash windfall from the sale.
Donald Trump was right when he said that the British don't like success.
If success involves hurting others, then no one should like it.
To be fair to Hunt, in what way does Hotcourses hurt others?
I'd never heard of the website till yesterday - weird that its worth £30 million when its simply a listing of courses, but there we are.
Only weird if you think people are rational. No one with any experience of "high finance" does.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
No longer on the cards for Brexiteers is the prospect of a balanced/beneficial free trade deal with the USA.
When was this ever on the cards?
The job of the US President is to get the best possible deal for the US.
Roosevelt was perfectly happy to fight to the last Briton if that spared American lives.
It's his job
Absolutely right. We will take the trade deal the Americans tell us we will take; or we will, at best, carry on as we are. The same applies to all other major economies - except the European Union, where our position will be worse than it is now.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
In 2016 only 4 European states met the target - Greece, the UK, Estonia & Poland. Germany (1.19%) is barely half way there.
No longer on the cards for Brexiteers is the prospect of a balanced/beneficial free trade deal with the USA.
When was this ever on the cards?
The job of the US President is to get the best possible deal for the US.
Roosevelt was perfectly happy to fight to the last Briton if that spared American lives.
It's his job
Absolutely right. We will take the trade deal the Americans tell us we will take; or we will, at best, carry on as we are. The same applies to all other major economies - except the European Union, where or position will be worse than it is now.
I anticipate Trump will require both the BBC and the NHS to be put up for sale.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
"If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence."
Surely not? Didn't the Remainers insist that it was the EU that has kept the peace for the last seventy years? By leaving the EU, we were inviting World War Three. Or were they telling porkies?
Depends on what faith you have in those in power. In my own assessment May, Davis and Hammond are good eggs. Fox, Johnson and 70% of the conservative party are bad news.
Even if we get Brexit fudge where we get a 'leave in name only' type deal then you end up with a slim majority coalition of liberal leavers and remainers running the country - IE the 'status quo', and an embittered, angry opposition screaming betrayal that builds up support and eventually overthrows it. Political chaos for a generation.
Sometimes I'd much rather the leavers took back control and be in a minority insurgency holding them to account than part of an unsustainable status quo.
Leavers have never owned the project, which is why I have always known with near certainty it's going to be a big mess. If it was easy and of obvious benefit, they would be out explaining how it it all works, and taking credit for it.
I do love that photo of intrepid political reporter Michael Gove and the President-elect. It kind of sums up where the Tories are taking us: a very nervous, obsequious relationship with a man who is entirely untrustworthy.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
I hope I'm wrong. But every day makes me more scared that I'm right. And I fear that we in the UK will be among the most negatively impacted.
If you're right, do you still think Brexit was the correct decision?
Despite all you've said about how we weren't comfortable with the political aspect, our position in the treaties is secure and surely this is not a sensible time to be pulling out.
If the US puts in place the Border Tax, and we pursue Hard Brexit, we are going to be in seven seas of shit economically.
I am genuinely terrified about the UK economic outlook, in a way I simply haven't been for a long time.
Do I need to sell my Glaxo shares ?
I have 300 GSK shares. They could be hit by a border tax, but on the other hand could benefit from the end of Obamacare. Pharmacy sales are not very price sensitive, and as a company that earns mostly overseas it is hedged against a Sterling depreciation. GSK is a pretty defensive stock for rough economic times so I am keeping mine.
I am watching my commodity shares closely though, they have done very well last year on a China recovery, and are very vulnerable to a Trade war. My investments have moved to a more defensive position over the last couple of months.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
In 2016 only 4 European states met the target - Greece, the UK, Estonia & Poland. Germany (1.19%) is barely half way there.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
We can't. We are a middle-sized country that is seeking to cut its defence spending. But if the US abandons NATO's founding principles and leaves European countries to the mercy of Vladimir Putin's Russia, then the consequences for us will be extremely severe. A little one for you: imagine how markets would react to Russian tanks rolling into EU member states.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
We can't. We are a middle-sized country that is seeking to cut its defence spending. But if the US abandons NATO's founding principles and leaves European countries to the mercy of Vladimir Putin's Russia, then the consequences for us will be extremely severe. A little one for you: imagine how markets would react to Russian tanks rolling into EU member states.
they'd tank - so to speak
but so what ? If money's your argument ( typical remainer :-)) they'd tank even more if we were involved in a shooting match. A war is one of the fastest ways to lose money.
"If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence."
Surely not? Didn't the Remainers insist that it was the EU that has kept the peace for the last seventy years? By leaving the EU, we were inviting World War Three. Or were they telling porkies?
Countries that trade together are far less likely to fight each other. I don't think that's an extraordinary insight. But as I have said on here many times, the Tories that led both the Remain and Leave campaigns told multiple lies. But it's the Leave lies that matter now as they won. And the idea that the UK can sit smugly and unaffected 20 miles from mainland Europe as NATO breaks-up is probably the biggest and most dangerous lie of all.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
We can't. We are a middle-sized country that is seeking to cut its defence spending. But if the US abandons NATO's founding principles and leaves European countries to the mercy of Vladimir Putin's Russia, then the consequences for us will be extremely severe. A little one for you: imagine how markets would react to Russian tanks rolling into EU member states.
All the more reason for the EU to form a common arrmy and border force. NATO cannot be relied upon when Trump is kissing Putins arse.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
We can't. We are a middle-sized country that is seeking to cut its defence spending. But if the US abandons NATO's founding principles and leaves European countries to the mercy of Vladimir Putin's Russia, then the consequences for us will be extremely severe. A little one for you: imagine how markets would react to Russian tanks rolling into EU member states.
they'd tank - so to speak
but so what ? If money's your argument ( typical remainer :-)) they'd tank even more if we were involved in a shooting match. A war is one of the fastest ways to lose money.
"If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence."
Surely not? Didn't the Remainers insist that it was the EU that has kept the peace for the last seventy years? By leaving the EU, we were inviting World War Three. Or were they telling porkies?
Countries that trade together are far less likely to fight each other. I don't think that's an extraordinary insight. But as I have said on here many times, the Tories that led both the Remain and Leave campaigns told multiple lies. But it's the Leave lies that matter now as they won. And the idea that the UK can sit smugly and unaffected 20 miles from mainland Europe as NATO breaks-up is probably the biggest and most dangerous lie of all.
You remind me of those insisting we took part in WW1.
1 million dead later and a bankrupt country it didnt look so great a call. Especially as a century on the out come we allegedlly fought to stop = a German dominated continent - is already here and the countries we were alegedly protecting are somewhat hostile to us.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
We can't. We are a middle-sized country that is seeking to cut its defence spending. But if the US abandons NATO's founding principles and leaves European countries to the mercy of Vladimir Putin's Russia, then the consequences for us will be extremely severe. A little one for you: imagine how markets would react to Russian tanks rolling into EU member states.
All the more reason for the EU to form a common arrmy and border force. NATO cannot be relied upon when Trump is kissing Putins arse.
Yep - it could well be that Trump ends up doing the very opposite of what he wants. If that did happen, where it leaves us is very open to question.
Given the US has never done a trade deal in under 4 years, it matters not a jot whether Trump wants to do it , it has to get through Congress and the Government sausage machine. Anyone thinking it will be quick is either a fool or stupid or even both.
"If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence."
Surely not? Didn't the Remainers insist that it was the EU that has kept the peace for the last seventy years? By leaving the EU, we were inviting World War Three. Or were they telling porkies?
Countries that trade together are far less likely to fight each other. I don't think that's an extraordinary insight. But as I have said on here many times, the Tories that led both the Remain and Leave campaigns told multiple lies. But it's the Leave lies that matter now as they won. And the idea that the UK can sit smugly and unaffected 20 miles from mainland Europe as NATO breaks-up is probably the biggest and most dangerous lie of all.
You remind me of those insisting we took part in WW1.
1 million dead later and a bankrupt country it didnt look so great a call. Especially as a century on the out come we allegedlly fought to stop = a German dominated continent - is already here and the countries we were alegedly protecting are somewhat hostile to us.
Yep, I know about WW1. NATO was designed to prevent such wars happening again. So far it has been successful.
I do love that photo of intrepid political reporter Michael Gove and the President-elect. It kind of sums up where the Tories are taking us: a very nervous, obsequious relationship with a man who is entirely untrustworthy.
Gove. I mean, seriously. How this guy got near power is a stain on our political culture.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
We can't. We are a middle-sized country that is seeking to cut its defence spending. But if the US abandons NATO's founding principles and leaves European countries to the mercy of Vladimir Putin's Russia, then the consequences for us will be extremely severe. A little one for you: imagine how markets would react to Russian tanks rolling into EU member states.
they'd tank - so to speak
but so what ? If money's your argument ( typical remainer :-)) they'd tank even more if we were involved in a shooting match. A war is one of the fastest ways to lose money.
Isn't the whole point of NATO that the promise of war dramatically lowers the chance it will be necessary?
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence. Whether countries have or have not been spending their 2% is really a side issue for us. The more important point is what happens if and when NATO no longer carries the deterrent effect on the ambitions of Russia that it has for 70 years. We are not America sitting thousands of miles from the action. Europe is our major trading partner and where we are located. We cannot sit in glorious isolation.
why not ?
Because what affects mainland Europe affects us. History has sort of proved that.
it's also proved that sitting out Europe's fights is often a good idea.
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
We can't. We are a middle-sized country that is seeking to cut its defence spending. But if the US abandons NATO's founding principles and leaves European countries to the mercy of Vladimir Putin's Russia, then the consequences for us will be extremely severe. A little one for you: imagine how markets would react to Russian tanks rolling into EU member states.
The only tanks rolling across european states at the moment are American ones
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
NATO members have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Most have been free riding on America's largesse. If they want the benefits of the treat they need to meet their obligations.
The US talks the point but if other countries did spend that, the net result would likely be a significant reduction in US influence. In many respects the current situation suits them very well.
Trump's comments about NATO could be huge, they could be massive.
NATO was one of the key things that ensured peace in Europe and helped bring down communism, no wonder Putin wants to see it destroyed, and his popinjay in Washington agrees.
I know what he has said about allies pulling their weight.
I have sympathies with that view.
But the comments tonight do concern me.
The Israelis and MI6 have both been advised not to share everything with Trump because they worry he'll share it with the Russians, and the Russians will share it with Iran.
Strictly speaking, the CIA has leaked both those pieces of information (The advice to the Israelis and the request from the Brits).
It may be true, or it may be the CIA making stuff up. They certainly benefit from the leak.
Given one suspects that the Israelis are net takers of information from the US through covert means, they probably already knew that. They already reflect the Trump view of the world - interests not allies.
Yep - it could well be that Trump ends up doing the very opposite of what he wants. If that did happen, where it leaves us is very open to question.
Can't see it. To replace the US commitment EU countries would not be talking about 2% defense spending, more like 10% defense spending. Last year the US defense budget was just shy of 600 billion dollars. The next nearest is China on barely a quarter of that, while we languish on 56bn, still almost doubt the Germans and close to triple the Italians.
"All the more reason for the EU to form a common arrmy and border force. NATO cannot be relied upon when Trump is kissing Putins arse."
But surely that was a lie put about by Leavers? There's no intention to form a common army; they told us so.
As it happens, I've always said that the EU is currently unstable. You have 28 countries with 28 viewpoints stumbling along and pretending to be best friends. The logical conclusion was always going to be a closely federated single country. A common parliament, currency and army. But shush ... don't spook the voters. Not yet anyway. Softly, softly- catchee monkey.
I'm a fan of NATO, but some Euro fanatics see it as an obstacle.
Mr Observer,
Yes, both sides lied, or at least, stretched the truth. That's politics.
Trump is the mirror image of Putin. My country, right or wrong. A nationalist. Oh, the horror.
I do love that photo of intrepid political reporter Michael Gove and the President-elect. It kind of sums up where the Tories are taking us: a very nervous, obsequious relationship with a man who is entirely untrustworthy.
Gove. I mean, seriously. How this guy got near power is a stain on our political culture.
Seriously.... from someone supporting the Party of McShane and McBride ?
Yep - it could well be that Trump ends up doing the very opposite of what he wants. If that did happen, where it leaves us is very open to question.
Can't see it. To replace the US commitment EU countries would not be talking about 2% defense spending, more like 10% defense spending. Last year the US defense budget was just shy of 600 billion dollars. The next nearest is China on barely a quarter of that, while we languish on 56bn, still almost doubt the Germans and close to triple the Italians.
I do love that photo of intrepid political reporter Michael Gove and the President-elect. It kind of sums up where the Tories are taking us: a very nervous, obsequious relationship with a man who is entirely untrustworthy.
Gove. I mean, seriously. How this guy got near power is a stain on our political culture.
Yet you will no doubt have happily voted for Blair and his acolytes. I think little of Gove but I'll chalk you up as one-eyed.
I've just watched S4 of House of Cards again - skipping over the bizarre acres of dream sequencing.
The similarities in tactics re smearing/Russians/terrorism blah blah were so prescient. I'd never really noticed that Frank Underwood's campaign was set for 2016 and E13 was late Oct with three weeks to go.
Yep - it could well be that Trump ends up doing the very opposite of what he wants. If that did happen, where it leaves us is very open to question.
Can't see it. To replace the US commitment EU countries would not be talking about 2% defense spending, more like 10% defense spending. Last year the US defense budget was just shy of 600 billion dollars. The next nearest is China on barely a quarter of that, while we languish on 56bn, still almost doubt the Germans and close to triple the Italians.
True, but the US also needs to have presence in the Atlantic and the Pacific. The EU really only requires a credible land and air force.
The focus of US defence spending, as it started to turn under Obama, surely has to be the Pacific and in particular its Pacific fleet. It faces a real and strategic threat from China that Trump has been characteristically blunt about. Russia not so much. Frankly given its much diminished state the EU should be more than capable of defending themselves from Russia.
The key underlying factor since WW II is that Europe has gone from being the centre of world power to a backwater with its world influence and reach massively diminished. This has its plus points in that war here is less likely but it also means the action is moving elsewhere. NATO is largely redundant in this context. Much of what Trump is saying in this context is actually continuity Obama and it will continue because it reflects the interests of the US. He is just less interested in being tactful about it.
"All the more reason for the EU to form a common arrmy and border force. NATO cannot be relied upon when Trump is kissing Putins arse."
But surely that was a lie put about by Leavers? There's no intention to form a common army; they told us so.
As it happens, I've always said that the EU is currently unstable. You have 28 countries with 28 viewpoints stumbling along and pretending to be best friends. The logical conclusion was always going to be a closely federated single country. A common parliament, currency and army. But shush ... don't spook the voters. Not yet anyway. Softly, softly- catchee monkey.
I'm a fan of NATO, but some Euro fanatics see it as an obstacle.
Mr Observer,
Yes, both sides lied, or at least, stretched the truth. That's politics.
Trump is the mirror image of Putin. My country, right or wrong. A nationalist. Oh, the horror.
I dont recall ever denying or opposing an EU army, but it is obviously not our business anymore. I hope the EU27 are successful with it.
And can I agree with those who complain that the sale of a successful business built up over years before Hunt came into politics is being treated like a lottery win. When idiots behave like this is it really surprising that our politics is full of no marks and incompetents who have achieved nothing else of note in their lives? There is a price to be paid for discouraging successful people from entering politics and it is a high one.
"I dont recall ever denying or opposing an EU army,"
I didn't mean to imply you did personally. Apologies if you took it that way.
But the "sneakiness" of the EU position made me vote Leave. Why don't the EU come right out and admit their intended (and logical) aim. You know the answer to that as well as I do..
Yep - it could well be that Trump ends up doing the very opposite of what he wants. If that did happen, where it leaves us is very open to question.
Can't see it. To replace the US commitment EU countries would not be talking about 2% defense spending, more like 10% defense spending. Last year the US defense budget was just shy of 600 billion dollars. The next nearest is China on barely a quarter of that, while we languish on 56bn, still almost doubt the Germans and close to triple the Italians.
True, but the US also needs to have presence in the Atlantic and the Pacific. The EU really only requires a credible land and air force.
The vast majority of cutting edge military research happens in the USA, and they are not happy about sharing it with anyone, so losing that as component in the EU defense is bigger than it seems. For example one component of defending a russian advance is dropping the major bridges on the way, which requires stealth fighters and bombers to do with certainly, and the US doesn't sell those to anyone else. Hell, they wont even LAND the stealth bomber outside the continental USA.
The loss of US defense satellite and intercept intelligence would be a devastating loss as well.
I do love that photo of intrepid political reporter Michael Gove and the President-elect. It kind of sums up where the Tories are taking us: a very nervous, obsequious relationship with a man who is entirely untrustworthy.
Gove. I mean, seriously. How this guy got near power is a stain on our political culture.
I actually quite admire Gove which is strange coming from a lefties... He would not have been a good PM... But he was a very effective Minister... In that he got what he wanted done. I know all teachers hated him... But he was quite well regarded by lawyers and barristers I think... And he's clearly very very clever.
I do love that photo of intrepid political reporter Michael Gove and the President-elect. It kind of sums up where the Tories are taking us: a very nervous, obsequious relationship with a man who is entirely untrustworthy.
Gove. I mean, seriously. How this guy got near power is a stain on our political culture.
I actually quite admire Gove which is strange coming from a lefties... He would not have been a good PM... But he was a very effective Minister... In that he got what he wanted done. I know all teachers hated him... But he was quite well regarded by lawyers and barristers I think... And he's clearly very very clever.
Gove, himself an adopted child, also massively reformed UK and foreign adoption for the better.
Gove has just said Britain should have a "business type" relationship with Trump but the geeky thumbs up picture says it all!
The BREXIT press ignore the clear bodyswerve about being at the "front of the queue' but also the more fundamental point, why do we want to change he current position which sees the USA as one of the few countries in the world with which the UK has a balance of payments surplus?
The idea that a renegotiation will be of benefit to Britain at our current state of desperation to make a deal with anyone on any terms is for the birds and he Goves!
The smarter Brexiters - heavily represented on here - generally fell behind the formula EEA > EU > WTO.
But EEA now looks off the table and we look to be jettisoning ourselves toward WTO.
This in a world with the most protectionist Prez in the White House since the 1930s.
Still feeling lucky, punks?
Yes, because the EEA solution was only ever a short term transitional idea. There's too much in the EEA annexes that are nothing to do with Trade and everything to do with political and social integration.
The more that the situation is studied, largely with government time and effort, the more alternative solutions are presenting themselves that I had not foreseen. I'm more confident now that the transition can be made to an alternative without a prolonged EEA term to smooth out issues.
The smarter Brexiters - heavily represented on here - generally fell behind the formula EEA > EU > WTO.
But EEA now looks off the table and we look to be jettisoning ourselves toward WTO.
This in a world with the most protectionist Prez in the White House since the 1930s.
Still feeling lucky, punks?
Yes, because the EEA solution was only ever a short term transitional idea. There's too much in the EEA annexes that are nothing to do with Trade and everything to do with political and social integration.
The more that the situation is studied, largely with government time and effort, the more alternative solutions are presenting themselves that I had not foreseen. I'm more confident now that the transition can be made to an alternative without a prolonged EEA term to smooth out issues.
Thank you for your speedy and non-obfuscatory answer.
Depends on what faith you have in those in power. In my own assessment May, Davis and Hammond are good eggs. Fox, Johnson and 70% of the conservative party are bad news.
Even if we get Brexit fudge where we get a 'leave in name only' type deal then you end up with a slim majority coalition of liberal leavers and remainers running the country - IE the 'status quo', and an embittered, angry opposition screaming betrayal that builds up support and eventually overthrows it. Political chaos for a generation.
Sometimes I'd much rather the leavers took back control and be in a minority insurgency holding them to account than part of an unsustainable status quo.
Leavers have never owned the project, which is why I have always known with near certainty it's going to be a big mess. If it was easy and of obvious benefit, they would be out explaining how it it all works, and taking credit for it.
Thats the point though, they need to own it not just leave us to sort out their mess
Comments
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf
The UK alone accounts for 25% of European NATO spending....
"If Trump undermines the principles on which NATO is based that will be very, very bad news for the UK. Our entire defence strategy is predicated on its existence."
Surely not? Didn't the Remainers insist that it was the EU that has kept the peace for the last seventy years? By leaving the EU, we were inviting World War Three. Or were they telling porkies?
if Germany which currently has huge government surpluses cant be bothered to spend 2% of it's GDP on its own defence then why should we fill the gap ?
I am watching my commodity shares closely though, they have done very well last year on a China recovery, and are very vulnerable to a Trade war. My investments have moved to a more defensive position over the last couple of months.
but so what ? If money's your argument ( typical remainer :-)) they'd tank even more if we were involved in a shooting match. A war is one of the fastest ways to lose money.
1 million dead later and a bankrupt country it didnt look so great a call. Especially as a century on the out come we allegedlly fought to stop = a German dominated continent - is already here and the countries we were alegedly protecting are somewhat hostile to us.
Facing Donald Trump on Twitter is like going to "a knife fight with a spoon,” a candidate for DNC chairman said https://t.co/8sg1OjcOXb
Given we're about a fifth of the European economy, that's less of a disparity than I'd have expected.
Assuming no deaths before Friday, there will be a record six US presidents alive at same time. Happened twice before: 1861-62 and 2001-04
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/09/this-remarkable-chart-shows-how-u-s-defense-spending-dwarfs-the-rest-of-the-world/?utm_term=.d7afa5ee6802
"All the more reason for the EU to form a common arrmy and border force. NATO cannot be relied upon when Trump is kissing Putins arse."
But surely that was a lie put about by Leavers? There's no intention to form a common army; they told us so.
As it happens, I've always said that the EU is currently unstable. You have 28 countries with 28 viewpoints stumbling along and pretending to be best friends. The logical conclusion was always going to be a closely federated single country. A common parliament, currency and army. But shush ... don't spook the voters. Not yet anyway. Softly, softly- catchee monkey.
I'm a fan of NATO, but some Euro fanatics see it as an obstacle.
Mr Observer,
Yes, both sides lied, or at least, stretched the truth. That's politics.
Trump is the mirror image of Putin. My country, right or wrong. A nationalist. Oh, the horror.
https://twitter.com/philbc3/status/820781301385064448
The similarities in tactics re smearing/Russians/terrorism blah blah were so prescient. I'd never really noticed that Frank Underwood's campaign was set for 2016 and E13 was late Oct with three weeks to go.
S5 starts 24th Feb
The key underlying factor since WW II is that Europe has gone from being the centre of world power to a backwater with its world influence and reach massively diminished. This has its plus points in that war here is less likely but it also means the action is moving elsewhere. NATO is largely redundant in this context. Much of what Trump is saying in this context is actually continuity Obama and it will continue because it reflects the interests of the US. He is just less interested in being tactful about it.
"I dont recall ever denying or opposing an EU army,"
I didn't mean to imply you did personally. Apologies if you took it that way.
But the "sneakiness" of the EU position made me vote Leave. Why don't the EU come right out and admit their intended (and logical) aim. You know the answer to that as well as I do..
The loss of US defense satellite and intercept intelligence would be a devastating loss as well.
The BREXIT press ignore the clear bodyswerve about being at the "front of the queue' but also the more fundamental point, why do we want to change he current position which sees the USA as one of the few countries in the world with which the UK has a balance of payments surplus?
The idea that a renegotiation will be of benefit to Britain at our current state of desperation to make a deal with anyone on any terms is for the birds and he Goves!
But EEA now looks off the table and we look to be jettisoning ourselves toward WTO.
This in a world with the most protectionist Prez in the White House since the 1930s.
Still feeling lucky, punks?
The more that the situation is studied, largely with government time and effort, the more alternative solutions are presenting themselves that I had not foreseen. I'm more confident now that the transition can be made to an alternative without a prolonged EEA term to smooth out issues.
Watergate reporter Bob Woodward calls ex-MI6 Trump dossier a "Garbage document."
Video
https://t.co/5WvQEBK2Jc