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?
Again showing your ignorance. The 2% decision was not made by NATO. It was made by the individual countries that make up NATO collectively through a unanimous decision. There was no imposition because all the countries agreed to the deal - with exceptions for those like Iceland who serve NATO in a different but just as useful way.
There is no comparison between agreeing to spend 2% on defence - something we could have declined to agree had we wished to - and having laws imposed upon us even when we oppose them.
Again you show your complete lack of understanding of both the organisations we are discussing and the basic concepts.
Remind me which EU treaty were are subject to without having signed?
Trump and his Defence Secretary are demanding no more and no less than that NATO agreements are 100% honoured. That is 100% commitment.
Failing to demand that other nations honour their agreements would be failing to be 100% committed.
Ha, ha! :-D
You could say that the Trump administration is 100% committed to ensuring 100% compliance with the NATO agreement. But that is not the same as being 100% committed to NATO.
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?
Again showing your ignorance. The 2% decision was not made by NATO. It was made by the individual countries that make up NATO collectively through a unanimous decision. There was no imposition because all the countries agreed to the deal - with exceptions for those like Iceland who serve NATO in a different but just as useful way.
There is no comparison between agreeing to spend 2% on defence - something we could have declined to agree had we wished to - and having laws imposed upon us even when we oppose them.
Again you show your complete lack of understanding of both the organisations we are discussing and the basic concepts.
Remind me which EU treaty were are subject to without having signed?
There are numerous EU laws we are subject to without having voted for.
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.
I don't want control over the sovereignty of our neighbours.
And it's the 21st century with instant communications and global transport, our largest and most important neighbours are the USA, China and Russia - not Croatia, Lithuania and Slovakia.
And the 'our' in your statement means Europe. We are Europeans and this separatist Brexit is tragically misconceived.
You see yourself as a European. The vast majority of our citizens do not.
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?
NATO is an example of good international cooperation, and the EU is an example of poor international cooperation. If the EU was more like NATO we wouldn't be leaving.
So it's not sovereignty that was the problem I'm glad we've sorted that out.
I want to be able to vote out of power the politicians who pass laws in this country. Where such laws are passed as a result of QMV i.e. Britain is completely opposed but is outvoted I cannot vote out the politicians who imposed the laws.
What specific laws have been imposed on the UK against our will and that you disagree with?
The reality of the world is that smaller countries are vulnerable to being influenced by larger ones and that sometimes to win the bigger prize you have to compromise and give up some smaller prizes.
Just because there is plenty wrong with the EU doesn't make leaving it the sensible deciuon.
There was the bankers bonus law with which the UK government disagreed and which was imposed via QMV. Now I am not in favour of high bonuses for bankers but this law was a stupid one which has unintended and deleterious consequences. And it was imposed on the UK - which has a big financial services sector - with the votes of countries such as Malta which have virtually none. So you get ignorance on top of a lack of democratic accountability.
Second example: the Port Services Regulation which will adversely affect ports in the UK but not elsewhere.
Re your second sentence: I agree with the sentiment. I am also struck by the fact that during the whole EU referendum campaign the Remain side were incapable of coming up with a positive case for that "bigger prize". Why was that? Maybe it was not such a prize after all?
I agree with your third point. I am a bit gloomy about the choices facing us - both in June and now. But, TBH, Trump's election worries me far more than Brexit. Still, the country has made its choice and we'll have to make the best of it.
"Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do,"
For far too long Germany and a whole bunch of smaller european nations have lived high off the US hog.
So where does that leave the UK, a European country whose entire defence strategy has been based on a strong NATO for the last 70 years? If the US essentially gives the Russians a green light to move further west, the resulting economic, financial and market meltdown in Europe would do huge, sustained damage to us.
May told us that Trump was 100% committed to NATO. Clearly, he lied to her. He cannot be trusted.
Russia moved further west when Obama was President.
And further south.
Please ignore all that, you need to stick with the Obama good and Trump bad line of thought.
Obama did not threaten British interests in the way that Trump does. NATO has been a cornerstone of our defence policy for 70 years. It now looks like it is on notice of de facto dissolution.
Trump wants NATO members to pay the minimum 2% of GDP that they all agreed to do, back in 2006. Why should the US keep paying out the short fall for these countries to remain safe?
Trump told Mrs May that the US is 100% committed to NATO. It isn't. He lied to her.
Who said the US isn't 100% committed to NATO. Gen Mattis's words today were that ""The alliance remains a fundamental bedrock for the United States and the trans-Atlantic community, bonded as we are together" - sounds like a 100% commitment today.
All that has been asked is that others in the alliance honour their own commitments they've already agreed to.
The US cannot be 100% committed to NATO if its commitment is predicated on how much other member states spend on defence. 100% = total commitment under any circumstances.
It's hard for NATO to survive if everyone else is free-riding off the US. If the US persuades the rest to increase expenditure, that will strengthen the alliance.
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.
I don't want control over the sovereignty of our neighbours.
And it's the 21st century with instant communications and global transport, our largest and most important neighbours are the USA, China and Russia - not Croatia, Lithuania and Slovakia.
And the 'our' in your statement means Europe. We are Europeans and this separatist Brexit is tragically misconceived.
You see yourself as a European. The vast majority of our citizens do not.
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.
I don't want control over the sovereignty of our neighbours.
And it's the 21st century with instant communications and global transport, our largest and most important neighbours are the USA, China and Russia - not Croatia, Lithuania and Slovakia.
And the 'our' in your statement means Europe. We are Europeans and this separatist Brexit is tragically misconceived.
You see yourself as a European. The vast majority of our citizens do 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?
Again showing your ignorance. The 2% decision was not made by NATO. It was made by the individual countries that make up NATO collectively through a unanimous decision. There was no imposition because all the countries agreed to the deal - with exceptions for those like Iceland who serve NATO in a different but just as useful way.
There is no comparison between agreeing to spend 2% on defence - something we could have declined to agree had we wished to - and having laws imposed upon us even when we oppose them.
Again you show your complete lack of understanding of both the organisations we are discussing and the basic concepts.
Remind me which EU treaty were are subject to without having signed?
I said laws not treaties. Clearly basic comprehension is a problem for you as well.
Trump and his Defence Secretary are demanding no more and no less than that NATO agreements are 100% honoured. That is 100% commitment.
Failing to demand that other nations honour their agreements would be failing to be 100% committed.
Ha, ha! :-D
You could say that the Trump administration is 100% committed to ensuring 100% compliance with the NATO agreement. But that is not the same as being 100% committed to NATO.
No, you are wrong. The expression is silly anyway, but to pass the 100% test, for all questions of the type "Country x has obligation y under the treaty: do you think it should honour the obligation?" the answer must be "yes". You cannot take the plums and leave the duff.
I can't say NATO thrills me anyway. I don't think we are getting the better side of the bargain in a situation where we are obliged to rush to the defence of Latvia in exchange for Latvia undertaking to rush to ours
Comments
Next.
You could say that the Trump administration is 100% committed to ensuring 100% compliance with the NATO agreement. But that is not the same as being 100% committed to NATO.
Second example: the Port Services Regulation which will adversely affect ports in the UK but not elsewhere.
Re your second sentence: I agree with the sentiment. I am also struck by the fact that during the whole EU referendum campaign the Remain side were incapable of coming up with a positive case for that "bigger prize". Why was that? Maybe it was not such a prize after all?
I agree with your third point. I am a bit gloomy about the choices facing us - both in June and now. But, TBH, Trump's election worries me far more than Brexit. Still, the country has made its choice and we'll have to make the best of it.
I can't say NATO thrills me anyway. I don't think we are getting the better side of the bargain in a situation where we are obliged to rush to the defence of Latvia in exchange for Latvia undertaking to rush to ours