Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
"I am not making this up, I promise. In the weeks before polling day last year the deputy prime minister spent several days, and almost £8,000 of party funds, starring in a shot-for-shot re-creation of the video for I Really Like You by Carly Rae Jepsen, the Canadian singer."
Perhaps he was hoping Cameron would call him, maybe.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
One imagines if the EU were in a position to defend itself without relying on massive US defence spending then this wouldn't be an issue. A lot of people in the US are getting sick of European nations freeloading. Even I don't think it is right that Germany are able to get away with defence spending at 1% of GDP without being kicked out of NATO.
Good morning all.
Of the 27 NATO countries, 5 meet the NATO guidelines for defence spending.
I'm continually surprised by all the Brexit fans on here who are sniffy about Trump's views on foreign policy.
The closest analogy I can think of is Scottish nationalists who want independence, but only within the safety of EU. They want Brexit, but only under Pax Americana.
Not really. I think it's one reason why we need our own nuclear deterrent. I suppose the EU has France and if Russia did try it on I'm sure the French, Germans and Italians would be up for the fight...
Yes that one we buy from America and they can do what they want with at any time, LOL
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
One imagines if the EU were in a position to defend itself without relying on massive US defence spending then this wouldn't be an issue. A lot of people in the US are getting sick of European nations freeloading. Even I don't think it is right that Germany are able to get away with defence spending at 1% of GDP without being kicked out of NATO.
I agree that Europe as a whole doesn't pull its weight in NATO. However it's not necessarily in the USs interests that Europe has more clout by paying more. Europe and US interests are increasingly divergent with Germany and France much more inclined to rapprochement with Russia (a sort of Lib Dem equidistant approach between the big two anyway). For the US right now it's a question of paying the lions share of the fees for lions share of the power (I can see why it's unpopular with Trump and the people, but that doesn't mean it's not the best thing for the country)
I'm continually surprised by all the Brexit fans on here who are sniffy about Trump's views on foreign policy.
The closest analogy I can think of is Scottish nationalists who want independence, but only within the safety of EU. They want Brexit, but only under Pax Americana.
"If the liberal left didn't have a habit for getting overworked by every little stupid thing in the world then we would not be in this position."
Hyperbole is the stock-in-trade of the Jezzarites too. No one is ambivalent, they are either comrades or Nazis. They don't differentiate between LDs and the National Front. As was said earlier, they are always the boy who cries Wolf.
When you are seventeen, you see the world in black and white, and some people never grow up.
I switched Sky off for most of the last two days - they went on and on about Melania Trump's speech. I really couldn't give a toss if it included a dozen words of apple pie from eight years ago.
It's media bubble stuff like makes me roll my eyes and ignore them.
You've seen nothing yet. I think we're all expecting Marine Le Pen to make the final 2 in the French election next year - but then we're all expecting her to lose. Our media probably hasn't clocked this so when she makes the final 2 there will be outrage and exasperation.
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
Irredentists? We haven't even triggered Article 50 yet, and if Trump's going to win, he'll probably already be President by the time we get round to it. The world won't stop for 2 years while we think about the strategy, and while we're waiting, things can happen that might change the balance.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I do think that Cruz has damaged his chances of being the candidate in 2020.
If he hadn't wanted to endorse Trump then he could have turned down a speaking slot. To stand up at the nominating convention and come up with some mealy-mouthed cr@p just demonstrates his lack of judgement
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
Just to make the point, if the A8 countries spent 2% of their GDP on defence they would collectively have an annual budget of around $21bn up from around $12bn currently, on a PPP basis that would be $40bn up from around $23bn. Germany currently spend 1.2% of GDP on defence, that additional 0.8% would be worth $25bn per year as well. Collectively Europe should be spending around $100bn per year more on defence than we currently do, there is even room for the UK to increase spending in the short term to fix our awful Naval fleet and make it fit for purpose.
I can't see any future for Labour. If so many posh Jezza supporters have decided to pay £25 to virtue-signal to their mates, then it's all over.
The similarities to the Turkish coup are uncanny. A group, knowing they're going to be squashed anyway have rebelled a little too early. Retribution will be swift. The SWP don't take prisoners. Anyone who's against them is an enemy of the people.
There are no cock-ups, there is only conspiracy. Exterminate! Exterminate!
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
"If the liberal left didn't have a habit for getting overworked by every little stupid thing in the world then we would not be in this position."
Hyperbole is the stock-in-trade of the Jezzarites too. No one is ambivalent, they are either comrades or Nazis. They don't differentiate between LDs and the National Front. As was said earlier, they are always the boy who cries Wolf.
When you are seventeen, you see the world in black and white, and some people never grow up.
I switched Sky off for most of the last two days - they went on and on about Melania Trump's speech. I really couldn't give a toss if it included a dozen words of apple pie from eight years ago.
It's media bubble stuff like makes me roll my eyes and ignore them.
You've seen nothing yet. I think we're all expecting Marine Le Pen to make the final 2 in the French election next year - but then we're all expecting her to lose. Our media probably hasn't clocked this so when she makes the final 2 there will be outrage and exasperation.
I'm rather looking forward to the outrage - Trump getting the GOP nomination was most satisfying, as was Brexit. It's shaking their world upside down. Perhaps they'll finally realise that there is another world out there that's had quite enough.
I saw an intv with Matt Wrack of the FBU yesterday - he was really rather impressive in his support for Corbyn.
I don't agree with him - but he expressed many of the same sentiments re failure to listen, the disenfranchised et al. He'd make a better Labour leader! The anodyne MP supporting Smith came across as another status quo cookie-cutter.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
My concerns about an EU army related to it being subordinated to an EU foreign policy. That the UK has, is and will be part of a coalition of forces is a different kettle of fish.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
Collectively it would make a difference, in addition to Germany pulling their weight. This is why any fantasy of an EU army without the UK is a joke.
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
Trump Le Pen and Putin at the same time, could lead to a realignment in the idea of western powers. that US-France-Russia axis would probably get most other major European nations on board soon enough. China would be the big loser there - still a local rival to Russia and Trump has directed a lot of ire their way - expect to see a growing conflict with China. Oceania and Eurasia have always been at war with Eastasia.
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I do think that Cruz has damaged his chances of being the candidate in 2020.
If he hadn't wanted to endorse Trump then he could have turned down a speaking slot. To stand up at the nominating convention and come up with some mealy-mouthed cr@p just demonstrates his lack of judgement
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
And this anxiety isn't new. It's been hidden in plain sight. Look at the spontaneous photo of GWB and HRC at Nancy Reagan's funeral. As sophisticated and pre planned as an Old Master in the National Gallery.
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I do think that Cruz has damaged his chances of being the candidate in 2020.
If he hadn't wanted to endorse Trump then he could have turned down a speaking slot. To stand up at the nominating convention and come up with some mealy-mouthed cr@p just demonstrates his lack of judgement
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I totally agree re the £9m. There aren't many things that annoyed me a lot about Cameron - but he squeezed in most of them during his final three months.
Personally, it was swapping concessions on the Trades Union Bill for £1.7m of Remain campaigning that sticks in my throat the most. That's beyond egregious pork barrelling. I can't forgive that - it's wrong on every level.
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
Trump Le Pen and Putin at the same time, could lead to a realignment in the idea of western powers. that US-France-Russia axis would probably get most other major European nations on board soon enough. China would be the big loser there - still a local rival to Russia and Trump has directed a lot of ire their way - expect to see a growing conflict with China. Oceania and Eurasia have always been at war with Eastasia.
Le Pen won't beat Sarkozy, he will out FN the FN if he makes it to the second round. I don't think Trump will win either, Hillary might be completely shit, but she's not crazy and shit. Trump has too many negatives and hasn't made the pivot that I thought he might after winning the nomination, instead he has become more crazy and picked an insane running mate.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
They should still up it to 2%.
And so should Germany.
Of the major European nations, only the UK and France meet the 2% target. Germany at 1.2%. Italy at 1.3%.
If Germany and Italy pulled their weight that would be another $44.6 Bn to the pot.
Netherlands and Denmark another ~ $12 Bn - these are both richer countries than the UK and France on a per capita basis !
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I disagree with Rcs1000 and Charles. We should move away from defensive obligations to the EU to reduce the risk of a WW1 entente cordial war that may go nuke very quickly.
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
What a load of verbose twaddle.
Cameron was scaremongering without basis in anything except desperate desire to cling on.
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I do think that Cruz has damaged his chances of being the candidate in 2020.
If he hadn't wanted to endorse Trump then he could have turned down a speaking slot. To stand up at the nominating convention and come up with some mealy-mouthed cr@p just demonstrates his lack of judgement
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Cruz is too revolting to be President
If it came down to it I would choose Trump over Cruz. Trump has the advtange of being unpredictable - there's a chance it may not be so bad. With Cruz, I already know how bad it would be. Cruz has no redeeming features at all.
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Apparently Trump's remarks about his father were the last straw.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
My concerns about an EU army related to it being subordinated to an EU foreign policy. That the UK has, is and will be part of a coalition of forces is a different kettle of fish.
Yes exactly. Especially given the EU's dilettantish and incompetent behaviour in the foreign policy field.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
They should still up it to 2%.
And so should Germany.
Of the major European nations, only the UK and France meet the 2% target. Germany at 1.2%. Italy at 1.3%.
If Germany and Italy pulled their weight that would be another $44.6 Bn to the pot.
Even France don't, according to that PDF I just posted.
Just to make the point, if the A8 countries spent 2% of their GDP on defence they would collectively have an annual budget of around $21bn up from around $12bn currently, on a PPP basis that would be $40bn up from around $23bn. Germany currently spend 1.2% of GDP on defence, that additional 0.8% would be worth $25bn per year as well. Collectively Europe should be spending around $100bn per year more on defence than we currently do, there is even room for the UK to increase spending in the short term to fix our awful Naval fleet and make it fit for purpose.
You don't buy expensive military kit at PPP exchange rates, though, Max.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
My concerns about an EU army related to it being subordinated to an EU foreign policy. That the UK has, is and will be part of a coalition of forces is a different kettle of fish.
Yes exactly. Especially given the EU's dilettantish and incompetent behaviour in the foreign policy field.
Would you describe Trump as dilettantish and incompetent?
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
What a load of verbose twaddle.
Cameron was scaremongering without basis in anything except desperate desire to cling on.
If contemporary British voters don't want Latvians to come here to work full time keeping our underfunded Care system ridiculously cheap will they really fight a nuclear war to defend Latvia ? Politico-Cultural shifts have consequences.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
Just to make the point, if the A8 countries spent 2% of their GDP on defence they would collectively have an annual budget of around $21bn up from around $12bn currently, on a PPP basis that would be $40bn up from around $23bn. Germany currently spend 1.2% of GDP on defence, that additional 0.8% would be worth $25bn per year as well. Collectively Europe should be spending around $100bn per year more on defence than we currently do, there is even room for the UK to increase spending in the short term to fix our awful Naval fleet and make it fit for purpose.
You don't buy expensive military kit at PPP exchange rates, though, Max.
I can't see any future for Labour. If so many posh Jezza supporters have decided to pay £25 to virtue-signal to their mates, then it's all over.
The similarities to the Turkish coup are uncanny. A group, knowing they're going to be squashed anyway have rebelled a little too early. Retribution will be swift. The SWP don't take prisoners. Anyone who's against them is an enemy of the people.
There are no cock-ups, there is only conspiracy. Exterminate! Exterminate!
The most tantalising bit is the not knowing - we know 183k have bought a vote. We don't know how many are renewing Corbynista £3ers, existing members like SO who joined in the last six months or a wave of Smithites.
YouGov's polling was pretty accurate last summer - will they do it again?
And this anxiety isn't new. It's been hidden in plain sight. Look at the spontaneous photo of GWB and HRC at Nancy Reagan's funeral. As sophisticated and pre planned as an Old Master in the National Gallery.
Although the Old Masters in the National Gallery almost got there by accident - it was some bloke in the City going bankrupt and being bailed out by Parliament that secured the collection I believe...
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
What a load of verbose twaddle.
Cameron was scaremongering without basis in anything except desperate desire to cling on.
If contemporary British voters don't want Latvians to come here to work full time keeping our underfunded Care system ridiculously cheap will they really fight a nuclear war to defend Latvia ? Politico-Cultural shifts have consequences.
Yes, good ones often.
Honestly, if you wring your hands any harder they will fall off.
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I do think that Cruz has damaged his chances of being the candidate in 2020.
If he hadn't wanted to endorse Trump then he could have turned down a speaking slot. To stand up at the nominating convention and come up with some mealy-mouthed cr@p just demonstrates his lack of judgement
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Cruz is too revolting to be President
If it came down to it I would choose Trump over Cruz. Trump has the advtange of being unpredictable - there's a chance it may not be so bad. With Cruz, I already know how bad it would be. Cruz has no redeeming features at all.
Agreed. He is one of the most odious pieces of slime to crawl out the religious pond for a long while, which is saying something. Give me Trump any day.
To the person referring to 'the scale of the GOP debate' as if it's a foregone conclusion, blimey . The polls are even and Trump hasn't even warmed up his attack on the vulnerable Clinton yet.
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
What a load of verbose twaddle.
Cameron was scaremongering without basis in anything except desperate desire to cling on.
If contemporary British voters don't want Latvians to come here to work full time keeping our underfunded Care system ridiculously cheap will they really fight a nuclear war to defend Latvia ? Politico-Cultural shifts have consequences.
Yes, good ones often.
Honestly, if you wring your hands any harder they will fall off.
Today I wring my hands, tomorrow you'll be ringing alarm bells.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
What a load of verbose twaddle.
Cameron was scaremongering without basis in anything except desperate desire to cling on.
If contemporary British voters don't want Latvians to come here to work full time keeping our underfunded Care system ridiculously cheap will they really fight a nuclear war to defend Latvia ? Politico-Cultural shifts have consequences.
Yes, good ones often.
Honestly, if you wring your hands any harder they will fall off.
Today I wring my hands, tomorrow you'll be ringing alarm bells.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Apparently Trump's remarks about his father were the last straw.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
Do you watch Fox via a Sky package? I occasionally see bits when they tweet a live stream.
And this anxiety isn't new. It's been hidden in plain sight. Look at the spontaneous photo of GWB and HRC at Nancy Reagan's funeral. As sophisticated and pre planned as an Old Master in the National Gallery.
Although the Old Masters in the National Gallery almost got there by accident - it was some bloke in the City going bankrupt and being bailed out by Parliament that secured the collection I believe...
Some 'Old Masters' have been pawnbroked recently !
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
This is missing the point, though. Eurosceptics don't oppose an EU army from xenophobia. They do so for political reasons.
I have no objection at all to a defensive alliance with our EU neighbours, or opting in to certain European military missions.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
1) How much net EU funding they receive ? 2) How much their defence budgets are ?
I really cant see why Putin would invade Estonia or Latvia.
They have East Prussia with an ice free Naval port and their Baltic Fleet stationed there. The only problem being (taking Belarus as defacto part of Russia) the Polish/Lithuanian corridor that has separated East Prussia from the rest of Russia since 1990.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
This is missing the point, though. Eurosceptics don't oppose an EU army from xenophobia. They do so for political reasons.
I have no objection at all to a defensive alliance with our EU neighbours, or opting in to certain European military missions.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
So would I. An EU army is never going to happen. My point is that in the past (WW1, WW2) and now (NATO) we have effectively placed our armed forces wholly under the command of foreign powers, and many have said, short of an EU army, that this is what they object to.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
Minus the President that's exactly what NATO is. It may be clearer to see this if you are on the opposing side - the Russians talk constantly about what NATO is doing or not doing and what the Secretary General of NATO is saying.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
Collectively it would make a difference, in addition to Germany pulling their weight. This is why any fantasy of an EU army without the UK is a joke.
The Germans can "do" defence when they really want to.
During the Cold War the numbers of West German troops on the allied lines outnumbered the British Army of the Rhine quite significantly.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Mr. Glenn, if it's exactly the point of NATO, then an EU Army is either duplicating or supplanting NATO, whilst failing to include the largest contributor (the US).
Edited extra bit: for clarity, I don't buy that argument. The EU is an exercise in bureaucratic empire-building. NATO is just about defence.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
It includes war pension provisions, pensions for MoD civvies and a couple of other items like MoD's earnings. If you strip those out, we dip to 1.97%, which is of course, symbolic of something or other.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
Minus the President that's exactly what NATO is. It may be clearer to see this if you are on the opposing side - the Russians talk constantly about what NATO is doing or not doing and what the Secretary General of NATO is saying.
No its not. NATO is a defensive alliance.
If we were part of a European Army then if Europe chose to invade another nation (let's imagine like Iraq but with Europe in favour and us opposed) then our forces would be commited whether we want to or not.
Under NATO there is no such obligation which is why when Iraq happened any NATO allies opposed did not take part.
Mr. Glenn, if it's exactly the point of NATO, then an EU Army is either duplicating or supplanting NATO, whilst failing to include the largest contributor (the US).
Edited extra bit: for clarity, I don't buy that argument. The EU is an exercise in bureaucratic empire-building. NATO is just about defence.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
If it came down to it I would choose Trump over Cruz. Trump has the advtange of being unpredictable - there's a chance it may not be so bad. With Cruz, I already know how bad it would be. Cruz has no redeeming features at all.
Agreed. He is one of the most odious pieces of slime to crawl out the religious pond for a long while, which is saying something. Give me Trump any day.
To the person referring to 'the scale of the GOP debate' as if it's a foregone conclusion, blimey . The polls are even and Trump hasn't even warmed up his attack on the vulnerable Clinton yet.
I 'think' Trump will win but it's close.
I think Clinton will win.
1. Dems are "natural party of presidency". In last 6 elections there were 4 Dem wins, one tie and one GOP "war victory".
2. Libertarians have strong spoiler candidate.
3. Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Cruz hasn't endorsed Trump.
4. Incumbency. Voters seem happy enough with Obama (and Bill Clinton before him) and Hillary is in a similar mould. The existence of Sanders shows her in a moderate light.
5. Emails scandal is bad, but not evil, and voters don't seem bothered enough about it to make a difference. If anything, they might get bored of it, if they aren't already.
6. GOP are working hard to inhibit minority voting, but Dems seem to have an effective GOTV strategy.
7. The only easy marginal for Trump is Ohio. Obama had a reasonable margin in the rest of the likely Trump targets, and Trump needs a swing of 64 EVs.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
It includes war pension provisions, pensions for MoD civvies and a couple of other items like MoD's earnings. If you strip those out, we dip to 1.97%, which is of course, symbolic of something or other.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
Everybody except Bulgaria includes pensions in their figures.
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
It's certainly the case that the most ardent Remainers will blame virtually every geopolitical setback on Brexit for decades to come.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
Why would it scare him when he's backed him at 1000 ?
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
It includes war pension provisions, pensions for MoD civvies and a couple of other items like MoD's earnings. If you strip those out, we dip to 1.97%, which is of course, symbolic of something or other.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
Do we know what other EU members and the USA throw into their 2%? Or not as the case may be?
I wouldn't want us to flog ourselves over this by being puritanical. 2% is another arbitrary figure.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Voluntarily. That is the difference.
NATO mobilisation...voluntary? Don't think so.
Name a single aggressive war where our forces have been mobilised by NATO against our will. Just one will suffice.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
The party hasn't but GOP voters seem OK with Trump, if the polls are any guide. If so, then it is interesting because it suggests the Tea Party was attracting NOTA votes that had nothing to do with its policy positions.
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Apparently Trump's remarks about his father were the last straw.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
I think it's a strong move...
Cruz can say I stood up for conservative values... while Marco kowtowed to liberal, pork-barrel spending, Godless Trump... got to be a reasonable chance Trump says something outrageous that the evangelicals/conservatives really hate in the election...
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
It's certainly the case that the most ardent Remainers will blame virtually every geopolitical setback on Brexit for decades to come.
Along with every share price drop, rise in unemployment etc.
Of course when the reverse happens they will solemnly lecture us to beware being fooled by short term changes and look at the long term picture.
A bit like how when it gets very hot global warming fanatics shriek doom and when it gets cold they lecture us that short term weather changes must not be confused with long term climate change.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
It includes war pension provisions, pensions for MoD civvies and a couple of other items like MoD's earnings. If you strip those out, we dip to 1.97%, which is of course, symbolic of something or other.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
Do we know what other EU members and the USA throw into their 2%? Or not as the case may be?
I wouldn't want us to flog ourselves over this by being puritanical. 2% is another arbitrary figure.
Have you seen NATO's reports? Life is too short to go diving in that particular sewer.
I would be easily persuaded that other countries indulge in all kinds of shenanigans, but I'm not prepared to put the tedious effort in to analysing line item expenditure .
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
A few days before the libertarian convention, I backed him for £2.2k @ 999/1.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
Minus the President that's exactly what NATO is. It may be clearer to see this if you are on the opposing side - the Russians talk constantly about what NATO is doing or not doing and what the Secretary General of NATO is saying.
No its not. NATO is a defensive alliance.
Again, look from the opposing side and you might get a different perspective.
As for the argument that Europe could have forced us to fight an aggressive war against our will, has even Brexit not convinced you that in extremis we would have remained sovereign?
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
Why would it scare him when he's backed him at 1000 ?
Ah okay- didn't realize that. I am intrigued though to find the people who do offer these enormously long odds...
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
It's certainly the case that the most ardent Remainers will blame virtually every geopolitical setback on Brexit for decades to come.
Along with every share price drop, rise in unemployment etc.
Of course when the reverse happens they will solemnly lecture us to beware being fooled by short term changes and look at the long term picture.
A bit like how when it gets very hot global warming fanatics shriek doom and when it gets cold they lecture us that short term weather changes must not be confused with long term climate change.
This is an interesting analogy. Climate is not the same thing as weather. And this applies to politics as much as it does to our globe.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Voluntarily. That is the difference.
NATO mobilisation...voluntary? Don't think so.
Name a single aggressive war where our forces have been mobilised by NATO against our will. Just one will suffice.
NATO is a defensive alliance, so it's an unfair question Philip. Trump is saying that the US is sick of guaranteeing the security of countries that don't honour article 3. Article 5 doesn't actually obligate NATO members to do anything specific, which is both a strength and a weakness.
Comments
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
Of the 27 NATO countries, 5 meet the NATO guidelines for defence spending.
*oops redundant post, sorry*
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I didn't see anything wrong with the "unscrupulous boss" skit, though.
If he hadn't wanted to endorse Trump then he could have turned down a speaking slot. To stand up at the nominating convention and come up with some mealy-mouthed cr@p just demonstrates his lack of judgement
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
Youtube - James Corden Late Late Show - First Lady Michelle Obama Carpool Karaoke
The similarities to the Turkish coup are uncanny. A group, knowing they're going to be squashed anyway have rebelled a little too early. Retribution will be swift. The SWP don't take prisoners. Anyone who's against them is an enemy of the people.
There are no cock-ups, there is only conspiracy. Exterminate! Exterminate!
Does anyone know:
1) How much net EU funding they receive ?
2) How much their defence budgets are ?
The People's republic has signed a deal with China:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-36846472
I saw an intv with Matt Wrack of the FBU yesterday - he was really rather impressive in his support for Corbyn.
I don't agree with him - but he expressed many of the same sentiments re failure to listen, the disenfranchised et al. He'd make a better Labour leader! The anodyne MP supporting Smith came across as another status quo cookie-cutter.
Personally, it was swapping concessions on the Trades Union Bill for £1.7m of Remain campaigning that sticks in my throat the most. That's beyond egregious pork barrelling. I can't forgive that - it's wrong on every level.
And so should Germany.
Of the major European nations, only the UK and France meet the 2% target. Germany at 1.2%. Italy at 1.3%.
If Germany and Italy pulled their weight that would be another $44.6 Bn to the pot.
Netherlands and Denmark another ~ $12 Bn - these are both richer countries than the UK and France on a per capita basis !
What a load of verbose twaddle.
Cameron was scaremongering without basis in anything except desperate desire to cling on.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
YouGov's polling was pretty accurate last summer - will they do it again?
Honestly, if you wring your hands any harder they will fall off.
To the person referring to 'the scale of the GOP debate' as if it's a foregone conclusion, blimey . The polls are even and Trump hasn't even warmed up his attack on the vulnerable Clinton yet.
I 'think' Trump will win but it's close.
http://tinyurl.com/zslvymq
I have no objection at all to a defensive alliance with our EU neighbours, or opting in to certain European military missions.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
They have East Prussia with an ice free Naval port and their Baltic Fleet stationed there. The only problem being (taking Belarus as defacto part of Russia) the Polish/Lithuanian corridor that has separated East Prussia from the rest of Russia since 1990.
What could possibly go wrong....
I don’t think Trump will win. I hope he doesn’t.
BUT!!!!!!!!
It looks worrying. Although we haven’t heard from the Democrat convention yet.
During the Cold War the numbers of West German troops on the allied lines outnumbered the British Army of the Rhine quite significantly.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
I've laid around £4k on him over the past few weeks. Unless some other layer steps in, his current odds are likely to drop.
Edited extra bit: for clarity, I don't buy that argument. The EU is an exercise in bureaucratic empire-building. NATO is just about defence.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
If we were part of a European Army then if Europe chose to invade another nation (let's imagine like Iraq but with Europe in favour and us opposed) then our forces would be commited whether we want to or not.
Under NATO there is no such obligation which is why when Iraq happened any NATO allies opposed did not take part.
That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
1. Dems are "natural party of presidency". In last 6 elections there were 4 Dem wins, one tie and one GOP "war victory".
2. Libertarians have strong spoiler candidate.
3. Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Cruz hasn't endorsed Trump.
4. Incumbency. Voters seem happy enough with Obama (and Bill Clinton before him) and Hillary is in a similar mould. The existence of Sanders shows her in a moderate light.
5. Emails scandal is bad, but not evil, and voters don't seem bothered enough about it to make a difference. If anything, they might get bored of it, if they aren't already.
6. GOP are working hard to inhibit minority voting, but Dems seem to have an effective GOTV strategy.
7. The only easy marginal for Trump is Ohio. Obama had a reasonable margin in the rest of the likely Trump targets, and Trump needs a swing of 64 EVs.
8. Trump
I wouldn't want us to flog ourselves over this by being puritanical. 2% is another arbitrary figure.
http://shape.nato.int/
But participation in a the command is collaborative. It can't force the top brass in any member state to do its bidding.
Cruz can say I stood up for conservative values... while Marco kowtowed to liberal, pork-barrel spending, Godless Trump... got to be a reasonable chance Trump says something outrageous that the evangelicals/conservatives really hate in the election...
Of course when the reverse happens they will solemnly lecture us to beware being fooled by short term changes and look at the long term picture.
A bit like how when it gets very hot global warming fanatics shriek doom and when it gets cold they lecture us that short term weather changes must not be confused with long term climate change.
I would be easily persuaded that other countries indulge in all kinds of shenanigans, but I'm not prepared to put the tedious effort in to analysing line item expenditure
As for the argument that Europe could have forced us to fight an aggressive war against our will, has even Brexit not convinced you that in extremis we would have remained sovereign?
I am intrigued though to find the people who do offer these enormously long odds...