EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That may well be true, and I'm not sure who here is arguing for full equality and kumbayah.
It still doesn't mean we have to devote our societies to increasing inequality, wish for ourselves and others to be worse off and generally engage in some kind of nihilism if we're not among the rich elites.
One could just as well say that the fight for more equality is about as old and inevitable as the inequality itself.
Besides, humans have a tiny bit more intelligence, technology and potential than quite a few of the other mammals, so far at least.

Is that what you tell failed business entrpreneurs?

---

We don't have to - but that is the psyche of many. In the USA most know things are unequal but with their optimism that flies in the face of all the evidence they think they'll get in on the gravy train before long rather than realising that they would be helped. That doesn't really bode well for having more intelligence - or indeed potential than other mammals...

If resources were given to activities that the average person wanted, museums and theatres would be in trouble whereas the BBC would have rights to all the footie.

Entrepreneurs often try something different to get a different result, accepting that reality will be the same so their approach has to differ. To undertake the same activity hoping that reality will alter to get a different result is less likely to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Funding libraries and what they stand for, Sure Start and similar schemes, such as previous governments had done, would be one way of realising these aspirations. What I'm asking for isn't unrealistic; it's what had been done in the past. What is different is the normalisation of concentration of wealth and power, starting with Austerity and continuing with Brexit. Starve existing programmes that provide opportunity, and call the vacuum that eventuates society as it naturally is. No it's not. It's society as you've shaped it.

---

Get up to the 21st Century! There are hundreds of thousands of books for free download, thousands of free online courses. If people can afford their latest phone I'm sure they could get a kindle and read, or a laptop. Schooling used to be limited to 12, then 14, 16, 18 and now increasingly until 21. The increased investment in education has been immense. Of course, the amount that has been learned has remained about the same.

What do Libraries stand for? Hope against reality? The few times I have visited they're hardly packed with people. I do not see how giving more money is going to somehow change the nature of people. It is so sweet that you so desperately want people to be wanting more education and to better themselves and think that if only for the want of investment all would improve. But that is a fantasy. For the few who genuinely do want to escape the dross they have been born into, there's also the "crab bucket" effect to contend with.

Could you point to the Golden Ages of yore of which you speak? Pre-1918 when most were disenfranchised? Pre WW2 and the Great Recession? The good old days of going to the IMF and the three day week? Did your version of Boys from the Blackstuff have them all reading slim versions of Keats of an evening and were oh so grateful that the library was well stocked?

A system such as the Nordics would be very different. But even there as their countries start being less homogeneous more are wondering whether they are seeing value for money.

I've shaped society? I've never even lived in a marginal seat my entire adult life! As I've often said, the electoral system in the UK is rotten to the core

~:smoking:

Inequality rising?

https://news.sky.com/story/inequalit...nging-11232312
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...in-since-2008/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1JZ02Q

Quote:

---

Brexit Secretary David Davis has resigned because he was not willing to be “a reluctant conscript” to Prime Minister Theresa May’s European Union exit plan, delivering a blow to a British leader struggling to end divisions in her cabinet.

---

Brexit coming along as planned. Sounds like he is an expert on exiting something. A true Daxit.

Bo-jo too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Bo-jo too.

---

Yes: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bor...-live-updates/

Makes you wonder whether the May-flower will ever reach the promised land. :clown:

Majority of people were happy with Bojo going.

Unfortunately 'unt is still sat there peachy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Majority of people were happy with Bojo going.

Unfortunately 'unt is still sat there peachy...

---

Angus Deayton should be the new Foreign Secretary. Boris Johnson's only qualification for his political career has been his experience at hosting HIGNFY, and Deayton has him beat there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bor...-live-updates/

Makes you wonder whether the May-flower will ever reach the promised land. :clown:

---

It made it, but then anchored for the winter and 1/3 of them died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Angus Deayton should be the new Foreign Secretary. Boris Johnson's only qualification for his political career has been his experience at hosting HIGNFY, and Deayton has him beat there.

---

On plus side, 'unt is no longer secretary for health.

Wasn't there a protest for Pro-Remain recently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

On plus side, 'unt is no longer secretary for health.

---

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

---

Don't utter specious foolishness.

If you want to tax more to spend more on worthy social interventions, then get YOUR side to win some elections.

Until then spending will be made to fit the tax base. And the tories are pretty certain that the electorate will remain broadly content with taxation and spending sticking to the historic trend of high thirties.

Don't be disappointed when people who disagree with you don't do the things you want. Win the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

---

All GPs have always been Private. Do you know how much GPs are whining that they might be made salaried?
Most consultants do Private work. Some earn more from the private work than from the NHS. Bevan famously described as having bought the support of the consultants by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” The NHS right from the start bought off the doctors. There was no selfless sacrifice, only greed.
Many others have their hands out to receive money from Pharmaceutical companies. Some for clinical studies, others just to parrot their selling message.

Many of the buildings are PFI - which is basically privatising by the back door. But that was Labour so it's fine.

But you're right. Privatising itself is Eeeeevil and no further details are required! If it worked for British Leyland it must work for all the NHS!!!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

All GPs have always been Private. Do you know how much GPs are whining that they might be made salaried?
Most consultants do Private work. Some earn more from the private work than from the NHS. Bevan famously described as having bought the support of the consultants by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” The NHS right from the start bought off the doctors. There was no selfless sacrifice, only greed.

---

What you notice is that radical restructuring of society or government requires stakeholders be brought on board.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/nh...ort/119803.stm

Quote:

---

Overnight, the patchwork provision of medical services, which left millions of people with little or no reliable health care, was swept away. But the establishment of the new health service was strongly opposed by the Conservative Party and by the Doctor's professional body, the British Medical Association (BMA).

---

Quote:

---

But if Bevan was to establish his health service, he needed the co-operation of the doctors. After all, the NHS could not operate without doctors.

---

Quote:

---

Non co-operation

Once the Health Bill became an act in the closing months of 1946, the BMA immediately adopted a policy of non co-operation with the health service and refused to negotiate with the minister on their conditions of service.

But Bevan was determined to prevent a sectional interest derail an act of Parliament. He described the BMA as a, "small body of politically poisoned people" who had decided "to fight the Health Act itself and to stir up as much emotion as they can in the profession."

But as Bevan's stormy relationship with the BMA carried on into 1948, the minister luckily managed to strike up a working relationship with the Royal College of Physicians headed by Churchill's personal doctor Lord Moran.

'Stuffing their mouths with gold'

By allowing the consultants to work inside the health service and at the same time still treat their lucrative private patients, Bevan bought the backing of the consultants by, as he put it, "stuffing their mouths with gold."

Opposition among BMA members was now declining as well. The doctors began to realise that by refusing to treat health service patients they would lose a substantial source of income, and when Bevan promised legislation that ensured they would not become salaried civil servents, the doctors ended their resistance.

But Bevan had managed to take from them the right to buy and sell practices.

---

Pessimism has value, but sometimes one has to recall one's capacity to do when there exists commitment.


And an interesting factoid about the Labor Party is that, before being amended in 1995, the Party Constitution/Rule Book said this:

Quote:

---

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

---

It was replaced (in '95) with:

Quote:

---

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect'.

---

Apparently Corbyn doesn't feel like amending it further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What you notice is that radical restructuring of society or government requires stakeholders be brought on board.

---

"Brought on board" sounds so much nicer than "bribed", doesn't it? Such realities are lost in the rosy-eyed mists of how the NHS was created and everyone did it for the goodness of all, rather than venal self interest.

So, a radical change required paying off one set of doctors and not addressing the other lot - there never has been a completely government run NHS. So when those worry about "privatisation" - which I agree is certainly not something to allow without considerable oversight - the context needs to be given which is that a large portion already is Private and was never, ever not Private.

Labour might have that in their manifesto, but their party is littered with names who have accrued all the power and privilege they can lay their hands on with scant regard for the masses.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

"Brought on board" sounds so much nicer than "bribed", doesn't it? Such realities are lost in the rosy-eyed mists of how the NHS was created and everyone did it for the goodness of all, rather than venal self interest.

So, a radical change required paying off one set of doctors and not addressing the other lot - there never has been a completely government run NHS. So when those worry about "privatisation" - which I agree is certainly not something to allow without considerable oversight - the context needs to be given which is that a large portion already is Private and was never, ever not Private.

Labour might have that in their manifesto, but their party is littered with names who have accrued all the power and privilege they can lay their hands on with scant regard for the masses.

~:smoking:

---

I'm sure the mid-century socialists wanted to keep expanding public oversight of these sectors, and being pragmatic knew that you can't have everything at once. It was in their party line, after all -literally. The question is then, is/was the NHS a sturdy base from which to expand?

In the second part, I was specifically calling attention to the change in wording between the 20th and 21st century Labor parties, which jells with (as noted in your aside) a more privatization-friendly party. And so making it more noteworthy that Corbyn has hesitated to offer his own amendment.

So, how long before "Leave" starts asserting that this year's FIFA performance is because of the leave vote generating a greater sense of British national pride?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

So, how long before "Leave" starts asserting that this year's FIFA performance is because of the leave vote generating a greater sense of British national pride?

---

It would depend on how much the claimer knows about football. England's football so far has been ugly as heck.

1. Get the ball to the final third as quickly as possible.
2. Collapse at the slightest contact, drawing a free kick or a corner.
3. Load the box with big men.

Scientific football at its most cynical. Hugely helped by two knock out opponents who had no intention of playing football.

Oh, and Facebook have been given the maximum fine for their Cambridge shenanigans. While Aaron Banks has been meeting up with the Russian ambassador regularly, way more frequently than he's admitted to. While his business partner has been given lucrative oligarch-style business contracts. Leave was funded by Russia.

It wasn't the maximum fine by about £480 million or so.

They took roughly 80 million users data over years and paid 1/2 a million. Many firms would pay a lot more for that data for a single use. Facebook got a bargain.


~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Leave was funded by Russia.

---

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Russia is using a psychological divide and conquer strategy to basically break up NATO and the EU. And the refugee stuff is helping them a lot as well, which might explain some of their actions in Syria. If they can manage to get the EU to disband itself while the US isolates itself, they will be the European hegemon more or less. They will control a lot of resources (gas), have the largest population and the strongest military. And the euro far right parties often like them anyway because they like strong, manly leaders with homophobia and xenophobia or whatever. :shrug:

If European NATO members spent the 2% Europe would be a lot stronger given some are closer to 1 % and so would (if they wanted) almost double the offensive capacity of their military. To compare, Russia spends over 5%. That strength doesn't need the EU.

Russia is fighting to keep warm water ports for its Navy... Which the USA / UK / France and others already have - and most in safer places.

Russia's population is actually declining. Their economy is pretty bad with massive upset as the pension age is now above life expectancy (which is rather low). They have fractious Islamists along most of their south border... except for when it is China and North Korea. Lucky them.

Yes, they are a regional power, and one to be respected if not liked. Most Europeans have been happy to have the USA as their safety blanket and skimp on paying themselves. But if they are more powerful than Germany and France, that is the choice of Germany and France.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It wasn't the maximum fine by about £480 million or so.

They took roughly 80 million users data over years and paid 1/2 a million. Many firms would pay a lot more for that data for a single use. Facebook got a bargain.


~:smoking:

---

Explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If European NATO members spent the 2% Europe would be a lot stronger given some are closer to 1 % and so would (if they wanted) almost double the offensive capacity of their military.

---

That's not the whole story. The German military didn't even spend its entire budget in past years and was still unable to keep its machinery in operational condition. Not every problem is fixed just by throwing money at it.

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...
And then, before you know, it, France is not using its military to keep Russia at bay, but to stop the AfD forces from conquering the French Airbus factories so they can keep their job promises... :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Russia is using a psychological divide and conquer strategy to basically break up NATO and the EU. And the refugee stuff is helping them a lot as well, which might explain some of their actions in Syria. If they can manage to get the EU to disband itself while the US isolates itself, they will be the European hegemon more or less. They will control a lot of resources (gas), have the largest population and the strongest military. And the euro far right parties often like them anyway because they like strong, manly leaders with homophobia and xenophobia or whatever. :shrug:

---

much of the west european populist right is very gay friendly these days, so i'm told.

the fronte nationale even have a chap called Florian Philipott!

the eastern european populist right is rather different, admittedly. in poland right now, and left or right they're grumbling about nord-stream, and less than sympathetic to the excuses of those nations with better things to do than fund collective defence.

"hello, this is what the front line looks like..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's not the whole story. The German military didn't even spend its entire budget in past years and was still unable to keep its machinery in operational condition. Not every problem is fixed just by throwing money at it.

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...
And then, before you know, it, France is not using its military to keep Russia at bay, but to stop the AfD forces from conquering the French Airbus factories so they can keep their job promises... :creep:

---

I imagine that Industry needs to be assured that they will get work every year otherwise the investment in factories etc will be wasted. No, not just money but a 5 or better 10 year plan where 2% is to be spent every year.

Every country for one country? Really, Russia is the only problem in the European sphere? I think not. And I understand that Germany has some reservations about the Military tail wagging the dog, but I think that even 2% GDP will not suddenly mean there'll be issues.

And yes, part of having the ability to have a military means ongoing expenditure since procurement is often years, so it is not possible to only have resources when they are required.

~:smoking:

Croatia ekes out a win in overtime. Sadly, this likely means a French victory. If I could only learn to like the French....but alas, other than our Louis, I rarely can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Croatia ekes out a win in overtime. Sadly, this likely means a French victory. If I could only learn to like the French....but alas, other than our Louis, I rarely can.

---

And this news bears on Brexit because...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And this news bears on Brexit because...

---

It is Brexit "The World Cup" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...

---

Two percent doesn't pay for a 'large' military, most militaries cost a lot more now for a lot less soldiers and equipment than in the past. The maintenance of a minimum spending at the very least allows for a respectable skeleton force that has enough experience and personnel to expand if say a new WW3 or something was on the horizon.
The danger of the military being used for every problem isn't too common outside the context of the current 'regional hegemons' and the USA. I highly doubt we'll see the militaries in Europe exerting the type of influence like the used to in Pre-WW2 Germany and France or so bold as to do attempted coup attempts anymore like in 1961 French-Algeria.
You pointed out the problems of the budget not being spent yet the German military having too much equipment 'down', which is a problem throwing more money at won't help. It should however cause Germany for example to at the least take a look at how to correct these down times for equipment.
As a pro-NATO guy and an anglophile I do worry though about the effects that BREXIT will have on the UK and its role in NATO. If this causes Scotland and Northern Ireland to split I fear that the remaining England will only maintain a token capability for force projection and just be a territorial and coastal defense force. France would be the only credible military in Western Europe but they really only care for using their military in maintaining influence in their former African colonies and the Mediterranean periphery.

For perspective here's some historical NATO spending by percentage:
Military Expenditure Trends for 1960–2014 and
What They Reveal
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...758-5899.12328
Attachment 20899

The above shows at the least that Trumps four percent goal wasn't even attained by most NATO countries during the Cold War after the various colonial wars ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

As a pro-NATO guy and an anglophile I do worry though about the effects that BREXIT will have on the UK and its role in NATO. If this causes Scotland and Northern Ireland to split I fear that the remaining England will only maintain a token capability for force projection and just be a territorial and coastal defense force. France would be the only credible military in Western Europe but they really only care for using their military in maintaining influence in their former African colonies and the Mediterranean periphery.

---

Russia has got excellent value for the money it's spent on Leave. And Leave supporters won't even admit Russia's part in their cause.

Office topic but kinda on, why is that guy called Juncker, shouldn't it be Druncker? Manmanman that guy..... completily wasted at the Nato-summit. Backproblem, but of course...

Shamefull..... A perfect fit voor the EU, a senile old alcoholic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Office topic but kinda on, why is that guy called Juncker, shouldn't it be Druncker? Manmanman that guy..... completily wasted at the Nato-summit. Backproblem, but of course...

Shamefull..... A perfect fit voor the EU, a senile old alcoholic

---

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

---

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

---

Isn't it in a recent interview?

In other news, in addition to the Sun giving Trump a platform to say the above on a visit to the UK, the Telegraph is now accusing May of treason. Do Leavers want another Jo Cox on their hands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In other news, in addition to the Sun giving Trump a platform to say the above on a visit to the UK, the Telegraph is now accusing May of treason. Do Leavers want another Jo Cox on their hands?

---

Jo Cox is not on 'Leavers' hands.

Thoughts on the White Paper:

Excellent: "In keeping with the spirit of Article 50, and both sides’ commitment to the principle that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, the Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship are inextricably linked-concluded together"

Suspected as much: "These arrangements, which could take the form of an [Association Agreement], would ensure the new settlement is sustainable – working for the citizens of the UK and the EU now and in the future."

Tee-hee, what's the phrase - nothing is agreed until... "Europe’s security has been and will remain the UK’s security, which is why the Government has made an unconditional commitment to maintain it." ... everything is agreed!

Clever - given the progressivist nature of EU social democracy, they will diverge from us rather than us from them: "reciprocal commitments to maintain current high standards through non-regression provisions in other areas, such as environmental and employment."

So, they don't collect, we just deduct from remittances sent on to the EU? "tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU. However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border"

Two bites at the cherry? I presume we'd also have individual membership at the likes of UNECE: "UK would also seek participation – as an active participant, albeit without voting rights–in EU technical committees that have a role in designing and implementing rules"

Careful, you could get Corbyn! "The UK has an excellent record on compliance, and has been among the lowest granters of state aid as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the EU. In 2016 the UK gave 0.3% of GDP as state aid, half the EU average of 0.7%."

ROFL, virtually nothing flies over Ireland that hasn't already flown over the UK, geddit? "the UK’s geographical position in the network is key, with around 80 per cent of all North Atlantic traffic passing through UK or Irish controlled airspace."

Don't lose sight of the fact that the UK is a security exporter! "UK created over 1.4 million alerts on SIS II. UK authorities registered almost 10,000 hits against alerts put on the system by other countries,many of which were related to people linked to terrorism"

This exposes why regulatory sovereignty on services is necessary, it's a foreign policy WMD: "Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act provides for national powers to impose sanctions. These powers will enable the UK to act in support of foreign policy objectives."

Galileo and Trumpian sympathy for accepting the security but rejecting the invoice: "The EU has put forward proposals which have the effect of ending UK participation. UK and the EU must work through issues relating to access to security-related elements urgently"

Rejecting the Swiss guillotine: "Joint Committee should consider the possibility to recognise equivalence of legislation. Where there was no agreement over these measures, or they were not possible, the relevant part of the future relationship could be suspended."

Trying to dodge the CJEU's penchant for judicial activism in pursuit of ever-closer-union? "The CJEU would only have a role in relation to the interpretation of those EU rules to which the UK had agreed to adhere as a matter of international law."

This is relevant to all areas covered by the common rulebook, but what about many of the many areas that are not? Efta... "The UK recognises that only the CJEU can bind the EU on the interpretation of EU law, and therefore in these instances"

Efta again...? "However, there may be times where unexpected events mean that the parties need to respond quickly, and with provisions that would otherwise be in breach of the agreements. Any measures would be subject to challenge through independent arbitration."

Seems perfectly acceptable, but let's see what it looks like out the other end of the sausage machine. Perhaps hopeful that May seems to have sewn up a deal with Merkel, but Merkel has already screwed up once, with cameron in the renegotiation in January 2016!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

---

Quote:

---

BBC interviewed the Sun reporter who said Sanders tried to end the interview but Trump “swatted her away” and “kept on talking” well beyond the allotted 10 min

His final impression: “He is unchallenged in his own organization, it’s like being in the court of a medieval emperor”

---

It doesn't seem that hypothetical to me. Even the Sun reporter getting a headliner thought Trump was going beyond the pale. I'd like to know how you thought his sciatica was affecting what he was saying though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It doesn't seem that hypothetical to me. Even the Sun reporter getting a headliner thought Trump was going beyond the pale. I'd like to know how you thought his sciatica was affecting what he was saying though.

---

i was taking the mickey out of all the #FPBE twitterbots excusing Junkcers NATO performance as 'sciatica', rather than the result of being completely hammered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

---

Did he

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Did he

---

Yeah he did. Even the tabloid reporter interviewing him was appalled and tried to end the interview. I don't know what Juncker did and I don't care either if it doesn't affect Britain. But what do you think of Trump telling us that we should do Brexit differently, and that someone else would make for a better PM? IIRC you've talked before about being dictated to by the EU. Does this count as being dictated to by the US?

Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does this count as being dictated to by the US?

Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.

---

If we felt like we had to abide by his views, yes. Otherwise, he's just another blow-hard.

The same as I think of lefty's screaming "FASCIST!" at everything with a pulse. If we were being run by a fascist I'd feel justified at taking a pop, under the principle of lawful rebellion, but unfortunately for me I consider it an obligation to weigh judgment on what other people say before I rush to act, you know; like we expect of any adult of sound mind. and as such I'd conclude that these words are not merited and nor too would any consequent action be. Free to act, obliged to live with the consequences of [my] actions.

[QUOTE=Pannonian;2053779659
Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.[/QUOTE]

Design by media, it happens. They are ding the exact same tuingereedschap tot Thierry Baudet (rising star) as they die wih Fortuyn. What can I say it is wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Two percent doesn't pay for a 'large' military, most militaries cost a lot more now for a lot less soldiers and equipment than in the past. The maintenance of a minimum spending at the very least allows for a respectable skeleton force that has enough experience and personnel to expand if say a new WW3 or something was on the horizon.

---

Well, WW1 has shown that uparming can make a World War more likely. I'll also give you that WW2 has shown that total appeasement can also make a World War more likely. Noone here is arguing for total disarmament though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

You pointed out the problems of the budget not being spent yet the German military having too much equipment 'down', which is a problem throwing more money at won't help. It should however cause Germany for example to at the least take a look at how to correct these down times for equipment.

---

Funnily enough, now that you say it, I don't recall where, but I remember hearing lately that this was caused by introducing the American model of not stockpiling spareparts to save storage costs. Kind of a just-in-time delivery except that the reality turned out to be more of a way-too-late delivery of spare parts. :sweatdrop:
Maybe the US industry is much more used to constantly supplying new things or has more competition left that forces them to step up their game a bit.I think EADS is basically almost a monopoly in many European countries now since the smaller manufacturers all consolidated into that one to stay able to compete. Otherwise we'd be comparing F-35s to SU-35s now I guess, decisding whose pawn we'd want to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

The above shows at the least that Trumps four percent goal wasn't even attained by most NATO countries during the Cold War after the various colonial wars ended.

---

What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give. ~;p

By the way: the American NATO general, while saying we should become better, still sees Germany as the second most important contributor to NATO and says there's reason to appreciate German efforts now already: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/n...land-1.4052868

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtis Scaparrotti

Germany is an excellent ally

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give. ~;p

---

Did said elected official of foreign country tell you who your leader of the state should be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Did said elected official of foreign country tell you who your leader of the state should be?

---

Not yet/that I know of. Do you have a link about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Not yet/that I know of. Do you have a link about that?

---

Het basicly said that he doesn't care, that's what I got from it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

---

Trump's usual subtle style in working with others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Did said elected official of foreign country tell you who your leader of the state should be?

---

You do realize that both of our countries have done that sort of thing for a century regarding other nations around the world (though generally sub rosa).

Trump is simply tacky enough to do it to you, and to do so to your face. Proving he is an asshat, and that he believes in achieving the interests of the USA (as he sees them, and quite possibly short-sightedly). If that bugs you, he'll twitter something along the lines of GFY. The man oozes charm from every pore. ~:rolleyes:

It's effective though. What I like about Trump is that's he simply doesn't give a hoot, I kinda enjoy the astonished faces

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What I like about Trump is that's he simply doesn't give a hoot

---

That must be why he keeps whining about his critics on Twitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That must be why he keeps whining about his critics on Twitter.

---

That's smart, to succeed he must be the outsider. Works great. Idontevenwanttocometoyourbirtdayism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You do realize that both of our countries have done that sort of thing for a century regarding other nations around the world (though generally sub rosa).

Trump is simply tacky enough to do it to you, and to do so to your face. Proving he is an asshat, and that he believes in achieving the interests of the USA (as he sees them, and quite possibly short-sightedly). If that bugs you, he'll twitter something along the lines of GFY. The man oozes charm from every pore. ~:rolleyes:

---

Not sure if he's made the explicit threat before, but apparently he threatened to pull out of NATO.

Quote:

---

The most stunning comment came from a source reported by Reuters: “He said they must or the United States would go it alone.”

This was greeted with shocked silence. It had seemed unthinkable: a US president threatening to that the US has regarded as a cornerstone of its military strategy for 69 years.

No one appears to be disputing the words. What is being disputed is the interpretation. Reuters reported Trump as having threatened to quit Nato but then rescinded this. Macron insisted this had not been Trump’s meaning.

But just as alarming was the apparent ultimatum. European leaders who have so far failed to reach Nato’s 2% are talking about achieving this years from now, not by January.

---

Good thing it's a ratified treaty.

How bad a negotiator do you have to be to constantly make threats that everyone knows you can't fulfill, and without parley enact those threats that are simply easy to unilaterally implement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That's smart, to succeed he must be the outsider. Works great. Idontevenwanttocometoyourbirtdayism

---

Why do you think so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That's smart, to succeed he must be the outsider. Works great. Idontevenwanttocometoyourbirtdayism

---

That must be why he tells his followers that he and they are the actual elites who represent some majority, that his inauguration crowd was huge and that he actually did win the popular vote if it weren't for "fake votes" or whatever he calls them.
I can see how he wants to be an outsider when he claims he is friends with all the best people, stuffs lots of lobbyists in his cabinet, claims he is more popular than Obama and Abraham Lincoln................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Not sure if he's made the explicit threat before, but apparently he threatened to pull out of NATO.

---

He bruited about over leaving NATO in his first 6 months or so as well.

He loves taking a choreographed meeting and tossing some kind of turd into the punchbowl. I believe he feels that he is advantaged whenever the others are uncomfortable or wrong footed. Neanderthal negotiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That must be why he tells his followers that he and they are the actual elites who represent some majority, that his inauguration crowd was huge and that he actually did win the popular vote if it weren't for "fake votes" or whatever he calls them.
I can see how he wants to be an outsider when he claims he is friends with all the best people, stuffs lots of lobbyists in his cabinet, claims he is more popular than Obama and Abraham Lincoln................

---

Should be easy to handle no? Except it isn't, not in the way things used to work and they have no answer to it. They respond with contempt and dedain, not understanding they lost again when doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Should be easy to handle no? Except it isn't, not in the way things used to work and they have no answer to it. They respond with contempt and dedain, not understanding they lost again when doing that.

---

The Trump camp has plenty of contempt and disdain, has to be losing as well.

How would you answer him? With compassion and love like a real Gutmensch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

How would you answer him?

---

Unpredictably

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

He bruited about over leaving NATO in his first 6 months or so as well.

He loves taking a choreographed meeting and tossing some kind of turd into the punchbowl. I believe he feels that he is advantaged whenever the others are uncomfortable or wrong footed. Neanderthal negotiation.

---

agreed, because trump isn't playing their game. he delights in being controversially wrong, because the outrage that ensues provides 100% wall to wall coverage of the issues he wants discussed, and his target audience doesn't give monkeys about the details.

it is not a shiny new technique, either. he did the same to beat hillary - hillary: "we wanna talk about hope an schooling" donald: "wanna talk about the 50,000 illegals climbing the fence each month" media: "LIES - it's only 10,000 a month!" donald: *smiles* "now we're talking"

Quote:

---

Well, WW1 has shown that uparming can make a World War more likely. I'll also give you that WW2 has shown that total appeasement can also make a World War more likely. Noone here is arguing for total disarmament though.

---

WW1 shows the dangers of entangling alliances and 'red lines,' all the major powers in Europe had been well armed continuously since the end of the Napoleonic wars brought in relative peace to Europe until the rise of nationalist movements and the post 1848 effects in regards to socialist/liberalism. The Austrians assumed the Russians would stay out of their fight with Serbia, the Germans thought the British would ignore their attack on Belgium, and so on for several years.
South Korea and North Korea have been geared for war since the Korean war and that mutual deterrent has aside from 'border skirmishes' kept the peace.
Being well armed deters aggression, do you think the Ukraine would have been messed with by Russia over Crimea if they hadn't voluntarily surrendered their nuclear arsenal? The only alternate to being well armed is being allied to or guaranteed by a great power ie: Taiwan, the Baltic States, North Vietnam (its alliance with the PRC deterring a US invasion to topple it during Vietnam and instead fighting mostly in South Vietnam).

Quote:

---

Maybe the US industry is much more used to constantly supplying new things or has more competition left that forces them to step up their game a bit.I think EADS is basically almost a monopoly in many European countries now since the smaller manufacturers all consolidated into that one to stay able to compete. Otherwise we'd be comparing F-35s to SU-35s now I guess, decisding whose pawn we'd want to be.

---

It's really an issue of economies of scale. The US has so much equipment and personnel that the reduced rate of readiness is not so easily felt. Our air force has over 5000 planes of many types, Germany has a bit less than 500. If we have an aircraft carrier that needs to be dry docked there are many more available to fill its role. If the F-16 is grounded for safety issues we have other aircraft in large quantities that can be used in their place to continue the mission. Ex: in my national guard unit this year we had most of our trucks deadlined (not allowed for operational use) due a recall of the tires they are using a week before our annual training exercise. We were able to source enough replacement vehicles from within the State of Hawaii to borrow for our training exercise that were able to still get all our training completed while still supporting the lava disaster relief going on in Puna district. If those other trucks hadn't been available we would have been severally hampered in our annual training exercise.
Germany has sold off most of its cold war military stock for easily understandable reasons but seeing as the replacement vehicles and equipment are bought in such small quantities there will never be a ready supply of spares. Look at France, each time their aircraft carrier goes in for maintenance and repairs they essentially lose most of their navy's potential to fight a war or project their will short of lots of midair refueling (like the RAF did during the falklands with the remnants of their V-Bombers).

Quote:

---

Kind of a just-in-time delivery except that the reality turned out to be more of a way-too-late delivery of spare parts.

---

That is very true and frustrating. It is more cost effective but it is at the expense of 'readiness' which in a smaller military like Germany has much larger impacts. My deadlined tires will probably be replaced several months down the line.

Quote:

---

What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give.

---

I wholeheartedly agree and I appreciate that Merkel is working toward 2% though it is at a very slow rate. I understand though that getting any money toward the military in Germany is much more difficult. Spending more than needed and agreed upon however is not something I advocate. So long as our allies contribute to our common defense I'm happy and I truly appreciate their pitching in, in Afghanistan for almost 17 years now when we invoked article 5 after 9/11.

Quote:

---

agreed, because trump isn't playing their game. he delights in being controversially wrong, because the outrage that ensues provides 100% wall to wall coverage of the issues he wants discussed, and his target audience doesn't give monkeys about the details.

---

We are sadly falling for his game every time. His followers will think he's being tough with our allies and getting them to contribute better when he's really causing the viability of NATO as a concept to be doubted by our closest friends.
Telling the UK that we might not make a trade deal with them if they make one with the EU is absolutely insane. Just because Trump wants to dismantle the world order the US and UK built after WW2 and the end of the cold war shouldn't mean he's able to try and blackmail our closest ally. I really wish our Congress would have some stones and do the checks and balances on his apparent ability to create chaos with Tweets and speeches.

The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less. I have cited a case study (by the MIT journal of international security) here before with damning evidence of their conduct in Libya. If it is not to be dismantled, it is in need of major reforms in both policy and procedure on the ground, which it shouldn't be involved in to begin with on most accounts. If Trump's antics are a driving force for either or, than I'm all for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less. I have cited a case study (by the MIT journal of international security) here before with damning evidence of their conduct in Libya. If it is not to be dismantled, it is in need of major reforms in both policy and procedure on the ground, which it shouldn't be involved in to begin with on most accounts. If Trump's antics are a driving force for either or, than I'm all for it.

---

Do you have a link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Being well armed deters aggression

---

It's not that simple, since you introduce the equation of compelling other powers to up-arm recursively (c.f. arms race). Perhaps it works more the way you imagine when it's a small country deterring a large one, rather than multiple large countries of comparable resources. But that's also an empirical question.

Quote:

---

We are sadly falling for his game every time. His followers will think he's being tough with our allies and getting them to contribute better when he's really causing the viability of NATO as a concept to be doubted by our closest friends.
Telling the UK that we might not make a trade deal with them if they make one with the EU is absolutely insane. Just because Trump wants to dismantle the world order the US and UK built after WW2 and the end of the cold war shouldn't mean he's able to try and blackmail our closest ally. I really wish our Congress would have some stones and do the checks and balances on his apparent ability to create chaos with Tweets and speeches.

---

Fun fact: One of the major instigators of impeachment proceedings in early-modern Parliament was royal ministers engaging in foreign policy contrary to the position of Parliament. George Mason, one of the firmest proponents of broad impeachment provisions at the Constitutional Convention, responsible for advancing finally the British formula of "high crimes and misdemeanours", even said:

Quote:

---

Treason, as defined in the Constitution, will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of treason.

---

Warren Hastings was a Governor-General of India contemporaneously being impeached for improperly advancing British interests in relation to the Indian states. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less. I have cited a case study (by the MIT journal of international security) here before with damning evidence of their conduct in Libya. If it is not to be dismantled, it is in need of major reforms in both policy and procedure on the ground, which it shouldn't be involved in to begin with on most accounts. If Trump's antics are a driving force for either or, than I'm all for it.

---

How are you distinguishing between "viability" per se, and the convenience of NATO dissolution towards adversaries of NATO?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less.

---

So... Russia and China... ? :laugh4:

@Fragony It's behind a paywall online but I have the whole thing if you would like me to email it to you, no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

How are you distinguishing between "viability" per se, and the convenience of NATO dissolution towards adversaries of NATO?

---

It’s a good question, but it assumes that NATO makes decisions to overcome its opposition when it is equally possible that it is made up of loose cannons with a mutual focus on low risk (relations-wise) endeavors. Qaddafi’s final years were his most benign, and he had made the most concessions to the west he ever had in his life. In other words, he could have been bought.

Viability as in not only its stated humanitarian principles, but the legality and legitimacy of its actions. The fact that it dives into these operations with the knowledge that the outcomes will probably be suboptimal. A waste of resources on goals that go beyond the national interest of the participants, to third parties more often than not. Another lesson is the empowerment of non-state actors to be a huge factor in the NATO decision-making process with their ability to encourage these interventions.

All of this is detrimental to NATO operations worldwide. It has shot itself in the foot numerous times through these operations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********.

---

Come on, it can't be THAT long. **** maximum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Come on, it can't be THAT long. **** maximum.

---

You're just jealous of how long mine is.

Just finnished reading it, it does raise an eyebrow so to say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

@Fragony It's behind a paywall online but I have the whole thing if you would like me to email it to you, no problem.


It’s a good question, but it assumes that NATO makes decisions to overcome its opposition when it is equally possible that it is made up of loose cannons with a mutual focus on low risk (relations-wise) endeavors. Qaddafi’s final years were his most benign, and he had made the most concessions to the west he ever had in his life. In other words, he could have been bought.

Viability as in not only its stated humanitarian principles, but the legality and legitimacy of its actions. The fact that it dives into these operations with the knowledge that the outcomes will probably be suboptimal. A waste of resources on goals that go beyond the national interest of the participants, to third parties more often than not. Another lesson is the empowerment of non-state actors to be a huge factor in the NATO decision-making process with their ability to encourage these interventions.

All of this is detrimental to NATO operations worldwide. It has shot itself in the foot numerous times through these parallel operations.

---

To my knowledge, the only substantial military engagements NATO has been involved in since 2000 have been Afghanistan and Libya. The Iraq mission was training, non-combat, though some members of NATO did separately contribute combat forces. The Kosovo mission is a peacekeeping/training force left over from 1999.

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_52060.htm

So this is a bit too abstract for me.

About Libya: what should America or NATO high command have done? Let's say actively aiding Gaddafi was out of the question for obvious reasons. Let's say the neocolonial option was too expensive and unsavory. No action whatsoever? That might require America to strongarm France and the UK to prevent their uni/bi-lateral action - not an easy choice. And then, what if the rebels win anyway? Or what if the civil war persists, and Libya becomes what we know Syria as now (Islamists diverted to Libya rather than Syria)? But maybe that's unfair to bring into consideration, because it's too dependent on hindsight. Regardless, what's the right move politically - not abstractly! - in 2011? Difficulty: no prescriptions that are only possible in a world where America retrenches its international role post-Cold War.

More importantly, does the absence of NATO framework going forward restrain the bad habits of American or the European powers, or does it unleash them?

I wonder whether the mere existence of the NATO alliance is a greater strategic deterrent to Russia than any potential extent of European rearmament, that dissolving NATO and expecting EU states to build up their own militaries would just be a waste of money in aligning with the current effect.

If you don’t count Somalia and Bosnia in the early 1990s, there’s also the regional spillover from Libya that hit Mali hard.

Not foster the rebellion from the start? Reviewing the first month of the conflict prior to intervention, the government counteroffensive was making significant gains in retaking the country and rebel progress was short-lived. That the rebels win anyway is a non-starter as they only had the means to start a rebellion, not win one. That it would end up like Syria is also a non-starter given that intervention is prolonging conflict.

The right move politically, for one, is to not host and embrace militia leaders, military dissidents, Islamist mercenaries, and welcome the rebel bureaucracy into intergovernmental organizations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

More importantly, does the absence of NATO framework going forward restrain the bad habits of American or the European powers, or does it unleash them?

I wonder whether the mere existence of the NATO alliance is a greater strategic deterrent to Russia than any potential extent of European rearmament, that dissolving NATO and expecting EU states to build up their own militaries would just be a waste of money in aligning with the current effect.

---

We can find examples for both. NATO enlargement has been used for imperial overstretch.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...%20Affairs.pdf

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...y%20Review.pdf

I don't think the financial setbacks are something that can inhibit the US from managing a post-NATO order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It's not that simple, since you introduce the equation of compelling other powers to up-arm recursively (c.f. arms race). Perhaps it works more the way you imagine when it's a small country deterring a large one, rather than multiple large countries of comparable resources. But that's also an empirical question.

---

Multiple countries with similar resources and alliances complicate the questions, hence Putin's drive (surprisingly through the POTUS) to dismantle the EU and NATO. Russia could through its weight around quite easily in Europe without those two organizations, France and the UK are no longer in position to play great power games independently anymore.
The credibility of NATO's mutual defense has largely centered around the US, if the US with its extreme resources were to leave the alliance NATO would really just be a hollow bureaucratic shell of an organization and as it stands there's no one in Europe to take over that leadership. Since the 1966 Defence White Paper the UK has essentially renounced its Great Power status and any attempts to maintain that sort of influence independent of major allies anymore. Where the US to leave NATO the UK is no longer in a position to drive the alliance leaving it to Germany and France both of which have too many historical problems to be the drivers of Europe's military defense against Russia.

The nice part of NATO though was that the major European powers didn't need to divert massive amounts of money to their militaries because of the shared mutual defense, if that all goes to nothing there is very little indication that they would rearm to credibly defend themselves and would aside from the nuclear powers be open to Russia's use of hard power. If the Baltic States weren't part of NATO what would stop Russian tanks from rolling in and defacto annexing them? Sanctions may hurt Russia but they haven't got the Crimea back to the Ukraine or stopped the separatist movements in the East of Ukraine and who knows if the POTUS concedes those to Putin this week?!

Quote:

---

To my knowledge, the only substantial military engagements NATO has been involved in since 2000 have been Afghanistan and Libya. The Iraq mission was training, non-combat, though some members of NATO did separately contribute combat forces. The Kosovo mission is a peacekeeping/training force left over from 1999. .

---

While not a large combat deployment the anti-piracy operations off of Somalia (Operation Ocean Shield) were largely a NATO led effort which involved a significant naval effort that independent nations besides the US could not maintained.
The Baltic Air Policing over those states has been a significant NATO effort with regular rotating contingents that while forgotten by most are a very visible show of NATO defense for some of our most vulnerable allies. Again not a combat operation but it uses a significant amount of air-power that most NATO nations could not do independently.

Quote:

---

About Libya: what should America or NATO high command have done? Let's say actively aiding Gaddafi was out of the question for obvious reasons. Let's say the neocolonial option was too expensive and unsavory. No action whatsoever?

---

As I've voiced in the Libya thread I'd advocate for the neo-colonial option (all the options minus letting Gaddafi do what he wants are expensive and unsavory). It is expensive but at present the EU has FRONTEX essentially doing coast guard operations for Libya, their air space is really secured by NATO, and if a migrant deal is worked out with immigration centers to be built out of Europe, Libya would be the logical choice seeing as its the current major departure point. Remember that the European powers only got involved in colonizing North Africa because of the constant harassment by the Barbary Pirates following the decline in the ability or desire of the Ottoman Empire to actually govern its North African provinces. The current mess in Libya is untenable and waiting for the largest militia or the rump state of government in existence there to be able to control its own territory would take decades if ever to have a return to stability (think Somalia post US withdrawal in the 90s). It would not have been easy and who knows how bloody of an occupation it'd be but at the least it wouldn't have destabilized its neighbors like Mali. Who knows? In the possibilities of the actions not taken its entirely possible that we'd be handing back power to locally elected Libyans at this point, its also possible that it'd end up being an Iraq scale occupation/debacle.

As for no action? That would have been a better option than helping overthrow Gaddafi and then naively hoping that this group of Islamist militias would be the nice ones that would bring Democracy to North Africa. Same for Syria, if we are to hope Assad is overthrow then do it outright, not foster then abandon a democratic rebellion leading to years of civil war that have scarred the region irreparably. Less Syrians would have died at this point if Assad had been allowed to do his brutal repression or of he had been toppled after he cross that red-line. At the very least it wouldn't have allowed for the conditions to let ISIS become an independent though thankfully short lived State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

The right move politically, for one, is to not host and embrace militia leaders, military dissidents, Islamist mercenaries, and welcome the rebel bureaucracy into intergovernmental organizations.

---

Now it's time to develop your case: what did this have to do with NATO? The crisis developed over a month, and various countries, in particular UK and France, were calling for regime change within a couple of weeks of the outset. From my perspective the best that could have managed through NATO command would have been to set of stringent operational parameters at the outset to the effect of hitting Gaddafi hard for a few weeks and using the leverage of potential reintensification to force all parties into negotiations.

But I guess too many in our governments saw the crisis from the beginning as a regime-change opportunity, contemplating backward from desired ends than stochastically from available facts. No point in restraint if a small further investment- "smart power" in SecState Clinton's words - secures you more of what you think you want. Is this then a flaw of NATO, when it's a general pattern in Anglo-American foreign policy logic over generations?

Quote:

---

We can find examples for both. NATO enlargement has been used for imperial overstretch.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...%20Affairs.pdf

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...y%20Review.pdf

---

I don't think the fact that Russia feels entitled to a regional sphere of influence is a good argument against NATO, and in fact its very levying implies that in the short term taking NATO out of the picture would be destabilizing in favor of Russia. In the same way, various Ukrainian factions desiring a closer relationship with Europe to balance against Russia has not made a case against the EU or other European associations. ('Ukraine can't surrender aspects of sovereignty to EU! It already surrendered them to Russia!' Mafia knows you can't juggle business arrangements.)

Ultimately NATO expansion is a distraction, because Russia under Putin has long felt it needs a much broader role in Europe and throughout the world; between 1990 and 2008, Russia was rebuilding. NATO is a pretext for an aspect of a long-term development, not an instigator in its own right. And don't leave out domestic developments, the continuing need around Obama's first term for Putin to consolidate power, growing public unrest with the government, examples of governments falling to popular unrest around the (Arab) world...

So it came about that Putin figured he could find more advantage in antagonizing the West than in cooperating with it. The Ukraine crisis is where he threw his chips down and committed to his strategy. He became convinced that the status quo presented a threat to his regime, and so made it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A "neutral" Ukraine arrangement is no compromise since it requires Russia to give up more than Europe or the US, not least the psychological-historical identity connection. You would need the threat of disincentives for Russia elsewhere to conform to such a deal (generously assuming it's desirable or achievable on its own terms, or held desirable by the crucial country of Ukraine itself). NATO is one such leverage, sanctions are another, and I'm not sure that there's much else, which is to say there aren't enough available to us. There's the American post-war order as a whole, but it's fading fast in part thanks to Trump, and is anyway one of Russia's consistent targets; undermining the Western world order is a core Russian interest, and that's not subject to moderation through concessions. Because Putin's strategy is specifically to undermine our hard and soft powers to disincentivize Russian policies, there are no direct diplomatic means for resolving our conflict with Russia, which is quasi-existential and not based in concrete disagreements. I think the only way to substantially change Russian behavior is to promote a Western economic realignment that is more attractive to other countries than extractive-regime fascism, that leaves fewer entries for Russian manipulation.

Military buildup, by the way, will never bring any of our aspirations to fruition. Putin would love to be able to play along in such an easy, no-stakes (for him) contest, the kind of posturing he thrives on before his base.

(How many more tens of billions $ have NATO countries added to their military budgets since 2014? More than Russia's entire yearly defence budget? Welfare for people, not for military industrial complex pl0x.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Same for Syria, if we are to hope Assad is overthrow then do it outright, not foster then abandon a democratic rebellion leading to years of civil war that have scarred the region irreparably. Less Syrians would have died at this point if Assad had been allowed to do his brutal repression or of he had been toppled after he cross that red-line. At the very least it wouldn't have allowed for the conditions to let ISIS become an independent though thankfully short lived State.

---

This is a separate topic, but I don't think Assad alone had the means to win outright even absent any foreign aid to rebels. After the northwest near the Turkish border, Aleppo and so on, the entire eastern half of the country was the next major region the Syrian government lost control of, to Kurds and Al Qaeda-linked groups a year or two before IS emerged from the shadows. IS was very carefully organized by former Baathist officers over years, and had the advantage of using western Iraq as a springboard into the anarchy of Eastern Syria. Recall this was all before US or Russian coalition forces became significantly involved in ground or air operations, effectively helping Assad from their entry. It did take mass civil resistance more than a year to morph into a full civil war (in 2012), so maybe Assad got complacent when he could have brought conclusive force to bear against a civilian movement, I don't know. But a few American guns weren't the thing preventing Assad from defeating the rebels by 2014.

Well, Trump weighed in with some great advice for May: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-to-sue-the-eu

Quote:

---

Theresa May has revealed that Donald Trump advised her to “sue the European Union” rather than negotiate with the 27-country bloc, in a private conversation that the US president referred to during his visit to the UK on Friday.

---

Makes me wonder which court would be responsible.

Exactly the first thought I had on the matter.

~:smoking:

Resurrect the PCIJ maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Now it's time to develop your case: what did this have to do with NATO? The crisis developed over a month, and various countries, in particular UK and France, were calling for regime change within a couple of weeks of the outset. From my perspective the best that could have managed through NATO command would have been to set of stringent operational parameters at the outset to the effect of hitting Gaddafi hard for a few weeks and using the leverage of potential reintensification to force all parties into negotiations.

---

Because these actions brought about the expectation of a NATO intervention, prompting or initially sustaining the rebellion. In fact, the strategy of the rebel political wing depended on forthcoming NATO intervention which they had grounds to expect based on the early signals of support by its members. Would they have dared to challenge the regime without NATO support? Not likely. I do understand your position of being precise about NATO high command and how responsible it is definitively, but I see this connection to be enough proof of its ability to unleash rather than restrain.

Quote:

---

I don't think the fact that Russia feels entitled to a regional sphere of influence is a good argument against NATO, and in fact its very levying implies that in the short term taking NATO out of the picture would be destabilizing in favor of Russia. In the same way, various Ukrainian factions desiring a closer relationship with Europe to balance against Russia has not made a case against the EU or other European associations. ('Ukraine can't surrender aspects of sovereignty to EU! It already surrendered them to Russia!' Mafia knows you can't juggle business arrangements.)

Ultimately NATO expansion is a distraction, because Russia under Putin has long felt it needs a much broader role in Europe and throughout the world; between 1990 and 2008, Russia was rebuilding. NATO is a pretext for an aspect of a long-term development, not an instigator in its own right. And don't leave out domestic developments, the continuing need around Obama's first term for Putin to consolidate power, growing public unrest with the government, examples of governments falling to popular unrest around the (Arab) world...

---

Right but you are still starting from a position of Russia’s sense of entitlement rather than it responding to NATO’s offensive posturing. Russian military planners and policy makers now assume that the only way to stop NATO's encroachment on Russia's perceived spheres of influence is to clearly signal red lines and act firmly to defend Russia's interests as it was done with respect to Georgia and Ukraine. Russia made it clear that it is not afraid of taking risks if its needed for enforcing its definition of core geopolitical interests.

As for domestic developments, wouldn't you describe the critics of Russia and supporters of western hegemony in the international system to be the dominant group, constraining attempts to reach out to Russia in a meaningful way? Especially in the US's current political climate.

Quote:

---

Military buildup, by the way, will never bring any of our aspirations to fruition. Putin would love to be able to play along in such an easy, no-stakes (for him) contest, the kind of posturing he thrives on before his base.

(How many more tens of billions $ have NATO countries added to their military budgets since 2014? More than Russia's entire yearly defence budget? Welfare for people, not for military industrial complex pl0x.)

---

You're right. I oversimplified.

The fiasco continues as the late Theresa May, for fear of losing the vote in Parliament, has now been forced to accept amendments to her white paper by the Brexit mujaheddin which wreck it and mean that ultimately, Davis, Johnson and the others have resigned over what hasn't happened anyway. This also reduces the chance of the EU negotiators being able to accept the paper from "cat in Hell" down to "snowball in Hell".

In other news, I get to say "I told you so". Just as I predicted back in this thread the latest immigration figures are out and the result of Brexit, no doubt to the delight of the not-at-all xenophobic or racist people who voted for it, is more Pakistanis, Indians and Africans entering the UK. 'Kippers up and down the land will no doubt be raising a toast even as I type to this triumph in promoting a multi-racial and multi-cultural Britain.

Can any Brexit supporters respond to the points in Anna Soubry's speech here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

In other news, I get to say "I told you so". Just as I predicted back in this thread

the latest immigration figures are out and the result of Brexit, no doubt to the delight of the not-at-all xenophobic or racist people who voted for it, is more Pakistanis, Indians and Africans entering the UK. 'Kippers up and down the land will no doubt be raising a toast even as I type to this triumph in promoting a multi-racial and multi-cultural Britain.

---

Thanks, enjoyed going back two years to see what was discussed.
Found these two gems:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053707265
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053710468

Re: immigration - there are good reasons to be against freedom of movement:

The problem is that it essentially means unrestricted mass migration, which is something that has never had the consent of the people. Quite the reverse. It is objectively true to say that the electorate is actually quite supportive of immigration per-se (among the most positive in the EU in fact!), but does demand that there is "control of immigration".

Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where 5% of the worlds population hoovered up over half of the 'allocation' of immigration, with 90% having to fight over the rest.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where Janek the unskilled bob-a-job guy with a conviction back home for violent assault could come and stay as he pleased, but Marie-Jeanne the Post-Doc biologist from Canada was on an endless fight with the Home Office to extend her stay six more months, after being in living here for six years.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where we've introduced a regime that benignly smiles on anyone from across the channel, while hounding people out of the country who have been british citizens for fifity years.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where Arjun the third generation immigrant from India has to jump through endless hoops to bring his intended wife back from the home country, while looking on as europeans drift in and out of the country with an absolute entitlement to permanent residence.

Yes, these examples are deliberately extreme, but they are a perfectly reasonable prism through which to view Freedom of Movement.

Now, if someone holds the view that immigration should be completely unrestricted then I have two things to say to them: 1. Fair enough, I get that your frustrated at seeing FoM with the EU end, and; 2. First, you need to win that argument with the electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

What we ended up with is a daft situation where 5% of the worlds population hoovered up over half of the 'allocation' of immigration, with 90% having to fight over the rest.

---

That never seems to bother you classical liberals when it comes to wealth or income allocation, so why here?
Everyone can get to the UK if they just want it enough, no?!? Are you arguing for immigration socialism and quotas instead of using merit and efficiency?

you can make the argument that neo-liberals care for nothing but cheap labour for business, but that doesn't really go anywhere now does it?

Any Brexit supporters care to answer Anna Soubry's points?