Nick, do you seriously believe - honestly - that people like Caroline Flint, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, Jon Ashworth, Stella Creasey, Angela Eagle and Ed Miliband are not to the left of Liz Kendall? I name checked all of them.
Do you not "believe that collectivism, redistribution and solidarity at home and abroad remain principles around which coherent, relevant policy can be built"?
Yes, I picked Liz (whom I like, by the way) to be provocative. But a Shadow Cabinet composed exclusively of people like those in your list would be a decisive break with the left of the party, which might be what you feel is desirable but which would not command the support of the majority of members, even those outside the hard left. Whenever another leadership election occurs, the winner is likely to be the most plausible leadership candidate who convincingly argues that they'll take talent from all wings of the party - which means, for example, including John McDonnell. Exclusion of the left is a formula for continuing party warfare.
But I do agree with your second paragraph! Anyone who translates that into practical politics will have a good chance, both inside the party and beyond.
Mr. Jessop, too horrendously modern for me to discuss the military aspect, but some should be spent on psychological support for personnel, both current and former.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
W
*LOL
Bollocks.
I didn't vote. But if I had it would have been on the basis of what was written on the referendum "to leave the EU". What happened after that was always going to be down to the government of the day, as I said as some length before the referendum. If you don't like what the government of the day does, you vote for a different one, THAT is sovereignty.
"Didn't vote." K.
Don't forget - we have always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it to you. No offence.
So based upon a whim and a wing and a prayer, people decided they didn't like the EU? Of course not; as @DecrepitJohnL has also pointed out, there was an official Leave campaign and people had every right to think that what they said would transpire. Vote Leave folk are actually in government now, you know.
And as for fisheries, surely...SURELY...the very essence of sovereignty is to control our waters?!? And now you are saying - fine, doesn't matter, the promise by Vote Leave wasn't worth the paper it was printed upon.
The 'always been sovereign, it's just that it didn't feel like it' misses the point.
The sovereignty vote was about telling *our* politicians to stop giving powers away when they had no authority to do so.
I'm fine if they discuss a policy with their partners in Europe or NATO or Timbuktoo. So long as I get to hold them directly accountable for the outcome.
"We agreed to do X" is very different to "A majority of other countries voted to do X and therefore we must do it"
It is also Topping talking his usual rubbish. He has no real idea what Sovereignty actually means ams spends his time trying to disprove it's actually meaning and it's historical importance.
Mr. Jessop, too horrendously modern for me to discuss the military aspect, but some should be spent on psychological support for personnel, both current and former.
Mr. Pulpstar, disagree. It must be segregated and specifically for current and former services personnel.
We've become adept at training people to overcome the cultural norm that killing people is wrong, but the psychological aftercare doesn't match the behaviourist training methods.
@NickPalmer: I didn't want to (mis)quote you from memory. That is why I checked.
When I talk about putting Britain's interests first I do not mean Britain taking advantage of others in more difficulty than ourselves. But I do mean that British politicians should see it as their priority to make life better for the people in Britain. Whereas some politicians seem to think that it is more important to show their concern for people in other countries. And that can easily morph into an apparent disdain for the concerns of people here. Charity starts at home. So should politics.
Too many politicians appear to have modeled themselves on Mrs Jellaby from Bleak House. And when Dickens created her he was satirizing people like her not holding her up as a model to be followed.
Well , we may not really disagree, except rhetorically. If we construct a situation where giving British interests priority actively damages people in obviously greater need, I'm not sure you really favour doing it. Conversely, I agree that the first instinct of British politicians should be to ensure that British interests get fair treatment.
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Extra manpower, IMHO.
However, I would expect much of it to spent on expensive enquiries into atrocities allegedly committed by the armed forces, and a proliferation of brass hats and support staff.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
There you go again...
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
But you know that.
Given that there were multiple leave campaigns representing all sorts of different parties, with some goals that are mutually exclusive, it's stupid to say "Leavers want X" as though every one of the 17 million voted for exactly the same reasons. This kind of "thinking" by Remainers is getting them nowhere, which is good because it means they are sidelining themselves from the process.
There was a competition to be, and then appointment of only one official Leave campaign.
Which gave it some moral legitimacy but it still wasn't a General Election.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
But when you realise how bad Sarah Olney is then I guess its 8
Their resurgence in council by elections has been impressive, if they had a better leader in their ranks they would be making proper inroads in national polling.
No. First, the LibDems need some policies. Bleating about Brexit won't fill the void once Article 50 is triggered and they realise there is no way of walking back up the slippery slide marked "WE'RE OFF OUT".
They need policies for a UK on the outside - not standing with their faces pressed up against the window of the EU, silently mouthing "let us back in....pleeeeease....."
This is a damn good point, the shelf life for being the "we love the EU" party is limited. Most die-hard Remainers concede that once we are out, we are out for good.
I don't think that's entirely true: should Brexit go badly, the LDs will be able to say "vote for us, we want the closest possible relationship with the EU". Should it go well, then there's still probably 15% of the population that might be susceptible to that message.
If the reviews are accurate, it's the best book I've written to date (which is a relief, because if you screw up part 1 of a trilogy then you're in a cul-de-sac of woe).
As a bit of market research, do you only buy physical books? [I'll be releasing hard copies of the sequels, of course, but I've got some older ones that are e-book only].
Edited extra bit: I think I missed the incest review. Link?
There is no sibling shaggery or comparable acts. There is a spot of transvestism, though. Because I am a politically correct man.
Mr. Topping, the idea that voting to leave was an endorsement of the campaign to leave is as stupid as claiming a vote to remain was an endorsement of Cameron's deal, or because every voter who did so loves every aspect of the EU.
The view being expressed appears to be that voting to leave was an endorsement of NONE of the campaign to leave, which is even more stupid.
"I didn't want that, so I voted for it..."
There you go again...
Its the view that one is endorsing "Leaving the EU" as stated on the referendum ballot, and as we were asked by our elected government. Having taken our advice it is then up to the said elected government to work out how we are going to leave, and up to us to elect someone else if we dont like it.
But you know that.
Given that there were multiple leave campaigns representing all sorts of different parties, with some goals that are mutually exclusive, it's stupid to say "Leavers want X" as though every one of the 17 million voted for exactly the same reasons. This kind of "thinking" by Remainers is getting them nowhere, which is good because it means they are sidelining themselves from the process.
There was a competition to be, and then appointment of only one official Leave campaign.
Which gave it some moral legitimacy but it still wasn't a General Election.
No indeed. But the government IMO should not have ignored it completely and Leavers (only the PB variety, mind) should not get to pick bits and pieces of it and say - there, that's what people wanted when they voted Leave.
If the reviews are accurate, it's the best book I've written to date (which is a relief, because if you screw up part 1 of a trilogy then you're in a cul-de-sac of woe).
As a bit of market research, do you only buy physical books? [I'll be releasing hard copies of the sequels, of course, but I've got some older ones that are e-book only].
Yes, I only buy physical books.
The reviews are certainly very positive. If I like it, I'll do a review of my own at Westeros.Org.
This probably got flagged up yesterday / this morning, but it's on topic so I'll risk repeating it.
The implications are terrifying for Labour, and they suggest it's not as much Corbyn's fault as Joff might think. Maybe he could maybe have delivered a Remain victory, but then threat would be UKIP rather than splintering to Tories / Lib Dems. https://twitter.com/caprosser/status/831481379867226112
This probably got flagged up yesterday / this morning, but it's on topic so I'll risk repeating it.
The implications are terrifying for Labour, and they suggest it's not as much Corbyn's fault as Joff might think. Maybe he could maybe have delivered a Remain victory, but then threat would be UKIP rather than splintering to Tories / Lib Dems. https://twitter.com/caprosser/status/831481379867226112
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Accelerating the planes for the carriers is an obvious starting point. And fixing up the submarine fleet, probably accelerating the replacement of the Astute class. And increasing the numbers of destroyers so the carriers can be safely deployed. Basically the navy remains key to our security and is hopelessly depleted. We need more planes too but the carriers would help with that.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
But when you realise how bad Sarah Olney is then I guess its 8
Their resurgence in council by elections has been impressive, if they had a better leader in their ranks they would be making proper inroads in national polling.
No. First, the LibDems need some policies. Bleating about Brexit won't fill the void once Article 50 is triggered and they realise there is no way of walking back up the slippery slide marked "WE'RE OFF OUT".
They need policies for a UK on the outside - not standing with their faces pressed up against the window of the EU, silently mouthing "let us back in....pleeeeease....."
This is a damn good point, the shelf life for being the "we love the EU" party is limited. Most die-hard Remainers concede that once we are out, we are out for good.
I don't think that's entirely true: should Brexit go badly, the LDs will be able to say "vote for us, we want the closest possible relationship with the EU". Should it go well, then there's still probably 15% of the population that might be susceptible to that message.
The debate surrounding immigration will still be there post Brexit. Tories are going to be quite hardline on it, I suspect post Corbyn Labour will go in a similar direction. Leaves plenty of space in the market for a pro immigration party.
Mr. F, cheers (do feel free to review if you dislike it, as well. My masochistic streak works well when it comes to such things [and beta-reading], and, to be honest, even bad reviews can be helpful).
Useful to know about the hard copies answer. Got some other stories in the same world (Bane of Souls/Journey to Altmortis) I might release as paperbacks at some point.
Also, copying the added bit below: I think I missed the incest review. Link?
There is no sibling shaggery or comparable acts. There is a spot of transvestism, though. Because I am a politically correct man.
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Mix of kit and manpower. The navy really needs more ships; in a few years we'll have two carriers but not enough other craft to properly constitute two carrier groups. Recruitment is a real problem, but we need to beef up the army numbers, particularly those elements that can be used as expeditionary forces. Signals etc that can be used for cyberwar are important but pretty well funded right now anyway. Forget the RAF, they'll be obsolete soon, the future is unmanned.
I wonder if Labour will ever again form a government. Reading the comments here, and seeing what is happening on the news every day, I begin to wonder. Many blame Corbyn for the party's travails, but he wasn't the leader in 2010 or 2015. Even the Blair government starting shedding votes before 2005, and actually got less votes in England than Michael Howard did.
So is this just about getting a decent leader - which is obviously a must to win an election - or are Labour's problems so deep-rooted that nobody could lead them to victory? Are they just an anachronism, waiting for the electorate to change before they do?
I see lists of names including Starmer, Jarvis, Cooper, Nandy, Benn, Balls, Ummuna, even third rate rubbish like Dick Burgon, Angela Rayner, and Jess Phillips being touted as potential leaders. Really? I put it that an average university debating society could produce a more inspiring list than that shower.
It's rare I disagree with you Mr Dancer. It's not sabre rattling. It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%.
Mr. F, cheers (do feel free to review if you dislike it, as well. My masochistic streak works well when it comes to such things [and beta-reading], and, to be honest, even bad reviews can be helpful).
Useful to know about the hard copies answer. Got some other stories in the same world (Bane of Souls/Journey to Altmortis) I might release as paperbacks at some point.
Also, copying the added bit below: I think I missed the incest review. Link?
There is no sibling shaggery or comparable acts. There is a spot of transvestism, though. Because I am a politically correct man.
I think the comment about the lack of incest was on Goodreads.
If you like, I'll send you a PM, giving you my views about the book in detail.
@AP_Politics: BREAKING: Pentagon chief Mattis tells NATO allies to increase defense spending by year's end or US will 'moderate its commitment'
@DPJHodges: Given Mattis' statement, what happened to Theresa May's commitment from Trump that he has "100% support for NATO".
Not a violation of our sovereignty - being voluntary members of an organisation which tells us (we have all agreed) to spend 2/7 as much on NATO as on the NHS.
It's rare I disagree with you Mr Dancer. It's not sabre rattling. It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%.
Yup. Talking sense and reminding members of rules is eminently cricket.
@AP_Politics: BREAKING: Pentagon chief Mattis tells NATO allies to increase defense spending by year's end or US will 'moderate its commitment'
@DPJHodges: Given Mattis' statement, what happened to Theresa May's commitment from Trump that he has "100% support for NATO".
Not a violation of our sovereignty - being voluntary members of an organisation which tells us (we have all agreed) to spend 2/7 as much on NATO as on the NHS.
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Mix of kit and manpower. The navy really needs more ships; in a few years we'll have two carriers but not enough other craft to properly constitute two carrier groups. Recruitment is a real problem, but we need to beef up the army numbers, particularly those elements that can be used as expeditionary forces. Signals etc that can be used for cyberwar are important but pretty well funded right now anyway. Forget the RAF, they'll be obsolete soon, the future is unmanned.
I agree. What about outfitting the carriers with drones? Beef up the surface (and subsurface) fleet for protection. Army beefed up bigly, including decent tanks
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Manpower is important but in battle it's firepower that counts (manpower more so for peacekeeping thereafter). We'd need to identify better who our potential enemies are and what relative strengths / weaknesses we have vs them. And think violence / aggression. If you really want cpaability back then DU ammo or cluster munitions ought to be on the table again. Cyber. PSTD care. Pay - do most PBers have any idea what a shit level of pay soldiers get even vs nurses? It's shameful and a miracle we get any recruits at all. Increase ratio of service personnel vs civvies at MoD, and major thinning of excess admirals / generals and their support structures. The Navy is at its weakest for a very very long time. Drones / UAV. Pulse rifles in the 40 watt range.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
The US is absolutely right to call out other nations over NATO funding. I believe that Trump is committed to NATO and expects every other member to be equally committed. Hardly an unreasonable stance for them to take.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
It's rare I disagree with you Mr Dancer. It's not sabre rattling. It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%.
Agreed. Of course, it does miss a little bit of history. Over the last 25 years, it has suited the US well to be the only country able to project power around the world.
The new US administration does not see the value in being "the world's policeman", and demand (rightly) that its allies step up to the plate.
The question is whether there are unintended consequences down the line, which are not in the interests of the US.
The CBI is not at all analogous. The official leave and remain campaigns said what they said and that must be the basis of the vote. Incidentally, what leave did not say much about was immigration so it is ironic that so many of our politicians including the government seem to be most exercised about this. Farage may have kept banging on about immigrants but the official campaign led on £350 million to the NHS from what I recall.
Including this bit about 'this is your decision and the government will implement whatever you vote for' ?
The trouble is that both sides were headed by Conservative buffoons and conmen. So it is now argued that what they said "must be the basis of the vote". Whoever came out on top, the answer would be an endorsement of Conservative policies, and a blank cheque for the prime minister to decide what they might be.
In practice now, it seems to mean handing the country over to unscrupulous American companies for them to do their usual rip-off trick.
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Manpower is important but in battle it's firepower that counts (manpower more so for peacekeeping thereafter). We'd need to identify better who our potential enemies are and what relative strengths / weaknesses we have vs them. And think violence / aggression. If you really want cpaability back then DU ammo or cluster munitions ought to be on the table again. Cyber. PSTD care. Pay - do most PBers have any idea what a shit level of pay soldiers get even vs nurses? It's shameful and a miracle we get any recruits at all. Increase ratio of service personnel vs civvies at MoD, and major thinning of excess admirals / generals and their support structures. The Navy is at its weakest for a very very long time. Drones / UAV. Pulse rifles in the 40 watt range.
Don't forget, the next armed conflict will be an unforeseen one (F. Kitson).
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Manpower is important but in battle it's firepower that counts (manpower more so for peacekeeping thereafter). We'd need to identify better who our potential enemies are and what relative strengths / weaknesses we have vs them. And think violence / aggression. If you really want cpaability back then DU ammo or cluster munitions ought to be on the table again. Cyber. PSTD care. Pay - do most PBers have any idea what a shit level of pay soldiers get even vs nurses? It's shameful and a miracle we get any recruits at all. Increase ratio of service personnel vs civvies at MoD, and major thinning of excess admirals / generals and their support structures. The Navy is at its weakest for a very very long time. Drones / UAV. Pulse rifles in the 40 watt range.
Pulse rifles - too much sci fi I think Patrick
But if wishes were fishes I'll have a Bevawatt laser
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
But when you realise how bad Sarah Olney is then I guess its 8
Their resurgence in council by elections has been impressive, if they had a better leader in their ranks they would be making proper inroads in national polling.
No. First, the LibDems need some policies. Bleating about Brexit won't fill the void once Article 50 is triggered and they realise there is no way of walking back up the slippery slide marked "WE'RE OFF OUT".
They need policies for a UK on the outside - not standing with their faces pressed up against the window of the EU, silently mouthing "let us back in....pleeeeease....."
This is a damn good point, the shelf life for being the "we love the EU" party is limited. Most die-hard Remainers concede that once we are out, we are out for good.
I don't think that's entirely true: should Brexit go badly, the LDs will be able to say "vote for us, we want the closest possible relationship with the EU". Should it go well, then there's still probably 15% of the population that might be susceptible to that message.
The debate surrounding immigration will still be there post Brexit. Tories are going to be quite hardline on it, I suspect post Corbyn Labour will go in a similar direction. Leaves plenty of space in the market for a pro immigration party.
On immigration, are we not likely to get higher immigration from Commonwealth and foreign countries outside the EU as a quid pro quo for the trade agreements?
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
I wonder if Labour will ever again form a government. Reading the comments here, and seeing what is happening on the news every day, I begin to wonder. Many blame Corbyn for the party's travails, but he wasn't the leader in 2010 or 2015. Even the Blair government starting shedding votes before 2005, and actually got less votes in England than Michael Howard did.
So is this just about getting a decent leader - which is obviously a must to win an election - or are Labour's problems so deep-rooted that nobody could lead them to victory? Are they just an anachronism, waiting for the electorate to change before they do?
I see lists of names including Starmer, Jarvis, Cooper, Nandy, Benn, Balls, Ummuna, even third rate rubbish like Dick Burgon, Angela Rayner, and Jess Phillips being touted as potential leaders. Really? I put it that an average university debating society could produce a more inspiring list than that shower.
The final straw for some was the equivocation over the referendum. Many of Corbyn's supporters believed he'd supported Remain but hadn't been given any air time.
After the last few weeks even the diehards know that was a lie and he did nothing to advance the cause whatsoever. I'm sure that's why even Momentum has has now had it with him.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
Does NATO change our laws or not? If not, then we're not losing any sovereignty.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Mortimer, cheers, though it's nothing serious. Imagine I'll be fine tomorrow. [Just a little tired/distracted, which isn't great for writing stuff].
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Mix of kit and manpower. The navy really needs more ships; in a few years we'll have two carriers but not enough other craft to properly constitute two carrier groups. Recruitment is a real problem, but we need to beef up the army numbers, particularly those elements that can be used as expeditionary forces. Signals etc that can be used for cyberwar are important but pretty well funded right now anyway. Forget the RAF, they'll be obsolete soon, the future is unmanned.
I agree. What about outfitting the carriers with drones? Beef up the surface (and subsurface) fleet for protection. Army beefed up bigly, including decent tanks
Re: tanks, maybe; there'd need to be more emphasis on agile deployment. It'll be interesting to see whether the new Armata's active defences can indeed defeat the current generation Javelins (et al) - if so, that will have interesting consequences for the current armour/infantry balance.
I wonder if Labour will ever again form a government. Reading the comments here, and seeing what is happening on the news every day, I begin to wonder. Many blame Corbyn for the party's travails, but he wasn't the leader in 2010 or 2015. Even the Blair government starting shedding votes before 2005, and actually got less votes in England than Michael Howard did.
So is this just about getting a decent leader - which is obviously a must to win an election - or are Labour's problems so deep-rooted that nobody could lead them to victory? Are they just an anachronism, waiting for the electorate to change before they do?
I see lists of names including Starmer, Jarvis, Cooper, Nandy, Benn, Balls, Ummuna, even third rate rubbish like Dick Burgon, Angela Rayner, and Jess Phillips being touted as potential leaders. Really? I put it that an average university debating society could produce a more inspiring list than that shower.
The final straw for some was the equivocation over the referendum. Many of Corbyn's supporters believed he'd supported Remain but hadn't been given any air time.
After the last few weeks even the diehards know that was a lie and he did nothing to advance the cause whatsoever. I'm sure that's why even Momentum has has now had it with him.
He's finished.
Makes me cackle that Labour of 2017 will go to the matresses for the EU but almost nothing else, including existential threats....
No wonder they're so tin earred to the voting public.
The Brexiteers' blind belief that sovereign power should reside in Westminster and nowhere else will be their downfall. This is simply not compatible with modern forms of constitutional government and certainly wouldn't be recognised in most of the so-called Anglosphere.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
If you want to ignore the word sovereignty, then I guess laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Mr. Topping, yes, but if we cut or raised NHS spending that wouldn't alter the Defence commitment.
Sorry Morris I was using it as a comparative number (using the size of Wales, or height of double decker buses or volumes of Olympic swimming pools didn't seem appropriate).
I don't think there is a NATO article which mandates members' spending in units of health spending.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
Does NATO change our laws or not? If not, then we're not losing any sovereignty.
That's rubbish. Sovereignty is about far more than simply the right to pass laws. Of course NATO impinges on British sovereignty: the country could be committed to declare a potentially suicidal war (and if it renaged on that, might still find that an annihilating war was declared upon it simply by virtue of being a member of NATO), without little latitude to consider the events in hand and respond to them with flexibility - which is the mark of sovereignty.
But Britain knew that when it joined and the governments then and since believed that the trade-off in terms of the additional security that membership brought was worth the price.
The Brexiteers blind belief that sovereign power should reside in Westminster and nowhere else will be their downfall. This is simply not compatible with modern forms of constitutional government and certainly wouldn't be recognised in most of the so-called Anglosphere.
Tin ear much?
Of the 48% who voted Remain, I can't imagine many more than 5-10% would actively like to give sovereignty away.
Only Eurofanatics and those who dislike our electorate encourage such much.
Worth noting that NATO's a basic agreement and a simple organisation rather than a bureaucratic empire of meddlesome eunuchs continually seeking to expand their powers at the expense of independent organisations (cf EURatom) and nation-states. NATO is not.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
Does NATO change our laws or not? If not, then we're not losing any sovereignty.
That's rubbish. Sovereignty is about far more than simply the right to pass laws. Of course NATO impinges on British sovereignty: the country could be committed to declare a potentially suicidal war (and if it renaged on that, might still find that an annihilating war was declared upon it simply by virtue of being a member of NATO), without little latitude to consider the events in hand and respond to them with flexibility - which is the mark of sovereignty.
But Britain knew that when it joined and the governments then and since believed that the trade-off in terms of the additional security that membership brought was worth the price.
We have a right of veto on Article 5 common defence decisions.
I wonder if Labour will ever again form a government. Reading the comments here, and seeing what is happening on the news every day, I begin to wonder. Many blame Corbyn for the party's travails, but he wasn't the leader in 2010 or 2015. Even the Blair government starting shedding votes before 2005, and actually got less votes in England than Michael Howard did.
So is this just about getting a decent leader - which is obviously a must to win an election - or are Labour's problems so deep-rooted that nobody could lead them to victory? Are they just an anachronism, waiting for the electorate to change before they do?
I see lists of names including Starmer, Jarvis, Cooper, Nandy, Benn, Balls, Ummuna, even third rate rubbish like Dick Burgon, Angela Rayner, and Jess Phillips being touted as potential leaders. Really? I put it that an average university debating society could produce a more inspiring list than that shower.
The final straw for some was the equivocation over the referendum. Many of Corbyn's supporters believed he'd supported Remain but hadn't been given any air time.
After the last few weeks even the diehards know that was a lie and he did nothing to advance the cause whatsoever. I'm sure that's why even Momentum has has now had it with him.
He's finished.
Then you weren't paying attention. Corbyn called for A50 to be invoked the day after the referendum. Nothing that he's done this month should come as a surprise.
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Manpower is important but in battle it's firepower that counts (manpower more so for peacekeeping thereafter). We'd need to identify better who our potential enemies are and what relative strengths / weaknesses we have vs them. And think violence / aggression. If you really want cpaability back then DU ammo or cluster munitions ought to be on the table again. Cyber. PSTD care. Pay - do most PBers have any idea what a shit level of pay soldiers get even vs nurses? It's shameful and a miracle we get any recruits at all. Increase ratio of service personnel vs civvies at MoD, and major thinning of excess admirals / generals and their support structures. The Navy is at its weakest for a very very long time. Drones / UAV. Pulse rifles in the 40 watt range.
Pulse rifles - too much sci fi I think Patrick
But if wishes were fishes I'll have a Bevawatt laser
Yes I was quoting from Terminator. But joking apart the UK does have a defence 'black budget' for skunkworks type stuff. Nobody knows what it goes on coz it's secret like. Fair enough. I don't need to know and I'm OK to pay for it. I just hope we have something secret and magnificently and awesomely destructive hidden away to be wheeled out on the day to rent our enemies asunder (like stealth bombers were in Iraq). I suspect there are no trebuchets, space cannons or GM lemurs/haddock in this inventory however.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
The Brexiteers' blind belief that sovereign power should reside in Westminster and nowhere else will be their downfall. This is simply not compatible with modern forms of constitutional government and certainly wouldn't be recognised in most of the so-called Anglosphere.
Please explain.
In the USA there is a "blind belief" if you want to be ignorant enough to call it that, that sovereign power should reside in the three branches of government as decided by the US Constitution. That is their equivalent to Westminster. I'd like to see how that is not compatible.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
I take it you missed the fact that NATO doesn't tell the UK government how it must spend its money. How the UK government spends its money is entirely up to the UK government.
The Brexiteers blind belief that sovereign power should reside in Westminster and nowhere else will be their downfall. This is simply not compatible with modern forms of constitutional government and certainly wouldn't be recognised in most of the so-called Anglosphere.
Tin ear much?
Of the 48% who voted Remain, I can't imagine many more than 5-10% would actively like to give sovereignty away.
Only Eurofanatics and those who dislike our electorate encourage such much.
So no giving away of power to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament? Or is your commitment in a sovereign unitary state only window dressing for simple-minded nationalism?
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
I take it you missed the fact that NATO doesn't tell the UK government how it must spend its money. How the UK government spends its money is entirely up to the UK government.
Wholly irrelevant. What if the UK government wanted to spend 0% of its GDP on defence?
The Brexiteers' blind belief that sovereign power should reside in Westminster and nowhere else will be their downfall. This is simply not compatible with modern forms of constitutional government and certainly wouldn't be recognised in most of the so-called Anglosphere.
Please explain.
In the USA there is a "blind belief" if you want to be ignorant enough to call it that, that sovereign power should reside in the three branches of government as decided by the US Constitution. That is their equivalent to Westminster. I'd like to see how that is not compatible.
I'm referring to the constitution which limits the powers of the federal government. The US has no equivalent for the Sewel convention because it is a true federation.
... a Shadow Cabinet composed exclusively of people like those in your list would be a decisive break with the left of the party, which might be what you feel is desirable but which would not command the support of the majority of members, even those outside the hard left ...
Well then, Labour is doomed to die in that case.
You need people in charge who are more like the middle-of-the-road British voter and who give an impression of competence in that they at least have the ability to run a political party. If those leading Labour cannot run a small group of like-minded people, who in their right mind would give them the chance to govern an entire country?
Choose some leaders who are capable of doing something other than running ideological witch-hunts and burying hatchets in each others backs.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
It is a small loss of sovereignty, as David Herdson notes. But it doesn't feel like it
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
I take it you missed the fact that NATO doesn't tell the UK government how it must spend its money. How the UK government spends its money is entirely up to the UK government.
Wholly irrelevant. What if the UK government wanted to spend 0% of its GDP on defence?
Like Iceland? It's defence budget is 0% and is a founding member of NATO [to the nearest percentage point]
The Brexiteers blind belief that sovereign power should reside in Westminster and nowhere else will be their downfall. This is simply not compatible with modern forms of constitutional government and certainly wouldn't be recognised in most of the so-called Anglosphere.
Tin ear much?
Of the 48% who voted Remain, I can't imagine many more than 5-10% would actively like to give sovereignty away.
Only Eurofanatics and those who dislike our electorate encourage such much.
So no giving away of power to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament? Or is your commitment in a sovereign unitary state only window dressing for simple-minded nationalism?
Power is not given away if it is devolved, it is returned closer to the people.
Power is given away if it is vested in an authority more divorced, and in some cases entirely divorced from the people.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
It is a small loss of sovereignty, as David Herdson notes. But it doesn't feel like it
When I told Heidi this, she looked at me as if to say "Of course - what the hell were you expecting?", before wandering off to stand in front of the pantry door looking beautiful and letting me know that what really mattered was that I should give her another biscuit.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"I2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
I take it you missed the fact that NATO doesn't tell the UK government how it must spend its money. How the UK government spends its money is entirely up to the UK government.
Wholly irrelevant. What if the UK government wanted to spend 0% of its GDP on defence?
Like Iceland? It's defence budget is 0% and is a founding member of NATO [to the nearest percentage point]
It's great isn't it. We are or will have been members of organisations and some things we decide to do (2% of GDP spent on defence) and some things we decline (joining the Euro).
It's all in the pot and part of this tricky new world of global associations and alliances we are in.
On reflection probably the most urgent call on defence spending is the redundancy packages of 80% of our senior staff in all 3 services.
The more important question is whether we should be increasing our defence spending. I think that there are quite compelling reasons for doing so. The world is a lot less stable than it was, say, 10 years ago. We can no longer be quite so certain that our deployments will be a part of much larger units who can infill our deficiencies. I think the peace dividend of the end of the cold war has been overspent. It is time to start investing again.
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Mix of kit and manpower. The navy really needs more ships; in a few years we'll have two carriers but not enough other craft to properly constitute two carrier groups. Recruitment is a real problem, but we need to beef up the army numbers, particularly those elements that can be used as expeditionary forces. Signals etc that can be used for cyberwar are important but pretty well funded right now anyway. Forget the RAF, they'll be obsolete soon, the future is unmanned.
Although the US typically only manages about a third of its carrier fleets being active at any one time doesn't it? If we're assuming that we're only going to have one active carrier fleet, then that affects the number of other ships we need.
It's great isn't it. We are or will have been members of organisations and some things we decide to do (2% of GDP spent on defence) and some things we decline (joining the Euro).
It's all in the pot and part of this tricky new world of global associations and alliances we are in.
Except we didn't have a choice to decline much of what the EU did since it had both law making powers and spending powers that we didn't have a veto on. NATO has neither, it can neither compel our government to spend money it doesn't want to spend, nor change our laws.
So one organisation we are but soon won't be a member of could spend our money and change our laws unilaterally even if every single Briton unanimously voted against it. It was a true loss of sovereignty.
Whereas NATO does no such things. It can neither spend our money, nor change our laws. Two completely different things. Great isn't it?
This is going off-topic, but say the UK decided to increase defence spending by around a quarter to 2.5%. This would mean an extra ~9 billion spending on defence.
Where would it best be spent? Extra manpower or kit? The army, navy or air force? Would it be best to spread it around equally between the forces, or would that be least effective?
Where are the gaping holes in our defence capabilities? (Fnarr, fnarr)
Manpower is important but in battle it's firepower that counts (manpower more so for peacekeeping thereafter). We'd need to identify better who our potential enemies are and what relative strengths / weaknesses we have vs them. And think violence / aggression. If you really want cpaability back then DU ammo or cluster munitions ought to be on the table again. Cyber. PSTD care. Pay - do most PBers have any idea what a shit level of pay soldiers get even vs nurses? It's shameful and a miracle we get any recruits at all. Increase ratio of service personnel vs civvies at MoD, and major thinning of excess admirals / generals and their support structures. The Navy is at its weakest for a very very long time. Drones / UAV. Pulse rifles in the 40 watt range.
Pulse rifles - too much sci fi I think Patrick
But if wishes were fishes I'll have a Bevawatt laser
A Joe Haldeman fan!
Of course, as Haldeman ruefully admitted afterwards, the correct term is "Gigawatt". He got lots of letters about that.
The Brexiteers blind belief that sovereign power should reside in Westminster and nowhere else will be their downfall. This is simply not compatible with modern forms of constitutional government and certainly wouldn't be recognised in most of the so-called Anglosphere.
Tin ear much?
Of the 48% who voted Remain, I can't imagine many more than 5-10% would actively like to give sovereignty away.
Only Eurofanatics and those who dislike our electorate encourage such much.
So no giving away of power to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament? Or is your commitment in a sovereign unitary state only window dressing for simple-minded nationalism?
Power is not given away if it is devolved, it is returned closer to the people.
Power is given away if it is vested in an authority more divorced, and in some cases entirely divorced from the people.
At what population size does government become too remote from the people for you to countenance?
It's great isn't it. We are or will have been members of organisations and some things we decide to do (2% of GDP spent on defence) and some things we decline (joining the Euro).
It's all in the pot and part of this tricky new world of global associations and alliances we are in.
Except we didn't have a choice to decline much of what the EU did since it had both law making powers and spending powers that we didn't have a veto on. NATO has neither, it can neither compel our government to spend money it doesn't want to spend, nor change our laws.
So one organisation we are but soon won't be a member of could spend our money and change our laws unilaterally even if every single Briton unanimously voted against it. It was a true loss of sovereignty.
Whereas NATO does no such things. It can neither spend our money, nor change our laws. Two completely different things. Great isn't it?
Membership of any collective arrangement or association limits, in practice, our freedom to act, because of the constraints arising from the views and interests of the other members, formal and informal. Focusing solely on deciding laws misses the point.
I wonder if Labour will ever again form a government. Reading the comments here, and seeing what is happening on the news every day, I begin to wonder. Many blame Corbyn for the party's travails, but he wasn't the leader in 2010 or 2015. Even the Blair government starting shedding votes before 2005, and actually got less votes in England than Michael Howard did.
So is this just about getting a decent leader - which is obviously a must to win an election - or are Labour's problems so deep-rooted that nobody could lead them to victory? Are they just an anachronism, waiting for the electorate to change before they do?
I see lists of names including Starmer, Jarvis, Cooper, Nandy, Benn, Balls, Ummuna, even third rate rubbish like Dick Burgon, Angela Rayner, and Jess Phillips being touted as potential leaders. Really? I put it that an average university debating society could produce a more inspiring list than that shower.
The final straw for some was the equivocation over the referendum. Many of Corbyn's supporters believed he'd supported Remain but hadn't been given any air time.
After the last few weeks even the diehards know that was a lie and he did nothing to advance the cause whatsoever. I'm sure that's why even Momentum has has now had it with him.
He's finished.
Makes me cackle that Labour of 2017 will go to the matresses for the EU but almost nothing else, including existential threats....
No wonder they're so tin earred to the voting public.
Like many Leavers you don't really get it because everything to you is about flags and florins and pounds and ounces and St George and other bullshit. The EU is a club of advanced nations that demand as it's price for membership that we share civilized values. It should be as important to us that the other 27 embrace these values as that we do ourselves. This is it's ethos and why I think we have made a grotesque mistake
It's great isn't it. We are or will have been members of organisations and some things we decide to do (2% of GDP spent on defence) and some things we decline (joining the Euro).
It's all in the pot and part of this tricky new world of global associations and alliances we are in.
Except we didn't have a choice to decline much of what the EU did since it had both law making powers and spending powers that we didn't have a veto on. NATO has neither, it can neither compel our government to spend money it doesn't want to spend, nor change our laws.
So one organisation we are but soon won't be a member of could spend our money and change our laws unilaterally even if every single Briton unanimously voted against it. It was a true loss of sovereignty.
Whereas NATO does no such things. It can neither spend our money, nor change our laws. Two completely different things. Great isn't it?
I don't think I ever said that NATO is just like the EU. I dispute your contention that we only lose sovereignty if we give away law-making powers (of course we have agreed to those new EU laws but that's a <23 June discussion).
I said that by being members of NATO we are voluntarily giving away sovereignty. In arguably the most profound way - that is first of all agreeing to go to war, and also by being told how much to spend on one sector of our economy. And as for NATO not spending our money, there is a cigarette paper between spending our money and telling us how to spend our money.
It's great isn't it. We are or will have been members of organisations and some things we decide to do (2% of GDP spent on defence) and some things we decline (joining the Euro).
It's all in the pot and part of this tricky new world of global associations and alliances we are in.
Except we didn't have a choice to decline much of what the EU did since it had both law making powers and spending powers that we didn't have a veto on. NATO has neither, it can neither compel our government to spend money it doesn't want to spend, nor change our laws.
So one organisation we are but soon won't be a member of could spend our money and change our laws unilaterally even if every single Briton unanimously voted against it. It was a true loss of sovereignty.
Whereas NATO does no such things. It can neither spend our money, nor change our laws. Two completely different things. Great isn't it?
Membership of any collective arrangement or association limits, in practice, our freedom to act, because of the constraints arising from the views and interests of the other members, formal and informal. Focusing solely on deciding laws misses the point.
No it doesn't miss the point.
One is limits that we agree with others that we then choose whether to continue to honour or not and can withdraw from at will. No loss of sovereignty.
The other has the ability to evolve its own laws that apply to us even though we never agreed to them.
It's like comparing a robot that does only what we've programmed it to do [NATO], with a dystopian robot that is self-aware and can write its own programming [the EU].
The EU is a club of civilized nations that demand as it's price for membership that we share civilized values. It should be as important to us that the other 27 embrace these values as that we do ourselves. This is its ethos and why I think we have made a grotesque mistake
Precisely. To the extent that the EU impinges on our sovereignty, it also give us control over the sovereignty of our largest and most important neighbours. It is one of our most profound and enduring national interests that Europe remain a free, open, democratic space for our people to be able to live prosperous lives without the spectre of war.
Davis is a politician. I don't expect him.to be honest or accurate about such things. What is your excuse for such wilful ignorance?
being dishonest or inaccurate is not being ignorant.
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Because NATO does not change our laws.
Snore.
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
NATO doesn't tell its members what they must spend, NATO members have agreed with each other that they will spend 2% and nobody has ever changed that unilaterally. The EU could come up with new laws and changes, NATO doesn't.
BINGO!
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
Exactly no loss of sovereignty whatsoever.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
Very funny.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
I take it you missed the fact that NATO doesn't tell the UK government how it must spend its money. How the UK government spends its money is entirely up to the UK government.
Wholly irrelevant. What if the UK government wanted to spend 0% of its GDP on defence?
Like Iceland? It's defence budget is 0% and is a founding member of NATO [to the nearest percentage point]
Comments
But I do agree with your second paragraph! Anyone who translates that into practical politics will have a good chance, both inside the party and beyond.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mental-health-support-for-the-uk-armed-forces
We've become adept at training people to overcome the cultural norm that killing people is wrong, but the psychological aftercare doesn't match the behaviourist training methods.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Journeys-John-Gwynne-ebook/dp/B01MUCON9Q/
If you like fantasy, do give it a look.
However, I would expect much of it to spent on expensive enquiries into atrocities allegedly committed by the armed forces, and a proliferation of brass hats and support staff.
If the reviews are accurate, it's the best book I've written to date (which is a relief, because if you screw up part 1 of a trilogy then you're in a cul-de-sac of woe).
As a bit of market research, do you only buy physical books? [I'll be releasing hard copies of the sequels, of course, but I've got some older ones that are e-book only].
Edited extra bit: I think I missed the incest review. Link?
There is no sibling shaggery or comparable acts. There is a spot of transvestism, though. Because I am a politically correct man.
The reviews are certainly very positive. If I like it, I'll do a review of my own at Westeros.Org.
The implications are terrifying for Labour, and they suggest it's not as much Corbyn's fault as Joff might think. Maybe he could maybe have delivered a Remain victory, but then threat would be UKIP rather than splintering to Tories / Lib Dems.
https://twitter.com/caprosser/status/831481379867226112
Useful to know about the hard copies answer. Got some other stories in the same world (Bane of Souls/Journey to Altmortis) I might release as paperbacks at some point.
Also, copying the added bit below: I think I missed the incest review. Link?
There is no sibling shaggery or comparable acts. There is a spot of transvestism, though. Because I am a politically correct man.
@DPJHodges: Given Mattis' statement, what happened to Theresa May's commitment from Trump that he has "100% support for NATO".
So is this just about getting a decent leader - which is obviously a must to win an election - or are Labour's problems so deep-rooted that nobody could lead them to victory? Are they just an anachronism, waiting for the electorate to change before they do?
I see lists of names including Starmer, Jarvis, Cooper, Nandy, Benn, Balls, Ummuna, even third rate rubbish like Dick Burgon, Angela Rayner, and Jess Phillips being touted as potential leaders. Really? I put it that an average university debating society could produce a more inspiring list than that shower.
If you like, I'll send you a PM, giving you my views about the book in detail.
In Copeland, perhaps.
No Siree.
Mr. Topping, could you show me the part of the NATO rules that says we have to spend 2/7 the NHS budget on Defence?
Edited extra bit: oh, yeah, I remember that now. It was my first review for KA.
To be honest, I've never really been into incest.
What a bargain!
How about NATO, then? Leaving Article 5 aside, may I please ask your comments on, as @John_M so elegantly put it:
"It's one party to an alliance telling other signatories to meet their obligations - Germany being, pound for pound, the most egregious sinners. Only 5 NATO countries hit the target. Even the UK is indulging in accounting shenanigans to muster the 2%."
In what way is this NATO obligation not an infringement of our sovereignty?
Cyber.
PSTD care.
Pay - do most PBers have any idea what a shit level of pay soldiers get even vs nurses? It's shameful and a miracle we get any recruits at all.
Increase ratio of service personnel vs civvies at MoD, and major thinning of excess admirals / generals and their support structures.
The Navy is at its weakest for a very very long time.
Drones / UAV.
Pulse rifles in the 40 watt range.
I believe that Trump is committed to NATO and expects every other member to be equally committed.
Hardly an unreasonable stance for them to take.
Edit: and congrats on the anthology. I've ordered a physical copy for my cousin!
Is an organisation which tells its members what they must spend their money on a violation of sovereignty or not?
The new US administration does not see the value in being "the world's policeman", and demand (rightly) that its allies step up to the plate.
The question is whether there are unintended consequences down the line, which are not in the interests of the US.
In practice now, it seems to mean handing the country over to unscrupulous American companies for them to do their usual rip-off trick.
Mr. Topping, didn't see any reference to the NHS or Health spending there.
Edited extra bit: Mr. M, perhaps it was a poorly chosen phrase on my part.
But if wishes were fishes I'll have a Bevawatt laser
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831904516316479489
May offers improved visa deal as India, UK launch trade talks
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-britain-may-idUSKBN1320AZ?il=0
After the last few weeks even the diehards know that was a lie and he did nothing to advance the cause whatsoever. I'm sure that's why even Momentum has has now had it with him.
He's finished.
I chose them, on that basis, as the energy weapons in my sci-fi short Dead Weight, in the Explorations: Through the Wormhole anthology.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38982373
Edited extra bit: Mr. Mortimer, cheers, though it's nothing serious. Imagine I'll be fine tomorrow. [Just a little tired/distracted, which isn't great for writing stuff].
We are a member of an organisation whose members have agreed with each other that we should do something or other. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion.
No wonder they're so tin earred to the voting public.
Also NATO doesn't tell us how to spend the money on defence. We have committed to spend 2% but HOW we spend that is entirely up to us. We can spend it on whatever we want, whether it be army, navy, air force, Trident or something else entirely it is all up to us. We have full sovereignty.
I don't think there is a NATO article which mandates members' spending in units of health spending.
But Britain knew that when it joined and the governments then and since believed that the trade-off in terms of the additional security that membership brought was worth the price.
Of the 48% who voted Remain, I can't imagine many more than 5-10% would actively like to give sovereignty away.
Only Eurofanatics and those who dislike our electorate encourage such much.
Our manpower can't be the issue as that implies 307 * (1500 -> 4000, say 2750) soldiers. Which gives a strength of around 850,000.
Worth noting that NATO's a basic agreement and a simple organisation rather than a bureaucratic empire of meddlesome eunuchs continually seeking to expand their powers at the expense of independent organisations (cf EURatom) and nation-states. NATO is not.
But joking apart the UK does have a defence 'black budget' for skunkworks type stuff. Nobody knows what it goes on coz it's secret like. Fair enough. I don't need to know and I'm OK to pay for it. I just hope we have something secret and magnificently and awesomely destructive hidden away to be wheeled out on the day to rent our enemies asunder (like stealth bombers were in Iraq). I suspect there are no trebuchets, space cannons or GM lemurs/haddock in this inventory however.
So some supranational organisation telling the UK government how it must spend its money is no loss of sovereignty.
No wonder you Leavers are all so relaxed.
In the USA there is a "blind belief" if you want to be ignorant enough to call it that, that sovereign power should reside in the three branches of government as decided by the US Constitution. That is their equivalent to Westminster. I'd like to see how that is not compatible.
You need people in charge who are more like the middle-of-the-road British voter and who give an impression of competence in that they at least have the ability to run a political party. If those leading Labour cannot run a small group of like-minded people, who in their right mind would give them the chance to govern an entire country?
Choose some leaders who are capable of doing something other than running ideological witch-hunts and burying hatchets in each others backs.
https://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/security/iceland-nato/
Power is given away if it is vested in an authority more divorced, and in some cases entirely divorced from the people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4225194/After-near-miss-German-shepherd-tries-win-Westminster.html
It's all in the pot and part of this tricky new world of global associations and alliances we are in.
The more important question is whether we should be increasing our defence spending. I think that there are quite compelling reasons for doing so. The world is a lot less stable than it was, say, 10 years ago. We can no longer be quite so certain that our deployments will be a part of much larger units who can infill our deficiencies. I think the peace dividend of the end of the cold war has been overspent. It is time to start investing again.
8 OF-9 General * (Field army 80000 men) = 640,000
27 OF-8 Lt General * (Corps 30000 men) = 810,000
107 OF-7 Major General * (Division 12500 men) = 1,337,500
307 OF-6 Brigadier * (Brigade 2750 men) = 844,250
So it must be between 640k and 1.4 million. An impressive achievement.
So one organisation we are but soon won't be a member of could spend our money and change our laws unilaterally even if every single Briton unanimously voted against it. It was a true loss of sovereignty.
Whereas NATO does no such things. It can neither spend our money, nor change our laws. Two completely different things. Great isn't it?
Of course, as Haldeman ruefully admitted afterwards, the correct term is "Gigawatt". He got lots of letters about that.
Presumably in the 21st century units now require more equipment and less men than they did in the past?
I said that by being members of NATO we are voluntarily giving away sovereignty. In arguably the most profound way - that is first of all agreeing to go to war, and also by being told how much to spend on one sector of our economy. And as for NATO not spending our money, there is a cigarette paper between spending our money and telling us how to spend our money.
One is limits that we agree with others that we then choose whether to continue to honour or not and can withdraw from at will. No loss of sovereignty.
The other has the ability to evolve its own laws that apply to us even though we never agreed to them.
It's like comparing a robot that does only what we've programmed it to do [NATO], with a dystopian robot that is self-aware and can write its own programming [the EU].