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.
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'%."
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 uld 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]
Is there much point in Iceland having a defense budget?
It is desperate, I would imagine, to put itself under the NATO umbrella so in reality, a bad example to use because with no standing army (thanks Google) as you say there really is no need for much defence spending (presumably they have a permanent reserve system?).
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].
I suspect such a constraint would also effectively rule out joining NAFTA.
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.
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.</p>
We only agree to go to war if we agree to go to war, we have a veto over Article 5.
And for umpteenth time NATO does not tell us how to spend our money. Why do you think we go through all these debates on defence and strategic defence reviews and arguments over Trident etc if NATO is calling the shots and telling us how to spend our money?
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
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].
I suspect such a constraint would also effectively rule out joining NAFTA.
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.</p>
We only agree to go to war if we agree to go to war, we have a veto over Article 5.
And for umpteenth time NATO does not tell us how to spend our money. Why do you think we go through all these debates on defence and strategic defence reviews and arguments over Trident etc if NATO is calling the shots and telling us how to spend our money?
Jeez that we get to choose what we spend it on is irrelevant. NATO tells us how much to spend on defence. Then we get to choose after we get our orders from NATO whether to buy Trident or catapults. But NATO tells a sovereign UK government how large its defence budget should be.
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
And for umpteenth time NATO does not tell us how to spend our money. Why do you think we go through all these debates on defence and strategic defence reviews and arguments over Trident etc if NATO is calling the shots and telling us how to spend our money?
Jeez that we get to choose what we spend it on is irrelevant. NATO tells us how much to spend on defence. Then we get to choose after we get our orders from NATO whether to buy Trident or catapults. But NATO tells a sovereign UK government how large its defence budget should be.
I really don't know how else to put it.
We don't get any orders from NATO, if we did then Trump putting pressure on Merkel to increase spending would be moot since she'd have already "had her orders". We make a commitment to spend x amount on defence but then NATO has no means to enforce that, it remains a unilateral commitment that we have made that nobody else can force us to honour. No orders.
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.
Forgive me; illustrative shorthand. I don't want to bore the rest of this board with a pedantic dissertation on naval force deployment (not least because it would not be timely; I don't type very fast). But there is general agreement that both our surface fleet and submarine fleet are looking pretty hollowed out right now. As DavidL says, we have over-spent our peace dividend.
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
Europe is a continent just like the Americas but try calling a Canadian an American and see how far it gets you. We were talking about nationalities and so no we are not Europeans.
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
Europe is a continent just like the Americas but try calling a Canadian an American and see how far it gets you. We were talking about nationalities and so no we are not Europeans.
You're being disingenuous. Are the Swiss Europeans?
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].
I suspect such a constraint would also effectively rule out joining NAFTA.
Is NAFTA "self-aware"?
Actually, I was thinking more about the laws perpective. Being a member of NAFTA would prevent, for example, our parliament from passing laws requiring labelling on GM food. (See Monsanto vs State of Quebec.)
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?
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.
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
Europe is a continent just like the Americas but try calling a Canadian an American and see how far it gets you. We were talking about nationalities and so no we are not Europeans.
You're being disingenuous. Are the Swiss Europeans?
In the context we are talking about? No, they're Swiss.
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
Europe is a continent just like the Americas but try calling a Canadian an American and see how far it gets you. We were talking about nationalities and so no we are not Europeans.
What a silly post. The correct name of the continent is North America. I doubt many Canadians would object to being called North American.
Anyway, if only nation states count as nationalities then you cannot be English either.
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
Europe is a continent just like the Americas but try calling a Canadian an American and see how far it gets you. We were talking about nationalities and so no we are not Europeans.
The correct name of the continent is North America. I doubt many Canadians would object to being called North American.
Anyway, if only nation states count as nationalities then you cannot be English either.
England is famously "a country within a country" so yes I can be English. England is my country, as is the United Kingdom - as both are countries.
Is there much point in Iceland having a defense budget?
It is desperate, I would imagine, to put itself under the NATO umbrella so in reality, a bad example to use because with no standing army (thanks Google) as you say there really is no need for much defence spending (presumably they have a permanent reserve system?).
Isn't Iceland also a pivotal location in the G-I-UK gap, and hence a major factor in guarding the North Atlantic from the Russian navy?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Yes it was there is nothing there that says that NATO infringed upon our sovereignty. It was co-operation not giving away sovereignty.
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.
That is indeed a noble aim. But you do not need the EU to achieve it. Kant had it right back in the 19th century. Liberal democracies tend not to fight each other. A Europe of liberal democracies is not going to indulge in the sort of murderous wars we had in the last century. But you do not need the sort of bureaucratic and political structures of the EU to have and maintain liberal democracies, though I do give a lot of credit to the EU for helping former Warsaw Pact countries develop in the way they have.
But it is not, frankly, very liberal or very democratic in its instincts. And the trouble with it now and with its direction of travel is that it is now in danger of stifling liberal democracy in Europe, because in its desire to control everything and erase - for all practical purposes - the nation state, in its desire to create a "Europe" as a political entity, with citizens and an army and a government and a currency etc, it risks damaging the very forces (liberalism and democracy) which make war unimaginable and risks unleashing the sort of forces whose attachment to liberalism and democracy are tenuous at best (Golden Dawn, the FN etc).
If people are not listened to they will - eventually - make their voices heard but it may be in ways which are far more terrifying and destabilizing than otherwise.
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?
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.
You mean if it had an integrated defence capability? Perhaps we can rejoin once this happens.
Christ, it gets grim on here sometimes. What the feck is wrong with wanting to be recognised as English? Why do you hate the English flag so much? What is wrong with you lefties? Do you criticise patriotic Germans, Spanish or French? Why is a Parisian waving the Tricolour acceptable, but a Cross of St George in a Rochester window a source of scorn for you?
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
Europe is a continent just like the Americas but try calling a Canadian an American and see how far it gets you. We were talking about nationalities and so no we are not Europeans.
The correct name of the continent is North America. I doubt many Canadians would object to being called North American.
Anyway, if only nation states count as nationalities then you cannot be English either.
England is famously "a country within a country" so yes I can be English. England is my country, as is the United Kingdom - as both are countries.
Well in that case the UK is also country within a country, namely the EU. So good news, you're European
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.
No the our in my statement means the UK. We are Britons. I am English and British not European.
Britain as a political entity will not survive Brexit. Congratulations!
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
Europe is a continent just like the Americas but try calling a Canadian an American and see how far it gets you. We were talking about nationalities and so no we are not Europeans.
The correct name of the continent is North America. I doubt many Canadians would object to being called North American.
Anyway, if only nation states count as nationalities then you cannot be English either.
England is famously "a country within a country" so yes I can be English. England is my country, as is the United Kingdom - as both are countries.
Well in that case the UK is also country within a country, namely the EU. So good news, you're European
Except the EU isn't a country and I want to leave it before it becomes one.
You mean if it had an integrated defence capability? Perhaps we can rejoin once this happens.
No I mean the collective goals and standards of NATO without the rigidity of EU laws and regulations. NATO shouldn't work on paper, but does work well, the EU is the other way round.
Iceland does not need much of a standing army. The populus, which is about the same size as Coventry has 90,000 guns between them. Could you imagine if Leicester, Wakefield or Wigan had 90,000 guns ?
As Bev C points out though it does occupy a very important strategic position in the North Atlantic though.
Iceland's defense budget ought to be around $330 million based off of it's GDP. (16.6 billion) - naval or satellite detection assets would be the best use of that cash given its position in the North Atlantic.
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.
That is indeed a noble aim. But you do not need the EU to achieve it. Kant had it right back in the 19th century. Liberal democracies tend not to fight each other. A Europe of liberal democracies is not going to indulge in the sort of murderous wars we had in the last century. But you do not need the sort of bureaucratic and political structures of the EU to have and maintain liberal democracies, though I do give a lot of credit to the EU for helping former Warsaw Pact countries develop in the way they have.
But it is not, frankly, very liberal or very democratic in its instincts. And the trouble with it now and with its direction of travel is that it is now in danger of stifling liberal democracy in Europe, because in its desire to control everything and erase - for all practical purposes - the nation state, in its desire to create a "Europe" as a political entity, with citizens and an army and a government and a currency etc, it risks damaging the very forces (liberalism and democracy) which make war unimaginable and risks unleashing the sort of forces whose attachment to liberalism and democracy are tenuous at best (Golden Dawn, the FN etc).
If people are not listened to they will - eventually - make their voices heard but it may be in ways which are far more terrifying and destabilizing than otherwise.
Can’t get more civilised than a democratic referendum, a negotiated departure and not a single shot fired. All very British...
And the trouble with it now and with its direction of travel is that it is now in danger of stifling liberal democracy in Europe, because in its desire to control everything and erase - for all practical purposes - the nation state, in its desire to create a "Europe" as a political entity, with citizens and an army and a government and a currency etc, it risks damaging the very forces (liberalism and democracy) which make war unimaginable and risks unleashing the sort of forces whose attachment to liberalism and democracy are tenuous at best (Golden Dawn, the FN etc).
I would humbly suggest that the rise of Trump demolishes any argument that the EU is responsible for any similar political trends in Europe.
If anything it's remarkable how strong a political anchor the EU has been in controlling the fallout of the sovereign debt crisis in the aftermath of 2008 without extremists gaining power.
@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".
The policies of the Trump administration are the most hostile to British interests of any presidency we have seen since the end of WW2. Obama may have been the uppity son of a Kenyan colonial, according to our foreign secretary, but he never threatened the foundations of UK defence policy in this way.
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?
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
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.
If the majority of members choose a leader who does not want to put John McDonnell in his or her shadow cabinet, what is the problem with that? The left is not just the hard left, Nick. I think you used to understand this.
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?
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
To invert the Pirelli slogan, control is nothing without power. This is a lesson that Britain is going to learn over and over again in the coming years.
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?
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
To invert the Pirelli slogan, control is nothing without power. This is a lesson that Britain England is going to learn over and over again in the coming years.
"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.
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?
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
I think subsidiarity and NCAs went some way to addressing some of your concerns.
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?
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
To invert the Pirelli slogan, control is nothing without power. This is a lesson that Britain England is going to learn over and over again in the coming years.
Fixed it for you.
Nah, there's no escape for the home nations, we're taking them down with us.
"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.
If NATO breaks down we can easily do a bi-lateral defense deal with USA, and probably one with France too.
Bit embarrassing for May that we slipped below that 2% though !
And the trouble with it now and with its direction of travel is that it is now in danger of stifling liberal democracy in Europe, because in its desire to control everything and erase - for all practical purposes - the nation state, in its desire to create a "Europe" as a political entity, with citizens and an army and a government and a currency etc, it risks damaging the very forces (liberalism and democracy) which make war unimaginable and risks unleashing the sort of forces whose attachment to liberalism and democracy are tenuous at best (Golden Dawn, the FN etc).
I would humbly suggest that the rise of Trump demolishes any argument that the EU is responsible for any similar political trends in Europe.
If anything it's remarkable how strong a political anchor the EU has been in controlling the fallout of the sovereign debt crisis in the aftermath of 2008 without extremists gaining power.
Really? Golden Dawn in Greece was pretty much a direct response to the EU's attempt to control a crisis its own actions helped create or make worse.
What the EU has sought to do is to put a blanket over the fire. In that it has been successful for now. But the dry wood is still there. All it needs is a spark. And the cost of the EU's success has been the poverty imposed on the peoples of some of the poorer parts of the EU, the lack of opportunities for the young, their forced emigration - good for them to some extent I accept but still a loss to their countries and families - and countries (such as Italy) stuck in no or low growth for a decade or more.
The fact that we have all these extremist or non-traditional parties developing and growing out of the fringe (5 Stelle / Geert Wilders / AFD / FN / the Austrian one) is not a sign of a health political environment. By all means be self-congratulatory that they have not got power - yet - but it is better for peoples' concerns to be properly listened to and acted on rather than stifled.
Trump is in power now. I would not have voted for him. But if he fails then his brand of politics will be seen as a failure and, with luck, something better will develop. In Europe we're so busy patting ourselves on the back for our civilized values and the fact that we haven't elected an incompetent vulgarian that we're missing what's bubbling under the surface here.
"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.
"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.
"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.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the UK leaving the EU is now inevitable, what will be fascinating to watch, from the side-lines, is how the EU progresses from here on in and whether the aim of full federation with an elected President leading a standing army actually materialises.
"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.
If NATO breaks down we can easily do a bi-lateral defense deal with USA, and probably one with France too.
Bit embarrassing for May that we slipped below that 2% though !
Any Russian move into an EU member state, or even an aggressive deployment on the border of an EU member state, would have a significant adverse affect on markets across Europe - including the UK one. A bilateral defence agreement with the US would not prevent that. In any case, what would such an agreement be worth in practice? We were told that Trump is 100% committed to NATO. Clearly that is not true. He cannot be trusted.
"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.
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
I think subsidiarity and NCAs went some way to addressing some of your concerns.
Subsidiarity is the people at the top generously giving a little bit back to the little people. And in practice nothing ever did get handed back. The EU may have talked a good talk on this but it always decided that the only level at which matters could be resolved was the EU level.
Nah - it's the other way round for me. Those in power should only have as much power as we choose to give them. They are my servants. Not the other way around. They should be grateful that I give them any power at all. Not graciously giving me something back through a word and concept as ugly as subsidiarity.
The fact that we have all these extremist or non-traditional parties developing and growing out of the fringe (5 Stelle / Geert Wilders / AFD / FN / the Austrian one) is not a sign of a health political environment. By all means be self-congratulatory that they have not got power - yet - but it is better for peoples' concerns to be properly listened to and acted on rather than stifled.
And the EU's response is not a thoughtful reflection about "What did we do wrong?" but "More Europe".
"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.
That KL poisoning. Reminiscent of Georgi Markov, no?
That rather depends on whether you regard both assassinations as Government sanctioned attacks on their own dissidents. – Personally I’ve not seen the conection.
"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.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the UK leaving the EU is now inevitable, what will be fascinating to watch, from the side-lines, is how the EU progresses from here on in and whether the aim of full federation with an elected President leading a standing army actually materialises.
The EU has been on the road to break up for years.
Those who will not join the Euro left the EU years ago.
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
I think subsidiarity and NCAs went some way to addressing some of your concerns.
Subsidiarity is the people at the top generously giving a little bit back to the little people. And in practice nothing ever did get handed back. The EU may have talked a good talk on this but it always decided that the only level at which matters could be resolved was the EU level.
Nah - it's the other way round for me. Those in power should only have as much power as we choose to give them. They are my servants. Not the other way around. They should be grateful that I give them any power at all. Not graciously giving me something back through a word and concept as ugly as subsidiarity.
I hear that in Germany everything is forbidden unless it is allowed, but in the UK everything is allowed that is not forbidden.
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.
Obama let Russia invade Crimea, Turkey edge towards dictatorship, and the Russians prop up the Syrian regime. On defence and security matters Obama is an abject failure.
Besides that if the Germans and others won't pick up their share of the costs they shouldn't expect the US to pay for them indefinitely. If Germans would rather see NATO fail than spend more on defence they are fools.
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
Your civilized might be someone else's tyranny.
Are you happy that Greece was forced into an austerity death spiral in such a 'civilized' manner?
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.
Obama let Russia invade Crimea, Turkey edge towards dictatorship, and the Russians prop up the Syrian regime. On defence and security matters Obama is an abject failure.
None of that directly threatened the UK's interests in the way that Trump's NATO policy does. He outright lied to the Prime Minister.
"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?
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. Sovereignty/democracy matter because the people - from whom power comes - have a say.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
To invert the Pirelli slogan, control is nothing without power. This is a lesson that Britain is going to learn over and over again in the coming years.
Britain faced a Hobson's choice on June 23rd. The EU should have been much better than it turned out to be. It is a shame that it has so little self-reflection that it can see no other option other than the one route it has chosen. A better more liberal more open more democratic Europe should have been on offer.
But to quote La Pasionaria: Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.
(And, for clarity, I am NOT comparing the EU to Fascist Spain.)
"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 can remain safe?
Do you believe that the US would cut its defence spending in response to Europe spending more?
"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.
US politics is far more entertaining than Uk politics at the moment - remove Brexit and it would be a landslide.
This is bad for Labour and heaven for May - the public are very disconnected - only topics that impact lives directly like rail strikes are breaking through.
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.
Obama let Russia invade Crimea, Turkey edge towards dictatorship, and the Russians prop up the Syrian regime. On defence and security matters Obama is an abject failure.
None of that directly threatened the UK's interests in the way that Trump's NATO policy does. He outright lied to the Prime Minister.
Nothing Mattis said today was unexpected, we knew that the Trump administration was going to press NATO members to meet the 2% target. Nor is the issue new, American's have been complaining about European defence spending since at least the end of the Cold War.
Personally I think making this a big issue is long overdue. The US has no obligation to pay for European defence.
"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.
"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.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the UK leaving the EU is now inevitable, what will be fascinating to watch, from the side-lines, is how the EU progresses from here on in and whether the aim of full federation with an elected President leading a standing army actually materialises.
The EU has been on the road to break up for years.
Those who will not join the Euro left the EU years ago.
It’s a shame the much deliberated ‘two speed Europe’ never came to pass, I could have been quite happy to be part of a common market with a few mandatory standards thrown in.
"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.
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?
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.
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.</p>
We give away no sovereignty at all through membership of NATO. Our obligations to NATO are completely defined by a treaty that cannot be changed without our agreement. NATO cannot increase its scope nor change its terms of membership without us explicitly agreeing and can impose no additional demands upon us beyond those bound up in the treaty we signed. It certainly cannot change our laws.
The EU on the other hand can do these things. And has done so.
There is no loss of sovereignty with NATO membership - nor the many other treaties we have signed over the years - as they have no power to extend their authority. There is loss of sovereignty with EU membership as it is able to do this.
US politics is far more entertaining than Uk politics at the moment - remove Brexit and it would be a landslide.
This is bad for Labour and heaven for May - the public are very disconnected - only topics that impact lives directly like rail strikes are breaking through.
Still Labour to hold Stoke looks nailed on.
There is a danger for the Conservatives that they get stupid and retoxify themselves, through getting too right wing and associated with Trump, followed by a leadership change in Labour that can capitalize on this.
"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.
Odd that you should come to that conclusion, personally I see it as quite the opposite.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I think the UK leaving the EU is now inevitable, what will be fascinating to watch, from the side-lines, is how the EU progresses from here on in and whether the aim of full federation with an elected President leading a standing army actually materialises.
The EU has been on the road to break up for years.
Those who will not join the Euro left the EU years ago.
It’s a shame the much deliberated ‘two speed Europe’ never came to pass, I could have been quite happy to be part of a common market with a few mandatory standards thrown in.
I think it's sure to materialise, but not under the EU constraints that the EZ and empire builders in Brussels would like.
"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.
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.
Obama let Russia invade Crimea, Turkey edge towards dictatorship, and the Russians prop up the Syrian regime. On defence and security matters Obama is an abject failure.
None of that directly threatened the UK's interests in the way that Trump's NATO policy does. He outright lied to the Prime Minister.
Nothing Mattis said today was unexpected, we knew that the Trump administration was going to press NATO members to meet the 2% target. Nor is the issue new, American's have been complaining about European defence spending since at least the end of the Cold War.
Personally I think making this a big issue is long overdue. The US has no obligation to pay for European defence.
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.
Obama let Russia invade Crimea, Turkey edge towards dictatorship, and the Russians prop up the Syrian regime. On defence and security matters Obama is an abject failure.
None of that directly threatened the UK's interests in the way that Trump's NATO policy does. He outright lied to the Prime Minister.
Nothing Mattis said today was unexpected, we knew that the Trump administration was going to press NATO members to meet the 2% target. Nor is the issue new, American's have been complaining about European defence spending since at least the end of the Cold War.
Personally I think making this a big issue is long overdue. The US has no obligation to pay for European defence.
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.
That's nonsense. I'm 100% committed to my wife but if I discovered tomorrow that my wife has been having an affair then that would shake my commitment as she would have betrayed me.
The other NATO members have made a commitment to America that they will spend 2% on GDP. This is a commitment that they agreed and that t he USA is calling to be honoured. If the other nations betray America by failing to attempt to honour their own commitments then why should America continue to honour its commitments?
As of right now America remains 100% committed and the ball is in the court of those currently less than 100% committed to start honouring their own commitments like America and the UK have done so.
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.
Obama let Russia invade Crimea, Turkey edge towards dictatorship, and the Russians prop up the Syrian regime. On defence and security matters Obama is an abject failure.
None of that directly threatened the UK's interests in the way that Trump's NATO policy does. He outright lied to the Prime Minister.
Nothing Mattis said today was unexpected, we knew that the Trump administration was going to press NATO members to meet the 2% target. Nor is the issue new, American's have been complaining about European defence spending since at least the end of the Cold War.
Personally I think making this a big issue is long overdue. The US has no obligation to pay for European defence.
So why lie to Mrs May?
Why has Mrs May misrepresented his position?
Trump is a proven liar. Mrs May isn't. She is clearly extremely credulous though.
What is clear is that any leverage the UK thought friendship with the Trump White House might give in the Brexit negotiations has disappeared in a puff of smoke.
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.
Comments
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 for umpteenth time NATO does not tell us how to spend our money. Why do you think we go through all these debates on defence and strategic defence reviews and arguments over Trident etc if NATO is calling the shots and telling us how to spend our money?
I really don't know how else to put it.
As for not being European, our educational system must be seriously failing if it is turning out people with such a poor grasp of history and geography.
11 OF-9 General * 80,000 = 880,000
49 OF-8 * 30,000 = 1,470,000
114 OF-7 = 1,425,000
141 OF-6 = 387,750
The US armed forces is around 1.4 million. Ours is under 200k in total strength. Why on earth do we need 107 Major Generals ?
Are the Canadians Americans?
Anyway, if only nation states count as nationalities then you cannot be English either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap
But it is not, frankly, very liberal or very democratic in its instincts. And the trouble with it now and with its direction of travel is that it is now in danger of stifling liberal democracy in Europe, because in its desire to control everything and erase - for all practical purposes - the nation state, in its desire to create a "Europe" as a political entity, with citizens and an army and a government and a currency etc, it risks damaging the very forces (liberalism and democracy) which make war unimaginable and risks unleashing the sort of forces whose attachment to liberalism and democracy are tenuous at best (Golden Dawn, the FN etc).
If people are not listened to they will - eventually - make their voices heard but it may be in ways which are far more terrifying and destabilizing than otherwise.
Iceland does not need much of a standing army. The populus, which is about the same size as Coventry has 90,000 guns between them. Could you imagine if Leicester, Wakefield or Wigan had 90,000 guns
As Bev C points out though it does occupy a very important strategic position in the North Atlantic though.
Iceland's defense budget ought to be around $330 million based off of it's GDP. (16.6 billion) - naval or satellite detection assets would be the best use of that cash given its position in the North Atlantic.
Can’t get more civilised than a democratic referendum, a negotiated departure and not a single shot fired. All very British...
If anything it's remarkable how strong a political anchor the EU has been in controlling the fallout of the sovereign debt crisis in the aftermath of 2008 without extremists gaining power.
"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.
I think power should come from the bottom up. In the EU the presumption is the opposite. Judging by what too many senior EU people say, the people are a nuisance - to be ignored or lied to or simply by-passed - and not to be trusted. I don't think such an attitude is good for the long-term political health of either the EU or the countries within it, frankly. And that seems to me to be a risk to the future of Europe. All those civilized values we all like to boast about are not going to survive very well or at all in such a Europe.
May told us that Trump was 100% committed to NATO. Clearly, he lied to her. He cannot be trusted.
Bit embarrassing for May that we slipped below that 2% though !
What the EU has sought to do is to put a blanket over the fire. In that it has been successful for now. But the dry wood is still there. All it needs is a spark. And the cost of the EU's success has been the poverty imposed on the peoples of some of the poorer parts of the EU, the lack of opportunities for the young, their forced emigration - good for them to some extent I accept but still a loss to their countries and families - and countries (such as Italy) stuck in no or low growth for a decade or more.
The fact that we have all these extremist or non-traditional parties developing and growing out of the fringe (5 Stelle / Geert Wilders / AFD / FN / the Austrian one) is not a sign of a health political environment. By all means be self-congratulatory that they have not got power - yet - but it is better for peoples' concerns to be properly listened to and acted on rather than stifled.
Trump is in power now. I would not have voted for him. But if he fails then his brand of politics will be seen as a failure and, with luck, something better will develop. In Europe we're so busy patting ourselves on the back for our civilized values and the fact that we haven't elected an incompetent vulgarian that we're missing what's bubbling under the surface here.
Nah - it's the other way round for me. Those in power should only have as much power as we choose to give them. They are my servants. Not the other way around. They should be grateful that I give them any power at all. Not graciously giving me something back through a word and concept as ugly as subsidiarity.
Those who will not join the Euro left the EU years ago.
Besides that if the Germans and others won't pick up their share of the costs they shouldn't expect the US to pay for them indefinitely. If Germans would rather see NATO fail than spend more on defence they are fools.
Are you happy that Greece was forced into an austerity death spiral in such a 'civilized' manner?
But to quote La Pasionaria: Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.
(And, for clarity, I am NOT comparing the EU to Fascist Spain.)
Napoleon too.
This is bad for Labour and heaven for May - the public are very disconnected - only topics that impact lives directly like rail strikes are breaking through.
Still Labour to hold Stoke looks nailed on.
I feel nauseous
Personally I think making this a big issue is long overdue. The US has no obligation to pay for European defence.
Trust me, I'm a punter.
I've done the maths.
Anyway, I must be off.
All that has been asked is that others in the alliance honour their own commitments they've already agreed to.
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.
The EU on the other hand can do these things. And has done so.
There is no loss of sovereignty with NATO membership - nor the many other treaties we have signed over the years - as they have no power to extend their authority. There is loss of sovereignty with EU membership as it is able to do this.
The other NATO members have made a commitment to America that they will spend 2% on GDP. This is a commitment that they agreed and that t he USA is calling to be honoured. If the other nations betray America by failing to attempt to honour their own commitments then why should America continue to honour its commitments?
As of right now America remains 100% committed and the ball is in the court of those currently less than 100% committed to start honouring their own commitments like America and the UK have done so.
What is clear is that any leverage the UK thought friendship with the Trump White House might give in the Brexit negotiations has disappeared in a puff of smoke.
Failing to demand that other nations honour their agreements would be failing to be 100% committed.
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.