sarissa said:

glw said:

Sean_F said:

I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.

Trump claims it's over 4%, which is all that will matter to him. If he starts insisting on 4%, irrespective of what NATO agrees to, he's likely to keep repeating it.

Has he told the CIA?

From their World Factbook

4.24% of GDP (2012)
3.83% of GDP (2013)
3.51% of GDP (2014)
3.3% of GDP (2015)
3.29% of GDP (2016)
spending maintained in 2017
Trump requested 10% cash increase for 2018 followed by 9% for 2019.

If US GDP has increased by 2.9 and 2.2% in the last two years, defence spending must surely be under 4% of GDP currently.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, which includes health care for vets, is also included in that number, which means it isn't comparable with the UK, for example.

Federer is out.

sarissa said:

glw said:

Sean_F said:

I think that even the US might find it hard to meet 4%.

Trump claims it's over 4%, which is all that will matter to him. If he starts insisting on 4%, irrespective of what NATO agrees to, he's likely to keep repeating it.

Has he told the CIA?

From their World Factbook

4.24% of GDP (2012)
3.83% of GDP (2013)
3.51% of GDP (2014)
3.3% of GDP (2015)
3.29% of GDP (2016)
spending maintained in 2017
Trump requested 10% cash increase for 2018 followed by 9% for 2019.

If US GDP has increased by 2.9 and 2.2% in the last two years, defence spending must surely be under 4% of GDP currently.

You are using real gdp, not nominal.

kle4 said:

I think the answer to this thread header is pretty simple - Corbyn is not that awesome, certainly not as awesome as his true believers pretend (nor was May at the height of her powers), and people are recognising that, particularly after the high of a better than expected GE performance made even those opposed to him think better of him.

Unfortunately for his internal and external opponents the GE proved that even when many are blatantly not fans of his, they will still vote for him in droves, and that might well continue.

Yes but be needs to win Tory voters for an overall majority as Labour are still 64 seats short of that

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

I think the answer to this thread header is pretty simple - Corbyn is not that awesome, certainly not as awesome as his true believers pretend (nor was May at the height of her powers), and people are recognising that, particularly after the high of a better than expected GE performance made even those opposed to him think better of him.

Unfortunately for his internal and external opponents the GE proved that even when many are blatantly not fans of his, they will still vote for him in droves, and that might well continue.

Yes but be needs to win Tory voters for an overall majority as Labour are still 64 seats short of that

That, or he needs Tory voters not to turn out. It's not a certainty, to be sure.

grabcocque said:

Trump is trying to destroy NATO.

Let him.

You are Vladimir Putin and I claim my five roubles.

Brexiteer finds slight flaw in Brexit...

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1017082077202837504

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

These amendments look like they could have the unintended consequence of softening the Chequers deal even further and keeping the whole UK in the customs union.

https://twitter.com/zachjourno/status/1017057552453029889

But it is clear that there are now effectively two Tory parties in the H of C - ERG with perhaps 80-100 MPs and May supporters with 200 + MPs. Theoretically they are all in the same party but on the defining issue of the day, namely Brexit, they are mortal enemies.

Yeh, it is the Corn Laws redux.

The rest of us are caught in the middle.

glw said:

Get a load of this.

Trump asked NATO to formally raise its target (5:16 p.m.)

“President Trump, who spoke, raised the question not just to reach 2%, today, but set a new target - 4%. He just left after he announced that,” Bulgarian president Rumen Radev told reporters, according to BNR public radio.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-11/trump-strikes-combative-tone-as-leaders-arrive-nato-update

I think Trump is deliberately trying to make meeting the NATO target impossible.

That's an interesting possibility. If Trump is seeking to disrupt NATO, for whatever arcane reason, giving them impossible demands would be one way to do it. His position of urging Europeans to arm to the teeth against a possible foe (which presumably is Russia, who else?) while openly nourishing cordial ties with Putin is otherwise hard to explain. If people say sod off, we're not going to double our spending (as they will, in politer terms), he can start pulling back troops and say it was Europe's fault, which saves him money (or frees troops to deploy in Asia) and pleases Putin.

Conspiracy theory? Perhaps.

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Sean_F said:

geoffw said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

"Ulrike E Franke
‏ @RikeFranke

New poll on German views on defence spending.

Spending 1.5% GDP on defence (current goal) is ABOUT RIGHT: 24%

1.5% is TOO MUCH: 36%

In favour of spending MORE than 1.5% GDP: 15%

No answer: 25%

#NATOSummit
https://amp.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article179144290/Umfrage-Deutsche-sind-klar-gegen-Erhoehung-von-Militaerausgaben.html?__twitter_impression=true …
9 replies 35 retweets 34 likes"

Does Trump really want Germany to increase defence spending? Because the way he's going about it seems designed to prevent it. The Chancellor of Germany cannot be seen to "give in" to shouted demands by the US President. It's like the Asian concept of face.

Well then Trump will withdraw more troops from Europe anyway and leave Germany and it's European allies to decide whether they can afford to hold off Putin with the armed forces they have if absolutely necessary

Trump's tirade to Stoltenberg about Germany's simultaneous dependence on Russian gas and American defence spending could be the beginning of an existential crisis for NATO.

Trump is right in principle, but hectoring people to do your bidding usually achieves the opposite result.

Oh yes, he is right, and it's about time this issue was more openly discussed. The combination of German support (via Schröder's chairmanship) of Putin's Nordstream project (gasline through the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea to Greifswald in Germany) bypassing Poland and Ukraine together with Merkel's crazy "green" policies of discontinuing coal and nuclear comprise a clear strategic threat to Western Europe.

Actually, no they don't.

Western Europe is more energy independent now than at any time in the last 40 years. The combination of Norway, LNG, alternative power sources, and lower energy demand mean it is imports only around 30% of its calories now, compared to around 50% at the start of the 1970s, and the number is falling every year. (It's even falling in Germany.)

Well it is clear that Germany has achieved an amazing switch to renewable sources and away from dependence on fossile and nuclear energy, but where does the baseload come from if coal and nuclear are in desuetude? Gas it must be, and German dependence on Nordstream looks pretty stark to me.

HYUFD said:

May avoids Trump handshake at NATO summit and passes him over to Jeremy Hunt instead

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5942419/Theresa-dodges-Donald-trump-handshake-Nato.html

Good for her.

Feeling very Tripp-y right now