Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Options
1…9293959798…321

Comments

  • Options
    #2822
    Folkstonian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    listermint wrote: »
    Folkstonian wrote: »
    I think it’s hard to see a time in the medium term when European countries are willing to come together to finance the kind of large scale, complex and breathtakingly expensive defence projects that they will lose the cover of if they do the unthinkable and pivot away from the US and Britain and begin to see them as strategic rivals or even adversaries

    Huge, huge investment would be needed in missile defence systems, fast jets, naval assets to both project force globally and to protect home waters from the endless Russian naval incursion attempts,
    massive increases in cyber and intelligence capabilities, and of course the requisite increases in personnel to keep all these systems ready to fight.

    It will, altogether, stretch into the many hundreds of billions of euro.

    Politically, I don’t actually think the will to abandon its key NATO allies exists at all in the EU outside federalist ideologues and deeply unpopular leaders such as Juncker and Macron.

    NATO has been, in reality, a very successful alliance. It has been highly effective in bringing security to its members in continental Europe from the ever present and unpredictable Russian threat. It has evolved pretty well following the emergence of global terrorism, Chinese cyber etc and regardless of what President Trump says, the US defence and political establishment is very committed to its continued existence, so much so in fact that it continues to demand members live up to their spending commitments

    It really baffles me that there are people in the Eu who genuinely seem to see NATO and the U.K./U.S in particular as a problem going forward. It shows a serious lack of awareness, and maybe little more than people from smaller states who historically may not have had the same military clout as France, Britain, Germany etc wanting to wrap themself in the EU flag and declare to the world they have taken a seat at the big boys’ table. I just see it as a bit pointless.



    Here is the problem to cut through your bluster.

    The only group that is tugging at NATO is the UK Ally the US. Its not a European thing, And the UK is the one that is pissing all over its partner.

    You dressing up this as an EU fault / failure is perplexing.

    The Union is being pulled apart by the UK and its parrot on the shoulder the US.

    Maybe keep your antagonistic tone for other platforms? This thread has really jumped the shark in recent weeks.

    The only nations ‘pissing over its partners’ are those European states that rely overwhelmingly on American defence spending, whilst doing very little to bring their own expenditure up to pre-agreed levels.

    Funny how in this thread it has earned the U.K. so much scorn to have reneged on previous commitments, yet when the United States points out time and time again that other NATO members are doing the same, it becomes a concern, a problem, and a threat even.

    The only threat to NATO going forwards is the lack of a political will amongst some continental members to keep to their end of the bargain.

    And if they cannot even commit to a really rather meagre 2% of GDP to defence now, how well do you see the push towards 3, 4, 5% of GDP when the EU decides it is going to take a different approach to defence?


  • Options
    #2823
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,789 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Maybe keep your antagonistic tone for other platforms? This thread has really jumped the shark in recent weeks.

    The only nations ‘pissing over its partners’ are those European states that rely overwhelmingly on American defence spending, whilst doing very little to bring their own expenditure up to pre-agreed levels.

    Funny how in this thread it has earned the U.K. so much scorn to have reneged on previous commitments, yet when the United States points out time and time again that other NATO members are doing the same, it becomes a concern, a problem, and a threat even.

    The only threat to NATO going forwards is the lack of a political will amongst some continental members to keep to their end of the bargain.

    And if they cannot even commit to a really rather meagre 2% of GDP to defence now, how well do you see the push towards 3, 4, 5% of GDP when the EU decides it is going to take a different approach to defence?

    Give up the Faux outrage will you, You sound like Trump.

    Obama greed targets with the EU, the EU were agreeing with those targets.

    What is your problem with Agreements that are made? or do agreements mean nothing in the UK anymore. You know because Trump said it was bad must make it so.


    Ridiculous.

    As for my tone, its a tone of annoyance as to the blame game that is bubbling up from the island to the right of me


  • Options
    #2824
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I actually feel sorry for the remain politicians on the show because they don't want to lose voters by saying the obvious, i.e that Brexit is the greatest act of self harm in a country's history orchestrated by people who have no clue about Britain's place in the world or the nature of world trade.

    I don't feel sorry for them, this is part of the reason we are here.

    In the UK for the past 30 years, the anti-EU nationalists have had free reign to spout whatever nonsense they like about the EU. The Establishment politicians and media have found this convenient over the years, because they can shift blame for their own unpopular policies and mistakes to the big bogeyman, the EU, whenever convenient. Also, take credit for anything good that comes from EU membership.

    After 30 years of this, a big chunk of the electorate has never heard a good word about the EU, and now the politicians, as you say, can't tell the simple truth and be believed, they have to play along with the myths they have created or allowed to flourish.

    Too bad, it is at least half their fault.


  • Options
    #2825
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Got the jets. IOC next year.

    If you are old enough to remember, France sold the missiles that sunk their allies in 1982.

    Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help.

    Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts!


  • Options
    #2826
    Folkstonian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    listermint wrote: »
    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Maybe keep your antagonistic tone for other platforms? This thread has really jumped the shark in recent weeks.

    The only nations ‘pissing over its partners’ are those European states that rely overwhelmingly on American defence spending, whilst doing very little to bring their own expenditure up to pre-agreed levels.

    Funny how in this thread it has earned the U.K. so much scorn to have reneged on previous commitments, yet when the United States points out time and time again that other NATO members are doing the same, it becomes a concern, a problem, and a threat even.

    The only threat to NATO going forwards is the lack of a political will amongst some continental members to keep to their end of the bargain.

    And if they cannot even commit to a really rather meagre 2% of GDP to defence now, how well do you see the push towards 3, 4, 5% of GDP when the EU decides it is going to take a different approach to defence?

    Give up the Faux outrage will you, You sound like Trump.

    Obama greed targets with the EU, the EU were agreeing with those targets.

    What is your problem with Agreements that are made? or do agreements mean nothing in the UK anymore. You know because Trump said it was bad must make it so.


    Ridiculous.

    As for my tone, its a tone of annoyance as to the blame game that is bubbling up from the island to the right of me

    I’m not sure I know what you are talking about. One of Obama’s last major statements as president was to express his frustration at European (not EU - which isn’t the only game in town) complacency and reliance on the US for defence, and express a hope that European members of NATO would hit the long, long agreed spending targets - something which actually they are further away from than ever in many cases.

    As for your talk of a blame game, I don’t know where you are intending to go with that line of attack. Nobody apportioned blame to anyone, for anything - NATO isn’t in the process of breaking up ans won’t do for a long time yet. There’s nothing to give blame for.
    Simply, questions have been asked about whether the European Union has either the stomach or the capacity to properly finance its own defences if it follows Macron’s vision and pivots away from the US (which honestly, it just won’t). I don’t think the facts run any way other than to suggest the EU doesn’t have the will to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2827
    badtoro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    Don't forget that a certain Irish politician who opposes the EU, spent millions (from where?) campaigning for Russian aligned policies, was one of the largest forestry owners in exUSSR at one stage, like Trump once you get involved in that country they hook you in.

    Who was/is that?


  • Options
    #2828
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,331 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    badtoro wrote: »

    Who was/is that?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley


  • Options
    #2829
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    listermint wrote: »
    Give up the Faux outrage will you, You sound like Trump.

    Obama greed targets with the EU, the EU were agreeing with those targets.

    What is your problem with Agreements that are made? or do agreements mean nothing in the UK anymore. You know because Trump said it was bad must make it so.


    Ridiculous.

    As for my tone, its a tone of annoyance as to the blame game that is bubbling up from the island to the right of me

    The EU isn't in NATO, the countries in NATO did agree to spend 2% of GDP on defence and a lot of them just aren't

    Countries in NATO
    29 NATO member countries: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

    22 of those countries are in the EU and NATO

    808x454_cmsv2_3f7bccc0-f2e6-59c9-a2d4-9c13afd4e00b-3211156.jpg

    https://www.euronews.com/2018/07/10/nato-contributions-country-by-country


  • Options
    #2830
    Folkstonian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Got the jets. IOC next year.

    If you are old enough to remember, France sold the missiles that sunk their allies in 1982.

    Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help.

    Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts!

    The Falklands would actually be a really interesting and pertinent case study for an integrated European defence establishment.

    If defence were as highly integrated as many other aspects of the European Union, with Britain having entrusted and transferred much of the experience and capability to a centralised agency (from my understanding this is exactly what the proponents of this idea want) how likely is it that it could rely on, say, the support of Spanish and Italian governments to support Britain logistically or politically in a war against a Latin American ally of theirs?

    And when they do not, what recourse would them exist for Britain to dispatch a task force like it was able to in the 80s (and could probably just about do now)? How long would it take for Europe’s ministers to green light such a military endeavour? Weeks, months? Longer?

    By that stage the argentines are so well dug in that you could send the US marine corps and they might struggle.

    The point is, europe is very very unlikely to be invaded. It’s future wars won’t be fought on home soil. Military action to defend European interests will continue to be fought a long way from our homes, but that throws up lots of difficult questions about divergent values, outlooks, strategic interests etc. It’s difficult as all hell to get 27 nations and their regions to agree on trade deals right now. It would be impossible to get agreement from 27 nations to send men, equipment and lots of money to combat zones in the Middle East, sub Saharan Africa of the south Atlantic for example, when so many of them (quite rightly) will always say, this has nothing to do with us, we are having nothing do with it.


  • Options
    #2831
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,330 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    The EU isn't in NATO, the countries in NATO did agree to spend 2% of GDP on defence and a lot of them just aren't

    Countries in NATO
    29 NATO member countries: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

    22 of those countries are in the EU and NATO

    https://www.euronews.com/2018/07/10/nato-contributions-country-by-country
    All European countries except France (marginal), the UK, Croatia and Belgium have increased their defence spending between 2014 and 2018. All bar Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg are below 1% of GDP. The average of Canada and Europe is 1.47%. Canada is at 1.23%.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2832
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help.

    Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts!

    Sometimes you need to read the last paragraph
    "We asked Mitterrand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been.'"


  • Options
    #2833
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,296 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Sometimes you need to read the last paragraph

    ah now - those nations that sell arms are in no place to cast aspersions where duplicity is concerned


  • Options
    #2834
    Mc Love
    Registered Users Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    This must be some sort of record

    https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1059828125511618560?s=20

    Nick had to remove one backstop because he was over the character limit.


    Hilarious that the British cant move forward despite initially agreeing to this and then Coveney this morning saying a no deal is unlikely.


  • Options
    #2835
    Folkstonian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Sometimes you need to read the last paragraph

    ah now - those nations that sell arms are in no place to cast aspersions where duplicity is concerned

    Not really the point is it? Selling arms abroad is one thing. Selling arms to an enemy of an apparent strategic and political rival is wholly another
    listermint wrote: »
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..

    I do yes,

    Why would the EU rely on external 3 parties in an ever increasing unstable global environment.

    Especially when the UK government has been shown time and time again to be incredibly untrustworthy

    I think it’s hard to see a time in the medium term when European countries are willing to come together to finance the kind of large scale, complex and breathtakingly expensive defence projects that they will lose the cover of if they do the unthinkable and pivot away from the US and Britain and begin to see them as strategic rivals or even adversaries

    Huge, huge investment would be needed in missile defence systems, fast jets, naval assets to project force globally, massive increases in cyber and intelligence capabilities, and of course the requisite increases in personnel to keep all these systems ready to fight.

    It will, altogether, stretch into the many hundreds of billions of euro.

    Politically, I don’t actually think the will to abandon its key NATO allies exists at all in the EU outside federalist ideologues and deeply unpopular leaders such as Juncker and Macron.

    NATO has been, in reality, a very successful alliance. It has been highly effective in bringing security to its members in continental Europe from the ever present and unpredictable Russian threat. It has evolved pretty well following the emergence of global terrorism, Chinese cyber etc and regardless of what President Trump says, the US defence and political establishment is very committed to its continued existence, so much so in fact that it continues to demand members live up to their spending commitments

    It really baffles me that there are people in the Eu who genuinely seem to see NATO and the U.K./U.S in particular as a problem going forward. It shows a serious lack of awareness which are them used to sink Royal Navy ships is another thing entirely, and is certainly worthy of comment and criticism. I expect you knew exactly that already though.

    It does shine a light on how a military entanglement of 27 European states would never work though - too many divergent political, economic and strategic interest to ever realistically expect a cohesive and effective partnership


  • Options
    #2836
    mcbert
    Registered Users Posts: 460 ✭✭mcbert


    snailsong wrote: »
    I note that no deal is available on Paddy Powers @ 17/10. Value?

    It moved this morning to 15/8 - they at least think a no deal is slightly less likely...


  • Options
    #2837
    Folkstonian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Sometimes you need to read the last paragraph

    ah now - those nations that sell arms are in no place to cast aspersions where duplicity is concerned

    Selling weapons abroad is one thing. Selling weapons abroad to an aggressor nation to one of your most important strategic allies is another entirely, however. I am completely sure you know that already however.

    It does demonstrate though how difficult it would be to fashion a cohesive and effective military organisation out of 27 member states with diverging strategic, political and economic interests.


  • Options
    #2838
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    All European countries except France (marginal), the UK, Croatia and Belgium have increased their defence spending between 2014 and 2018. All bar Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg are below 1% of GDP. The average of Canada and Europe is 1.47%. Canada is at 1.23%.


    chartoftheday_14636_defense_expenditures_of_nato_countries_n.jpg

    France reckon they won't reach NATO defence spending targets until 2024.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-france-macron-spending/france-will-meet-nato-defense-spending-goal-by-2024-idUSKBN1K21IF

    If it'll take France until 2024 what of the others?


  • Options
    #2839
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    bob mcbob wrote: »
    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Got the jets. IOC next year.

    If you are old enough to remember, France sold the missiles that sunk their allies in 1982.

    Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help.

    Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts!

    The Falklands would actually be a really interesting and pertinent case study for an integrated European defence establishment.

    If defence were as highly integrated as many other aspects of the European Union, with Britain having entrusted and transferred much of the experience and capability to a centralised agency (from my understanding this is exactly what the proponents of this idea want) how likely is it that it could rely on, say, the support of Spanish and Italian governments to support Britain logistically or politically in a war against a Latin American ally of theirs?

    And when they do not, what recourse would them exist for Britain to dispatch a task force like it was able to in the 80s (and could probably just about do now)? How long would it take for Europe’s ministers to green light such a military endeavour? Weeks, months? Longer?

    By that stage the argentines are so well dug in that you could send the US marine corps and they might struggle.

    The point is, europe is very very unlikely to be invaded. It’s future wars won’t be fought on home soil. Military action to defend European interests will continue to be fought a long way from our homes, but that throws up lots of difficult questions about divergent values, outlooks, strategic interests etc. It’s difficult as all hell to get 27 nations and their regions to agree on trade deals right now. It would be impossible to get agreement from 27 nations to send men, equipment and lots of money to combat zones in the Middle East, sub Saharan Africa of the south Atlantic for example, when so many of them (quite rightly) will always say, this has nothing to do with us, we are having nothing do with it.
    That's a very "head buried in the sand"attitude if you dont mind me saying-as a recent post said,there's a
    war/cyber war going on right now with russia.


  • Options
    #2840
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I would not be surprised if, in the end, this is all just too convoluted and messy for the British govt and they simply decide a NI only backstop for CU and SM is the only logical choice.

    In other words simply give the DUP an ultimatum to back it.


  • Options
    #2841
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Do you truly think the majority of Europe has the stomach to "take up the slack"if the UK is no longer part of Europes defence(whether militarily or cyber) -as has quite rightly been said before the UK is misguided if it thinks it can cherry pick what it wants from Europe-but that works both ways..
    I know this probably doesn't mean anything, but the UK has already agreed to stay aligned with the EU on security issues.
    Yes- and that's the sensible thing to do-not all that "oh no,they're a 3rd party"stuff!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2842
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    Sorry to let facts get in the way of your Francophobia - but lets just say that after the war John Nott described France as "Britains Greatest Ally" for their help.

    Just google "France Exocet Falklands" if you want the facts!
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Sometimes you need to read the last paragraph
    lawred2 wrote: »
    ah now - those nations that sell arms are in no place to cast aspersions where duplicity is concerned


    It wasn't the point that they sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, after all Ireland exports software and components that can be used in arms
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-exports-of-items-for-military-purposes-hits-63m-464245.html
    it was the fact that they had a French owned company fixing the launchers while the war was on.

    "Behind the scenes, actions were speaking louder than words. In what would appear to be a clear breach of President Mitterrand's embargo, a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government - stayed in Argentina throughout the war.

    In an interview carried out in 1982 by Sunday Times journalist Isabel Hilton, the team's leader, Herve Colin, admitted carrying out one particular test that proved invaluable to Argentinian forces.The verification process involves determining if the missile launcher was functioning correctly or not. Three of the launchers failed. We located the source of the problem and that was it. The rest was simple."


  • Options
    #2843
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    I know this probably doesn't mean anything, but the UK has already agreed to stay aligned with the EU on security issues.

    But the EU have said they can't have trusted access to Galileo, so essential to military ops that TM was on record as saying they'd try to afford an alternative UK version https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45314954 or have the EU changed their minds?


  • Options
    #2844
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,330 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    It wasn't the point that they sold Exocet missiles to Argentina, after all Ireland exports software and components that can be used in arms
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-exports-of-items-for-military-purposes-hits-63m-464245.html
    it was the fact that they had a French owned company fixing the launchers while the war was on.
    It's not clear whether this was planned or not, but it seems that the French had a source inside that team and they got useful intelligence from whoever it was. But DGSE were not happy about their presence there at all.
    Lethier (DGSE CoS) told me that the DGSE had an informer among the members of the technical team who was able to give them some information about what the Argentinian military was doing. But he is fiercely critical of the French team for the technical help it gave.
    "It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo," he says. "I mean, it's clear that if the head of state in France decrees an embargo, it's an embargo. Full point."


  • Options
    #2845
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I would not be surprised if, in the end, this is all just too convoluted and messy for the British govt and they simply decide a NI only backstop for CU and SM is the only logical choice.

    I would not be surprised if they decided that a month ago ("Raab flies out to tell Olly to shut his big yap") and are now just orchestrating a tense, dramatic finale to railroad Parliament into passing it.


  • Options
    #2846
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,197 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Selling weapons abroad is one thing. Selling weapons abroad to an aggressor nation to one of your most important strategic allies is another entirely, however. I am completely sure you know that already however.
    And I am completely sure that you know that the sales took place before the Falklands war, before Argentina was regarded by the UK as an aggressor nation, without any objection from the UK. As the UK were themselves completely taken by surprise by the attack, it seems unreasonable to condemn the French for not being gifted with second sight in relation to the matter.

    The shock to the UK was not that the Argentinians were using French-sourced weaponry - as the UK itself was at the time and still is less than particular about who it supplies arms to, so they cannot get too sniffy about the French. The shock was that the UK had no effective defence against them. The fuss about the basically irrelevant fact that they were French-supplied was largely a beat-up to try to distract public attention from this, and prevent awkward questions being asked about why the UK forces had been sent into combat unequipped to deal with a threat of which the UK was at all times completely aware.


  • Options
    #2847
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,330 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    But the EU have said they can't have trusted access to Galileo, so essential to military ops that TM was on record as saying they'd try to afford an alternative UK version https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45314954 or have the EU changed their minds?
    This completely depends on the UK. They haven't even got to the point of an agreed WA between themselves, never mind the EU.


  • Options
    #2848
    farmchoice
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭farmchoice


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I would not be surprised if they decided that a month ago ("Raab flies out to tell Olly to shut his big yap") and are now just orchestrating a tense, dramatic finale to railroad Parliament into passing it.


    that has pretty much been the case since last dec. everything else has been an exercise in can kicking, delaying, etc, so as to end up with a take it or leave it deal going to parliament , vote for this deal or crash out.


  • Options
    #2849
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    chartoftheday_14636_defense_expenditures_of_nato_countries_n.jpg

    France reckon they won't reach NATO defence spending targets until 2024.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-france-macron-spending/france-will-meet-nato-defense-spending-goal-by-2024-idUSKBN1K21IF

    If it'll take France until 2024 what of the others?

    2024 is the agreed date as to when the targets should be reached. It was not agreed that countries should immediately up the spending to 2% of GDP immediately.

    I seem to recall I think during one of the NATO summits when the Dutch Prime Minister came up with a fudge to save face for Trump who had been bellowing about upping payments but had not read the small print in the agreement about the target date of 2024 to reach that percentage.

    edit: it would also be interesting to the reaction of the UK if (according to GDP rules), Germany would be spending double what the UK are spending on arms!


  • Options
    #2850
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,330 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Spook_ie wrote: »

    France reckon they won't reach NATO defence spending targets until 2024.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-france-macron-spending/france-will-meet-nato-defense-spending-goal-by-2024-idUSKBN1K21IF

    If it'll take France until 2024 what of the others?
    Those are 2017 figures. The latest estimates for 2018 are here. Increases on 2017 pretty much across the board except for the ones I mentioned. And as has been pointed out, the targets are to be reached by 2024. The French saying they won't meet the target until the target date is... obvious?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2851
    ambro25
    Registered Users Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    If it'll take France until 2024 what of the others?
    Not a clue. Though I’m very certain that you’ll be waiting a long time for Luxembourg.

    I mean, short of buying an M1A1 for each household as a decorative garden feature, what exactly would you expect them to spend €1.4bn a year on, given the size of the country (27x smaller than Ireland), the size of its population (600k), the size of its military (4 companies) and its neutral status?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement