It would be very difficult to hit those targets so soon short of simply ordering a vast amount of equipment. Trump is quite deliberately setting targets he expects to be missed.
In a few days time Trump reports to Putin without any US official present, nor any record being made (well for the US at least). God help us.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
I don’t see how that proves that Obama’s wasn’t popular. People didn’t agree with him on Brexit so therefore they must not like him? I don’t think they argument quite works.
If lots of people were sanguine about Trump you’d expect polls to show a high percentage of don’t knows in place of a high percentage of disapproval of him.
Many of them are reserved seats. The argument about ram packed is fair enough I guess but his point was about a lack of seating room, people would casually use the phrase much the same way, it was so ram packed I couldn't get a seat.
The point was how regular people have to travel, not that he personally was inconvenienced by it but that many people are inconvenienced by it every day.
They were reserved? According to wikipedia that was in coach H where seats aren't reserved. And they wouldn't use the term 'ram packed' if they literally walked past empty seats.
He can make that point without having to make stuff up though.
Seems strange that on the video there are others standing unable to find seats, you also had people saying that they were on the train and couldn't find seats.
You also had Virgin offering to upgrade him to first class?
Why didn't they just direct him towards the obvious unreserved empty seats? Him and the other people standing that Corbyn made a point about?
Because they weren't empty at all? because their dodgy camera angle they released to make it look like empty seats doesn't actually mean there were empty seats is my guess. Maybe the staff present and the other customers standing up are all liars in on some big conspiracy...
A company lied for financial gain. I know everyone will be shocked by this news but sometimes big companies will lie or misdirect the truth if they think it is in their interests.
If you don't think people can easily use slight over exaggerations in casual conversation then you talk to very different people to me. I know many people who would use the phrase ram packed if they couldn't get a seat.
Sky reporting Trump has just told NATO members 2% by next Jan or you are on your own.
Good stuff
It's not. It's genuinely terrifying. He knows full well that Germany cannot do this, either politically or economically, in that time-frame.
I agree that Germany can not do the 2% in 6 months, but Germany can do other stuff than front line military. It could decide to provide air lift and sea replenishment for NATO, it could provide Air Tanker's in large numbers, etc, etc.
If Trump wants to destroy NATO, then let him. Europe should have nothing to do with his childish games any longer.
EDIT: I cannot, *will not* believe that his party, an overtly and explicitly atlanticist party for countless generations, will allow this to stand. But the Stockholm syndrome in the GOP runs deep nowadays.
The trouble is that NATO survives a US withdrawal from it. It is all very well having nothing to do with things, but Europe is in a whole ocean of shit when Don's mate Vladimir has a pop at the Baltic states while the treaty subsists.
NATO will not survive a US withdrawal. The US contribution absolutely dwarfs all the other members and it structures and processes reflect that centrality. There will eventually be a new European security framework in its stead. In the mean time learn Russian and dig a shelter.
Sky reporting Trump has just told NATO members 2% by next Jan or you are on your own.
Good stuff
It's not. It's genuinely terrifying. He knows full well that Germany cannot do this, either politically or economically, in that time-frame.
I agree that Germany can not do the 2% in 6 months, but Germany can do other stuff than front line military. It could decide to provide air lift and sea replenishment for NATO, it could provide Air Tanker's in large numbers, etc, etc.
Maybe. But the point is that he's set a goal which he knows is unachievable. And that applies to Spain and Italy as much as Germany. France could do it, but to do so because Trump has ordered it so publicly makes it very difficult politically.
And whatever happens, it will make not one iota of difference to US defense spending.
So what happened to Malc and Max last night? I assume the offending comments have been expunged, as the records don't show anything other than some light English-baiting from the former.
Narcissistic Yuppie vs Pound Shop Begbie ended in a one all draw of bans after extra time.
That paints quite a picture. Have a KitKat for your efforts.
I had no problems with Malc, but Max was, IMO, loathsome.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
I agree. The 20th century was the Atlantic century. The 21st, the Pacific. None of the European military powers have much in the way of force projection, so from a purely military standpoint, we're not much use to the US. With the US freeing itself from dependence on ME oil, it reduces the importance of the Med/Gulf as well. That, in turn, with reduce the UK's value within the Five Eyes community.
By the end of next week the EU might well need to consider a post-NATO defence and security arrangement. That might focus some minds about striking a deal with the UK.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
I agree. The 20th century was the Atlantic century. The 21st, the Pacific. None of the European military powers have much in the way of force projection, so from a purely military standpoint, we're not much use to the US. With the US freeing itself from dependence on ME oil, it reduces the importance of the Med/Gulf as well. That, in turn, with reduce the UK's value within the Five Eyes community.
Trump doesn't seem to be threatening very much at all in this press conference. Here's a prediction - Germany won't increase defence spending, and the USA won't leave NATO.
Sky reporting Trump has just told NATO members 2% by next Jan or you are on your own.
Not all NATO - Germany, France, Italy and Spain specifically
There is either NATO to there isn't. The US doesn't get to unilaterally amend the terms of the treaty.
I presume it can unilaterally withdraw though - though I've not checked the treaty for its withdrawal processes, nor those of the US for mandating a withdrawal from a treaty, both of which would be relevant.
Trump could of course say that he simply wouldn't honour the treaty, though that would have consequences beyond just Nato.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
I agree. The 20th century was the Atlantic century. The 21st, the Pacific. None of the European military powers have much in the way of force projection, so from a purely military standpoint, we're not much use to the US. With the US freeing itself from dependence on ME oil, it reduces the importance of the Med/Gulf as well. That, in turn, with reduce the UK's value within the Five Eyes community.
Trump doesn't seem to be threatening very much at all in this press conference. Here's a prediction - Germany won't increase defence spending, and the USA won't leave NATO.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
That's a very Eurocentric way of looking at it. The central geopolitical relationship in the 21st century will be that of USA-China. inevitably therefore, what's going on in Europe and the Atlantic is of lesser concern than it was (both in relative and absolute terms). Europe still matters to the US, and everyone else, because there are some upper-middle ranking countries there, and a lot of wealth generated and consumed, as well as the continent punching even higher on soft power. But it won't be the absolutely central concern that it was in the 20th century. Europe's leaders (and its public) need to understand that and adapt.
I agree. The 20th century was the Atlantic century. The 21st, the Pacific. None of the European military powers have much in the way of force projection, so from a purely military standpoint, we're not much use to the US. With the US freeing itself from dependence on ME oil, it reduces the importance of the Med/Gulf as well. That, in turn, with reduce the UK's value within the Five Eyes community.
Perhaps Atlantic/Pacific is the wrong way of looking at it. Putin wants the US to retreat from Eurasia completely so this could be a century defined by attempts to dominate the Old World.
An American First US will see security issues in Latin America as much more vital to its national interests than the Korean peninsula. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump made good on his threat to send troops into Mexico at some point.
Indeed, Leavers are headed for an even bigger mess.
There will be riots in the streets if the promise of the Leavers turns out to be bollocks.
It will be an insult to democracy if Leavers having promised a no deal Brexit wasn't going to happen and then it happens.
Anyone who believed that a No Deal Brexit couldn't possibly happen is either naive or stupid. Any promise made on that basis was similarly naive or mendacious.
It should be bloody obvious that the UK could not lay down conditions to the EU, and that if the EU wasn't willing to play ball on a meaningful negotiation, the only options then would be to either accept the EU's terms or to reject them.
That said, I doubt any meaningful number of voters had their vote swayed by that 'promise', such as it might have been, either singularly or in conjunction of other claims.
I think Trump has misjudged this press conference, he was clearly bluffing about NATO withdrawal earlier. Europe (Except France) won't do much with defence spending.
I think Trump has misjudged this press conference, he was clearly bluffing about NATO withdrawal earlier. Europe (Except France) won't do much with defence spending.
I think Trump has misjudged this press conference, he was clearly bluffing about NATO withdrawal earlier. Europe (Except France) won't do much with defence spending.
Why do you think he's bluffing? He's proven himself perfectly adept so far at withdrawing the US from treaties and international arrangements.
I think Trump has misjudged this press conference, he was clearly bluffing about NATO withdrawal earlier. Europe (Except France) won't do much with defence spending.
Europeans would be bloody stupid not to take his threat seriously.
Indeed, Leavers are headed for an even bigger mess.
There will be riots in the streets if the promise of the Leavers turns out to be bollocks.
It will be an insult to democracy if Leavers having promised a no deal Brexit wasn't going to happen and then it happens.
Anyone who believed that a No Deal Brexit couldn't possibly happen is either naive or stupid. Any promise made on that basis was similarly naive or mendacious.
It should be bloody obvious that the UK could not lay down conditions to the EU, and that if the EU wasn't willing to play ball on a meaningful negotiation, the only options then would be to either accept the EU's terms or to reject them.
That said, I doubt any meaningful number of voters had their vote swayed by that 'promise', such as it might have been, either singularly or in conjunction of other claims.
There’s plenty of footage of Leavers saying No Deal was Project Fear.
Trump doesn't seem to be threatening very much at all in this press conference. Here's a prediction - Germany won't increase defence spending, and the USA won't leave NATO.
Germany will pledge increased spending on French but not American arms, at some indeterminate point in the future. America will pull out of Germany thus damaging the German economy as well as its defence. Half a dozen buglers will leave immediately with the rest to follow, also at some point in the distant future.
I think Trump has misjudged this press conference, he was clearly bluffing about NATO withdrawal earlier. Europe (Except France) won't do much with defence spending.
Why do you think he's bluffing? He's proven himself perfectly adept so far at withdrawing the US from treaties and international arrangements.
The US military gives him the horn in a way climate change or trading arrangements with Mexico don't.
Love him or hate him this increased spending will give a massive boost to US military sales
That is of course Trump's idea but Macron will be handing out glossy brochures and showing Youtube videos from Dassault and other French makers while warning against further dependence on the unreliable Anglosphere.
Indeed, Leavers are headed for an even bigger mess.
There will be riots in the streets if the promise of the Leavers turns out to be bollocks.
It will be an insult to democracy if Leavers having promised a no deal Brexit wasn't going to happen and then it happens.
Anyone who believed that a No Deal Brexit couldn't possibly happen is either naive or stupid. Any promise made on that basis was similarly naive or mendacious.
It should be bloody obvious that the UK could not lay down conditions to the EU, and that if the EU wasn't willing to play ball on a meaningful negotiation, the only options then would be to either accept the EU's terms or to reject them.
That said, I doubt any meaningful number of voters had their vote swayed by that 'promise', such as it might have been, either singularly or in conjunction of other claims.
I think Trump has misjudged this press conference, he was clearly bluffing about NATO withdrawal earlier. Europe (Except France) won't do much with defence spending.
Why do you think he's bluffing? He's proven himself perfectly adept so far at withdrawing the US from treaties and international arrangements.
Thus far Congress, particularly the Senate, has not challenged him. That is likely to change if the NATO treaty is at stake, and the territory is then not well charted...
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted....
Trump's speaking is very repetitive. He says the same thing over and over again with only minor variation. Presumably he's leaned to do this from his television days to make life easier for the editors.
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.
The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.
Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.
Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Both liars, move on from marriages when it suits them and are friends of the Russians.
What has Corbyn lied about ?
Dissembling and sophistry rather than lying, possibly, about his relationships with Islamic radicals, Irish terrorists and anti-semites
Trump's speaking is very repetitive. He says the same thing over and over again with only minor variation. Presumably he's leaned to do this from his television days to make life easier for the editors.
I don't think he's doing anything to make any lives easier, Trump's manner of speaking is due to him being inarticulate and stupid.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.
The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
The difference is the EU is not yet a country and the UK had stayed out of most of the most Federal bits like the Euro and Schengen. In 1921 the UK the Irish Free State broke away from was very much a country
There's also the whole Ireland being incorporated into the United Kingdom by force and losing 2/3 of its population to famine and emigration aspect. Quite different to a voluntary union.
It was incorporated into the UK through a vote by the Irish Parliament.
Which definitely reflected the will of the people. Most of whom couldn't vote.
It reflected the will of the electorate at the time. Of course this was in an era of restricted franchise.
On your methodology, for example, it's arguable that Catholic Emancipation didn't reflect the "will of the people"
Comments
There will be riots in the streets if the promise of the Leavers turns out to be bollocks.
It will be an insult to democracy if Leavers having promised a no deal Brexit wasn't going to happen and then it happens.
What, is he a defence analyst now?
In a few days time Trump reports to Putin without any US official present, nor any record being made (well for the US at least). God help us.
If lots of people were sanguine about Trump you’d expect polls to show a high percentage of don’t knows in place of a high percentage of disapproval of him.
You also had Virgin offering to upgrade him to first class?
Why didn't they just direct him towards the obvious unreserved empty seats? Him and the other people standing that Corbyn made a point about?
Because they weren't empty at all? because their dodgy camera angle they released to make it look like empty seats doesn't actually mean there were empty seats is my guess. Maybe the staff present and the other customers standing up are all liars in on some big conspiracy...
A company lied for financial gain. I know everyone will be shocked by this news but sometimes big companies will lie or misdirect the truth if they think it is in their interests.
If you don't think people can easily use slight over exaggerations in casual conversation then you talk to very different people to me. I know many people who would use the phrase ram packed if they couldn't get a seat.
Nevis: how the world’s most secretive offshore haven refuses to clean up
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/12/nevis-how-the-worlds-most-secretive-offshore-haven-refuses-to-clean-up
The US doesn't get to unilaterally amend the terms of the treaty.
Both houses of Congress have just made their opinion crystal clear:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396536-house-passes-resolution-in-support-of-nato-by-unanimous-voice-vote
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396399-senate-overwhelmingly-passes-resolution-supporting-nato-as-trump
And whatever happens, it will make not one iota of difference to US defense spending.
By the end of next week the EU might well need to consider a post-NATO defence and security arrangement. That might focus some minds about striking a deal with the UK.
I think I could remove the mights now.
Mr. glw, intrigued to see in what way May will bugger that up.
Trump could of course say that he simply wouldn't honour the treaty, though that would have consequences beyond just Nato.
Another barrier to our rejoining the EU in the next decade is being removed.
I am a very stable genius
An American First US will see security issues in Latin America as much more vital to its national interests than the Korean peninsula. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump made good on his threat to send troops into Mexico at some point.
It should be bloody obvious that the UK could not lay down conditions to the EU, and that if the EU wasn't willing to play ball on a meaningful negotiation, the only options then would be to either accept the EU's terms or to reject them.
That said, I doubt any meaningful number of voters had their vote swayed by that 'promise', such as it might have been, either singularly or in conjunction of other claims.
It will be their ‘We abolished boom and bust’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
I don't believe I have said that
Brexit means Brexit
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted....
Thanks for the welcomes and +1s
@EuropeElects
52m52 minutes ago
UK, Survation poll:
Scottish Independence Referendum
18-24 | YES 71%, NO 29%
25-34 | YES 63%, NO 37%
35-44 | YES 54%, NO 46%
45-54 | YES 46%, NO 54%
55-64 | YES 36%, NO 64%
65+ | YES 31%, NO 69%
Overall: YES 47%, NO 53%
Field work: 05/07/18–10/07/18
Sample size: 1,002
#indyref2 #Brexit #ScotRef"
I've heard retirees aren't averse to a drop of sherry for elevenses.
When you sober up you'll realise what he's saying and ow he's saying it would embarrass a 10 year old from Hartlepool
Why do so many pro Europeans repeat the myth that Europe is the world's largest economy? By any credible metric it isn't.
Even pre Brexit the USA has a bigger economy than Europe. By PPP so does China.
The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.
Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.
Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.
On your methodology, for example, it's arguable that Catholic Emancipation didn't reflect the "will of the people"
US 18.57
EU 20.9
China 11.2
Well, what do you know?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)