Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On November 23 2016 21:05 Dan HH wrote: I challenge you guys to find the dumbest non-satirical party in Europe. My submission, which I'm confident will win this contest (but surprise me anyway), is Partidul România Unită (United Romania Party), a new populist party founded in 2015 whose platform makes Trump look mentally stable by comparison. Thankfully they're only polling at 1% for the upcoming election.
Their logo is Vlad the Impaler (!) superimposed on an outline of Romania + Moldova. A translation of the juiciest points:
- no.1 is "stop selling land to foreigners", "land sales only to Romanian citizens with the state having preemptive rights", "inheritance for foreigners forbidden"'
- no. 2 is "stop to the colonization of Romania with refugees!" (we received a whooping 200 refugees in the past 2 years, which are evidently subjugating the 19 million natives with their muslamic ray guns )
- no .6 is "stop the state parasitizing and the creation of a parallel state by Soros NGOs" (you may think this is a joke but I assure you it isn't, Soros is the ultimate boogeyman to the Eastern European right)
- no. 10 is "stop the destruction of the Romanian orthodox church by the Anti-corruption agency"
Well I'll give the Svoboda party in Ukraine as my answer to that. Openly fascist party that venerates Hitler collaborators as heroes. The current leader got expelled from his previous party for saying that Ukraine needed to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia trying to take away our Ukrainian state." Relevant in that they actually have seats in the ruling government.
On November 23 2016 21:22 xM(Z wrote: you started a point out the stupid(est) contest and put yourself on top of the list so, instead of trying to touch on your half assed issues, i'd rather stay here and laugh at you.
He put you on the list too. Or is Dan from the other Romania where you can point and laugh rather than be ashamed about your fellow countryman?
He's from the part of Romania where people properly understand sarcasm.
On November 23 2016 21:05 Dan HH wrote: I challenge you guys to find the dumbest non-satirical party in Europe. My submission, which I'm confident will win this contest (but surprise me anyway), is Partidul România Unită (United Romania Party), a new populist party founded in 2015 whose platform makes Trump look mentally stable by comparison. Thankfully they're only polling at 1% for the upcoming election.
Their logo is Vlad the Impaler (!) superimposed on an outline of Romania + Moldova. A translation of the juiciest points:
- no.1 is "stop selling land to foreigners", "land sales only to Romanian citizens with the state having preemptive rights", "inheritance for foreigners forbidden"'
- no. 2 is "stop to the colonization of Romania with refugees!" (we received a whooping 200 refugees in the past 2 years, which are evidently subjugating the 19 million natives with their muslamic ray guns )
- no .6 is "stop the state parasitizing and the creation of a parallel state by Soros NGOs" (you may think this is a joke but I assure you it isn't, Soros is the ultimate boogeyman to the Eastern European right)
- no. 10 is "stop the destruction of the Romanian orthodox church by the Anti-corruption agency"
"The man who has been dethroned as leader of the family is still looking for a wife, who is capable of taking care of the housework and whose instincts to take care of the brood overcomes forced ambitions of personal fullfillment."
"In the eyes of the male and female observer, every organization loses reputation the more women participate and the higher their rank within the organization is."
"A state with more party tents than military tents is bound to perish."
"Rural work requires a lot of hands. In case the wages for that work have to be low, using children is alright. That sounds like exploitation and stealing children their childhood, but it is in the nature of people."
Just a handful of quotes from a book published (written by a different party member) by our soon to be next president. Hurray.
On November 23 2016 19:10 Incognoto wrote: Precisely, high debt levels are riskier, that makes sense. Austerity is paying off the debt so that we don't risk defaulting. It's lower growth, lower risk. It makes sense. It's responsible. Hedge funding is what makes most sense to me and it's what I would personally do as a person; it's what I would do as a company. No need to borrow large sums of money, hire many people, fuck up and lay everyone off. So why would governments risk more? Maybe because it's not their money they're risking.
Austerity seems like responsibility 101. I'm not saying public spending should be ended, I'm saying it should be reduced and only things which actually contribute should be considered. Social measures should be reduced to their minimal amount and on the other hand, all the incentives should be there for companies to hire and for people to find work. High taxation and high social security garners the opposite effect.
You don't understand, you're judging this with a moral standard while it's like basic accounting. Credit cycle usually reinforce economic fluctuation : they are pro cyclical. So when the private sector decide to endebt itself, it does it "too much", and when it decide to stop debt, it does it too forcefully. The state must play the counter part, or the economy just go from huge artificial booms to crisis : the government must invest when the economy is low and reduce spending when it's okay. What you are arguing for is not wrong all in all, it's wrong when the economy is depressed.
You say that Fillon is worse than Le Pen, when Le Pen is basically communism and racism. How silly can you get? Fillon is going to rightfully sack half a million unproductive people (who don't even work 20 hours a week) and have the rest of them work full-time. €100B in economies. That is that much weight that companies and people need to carry through taxes, thus making it easier for companies to make profit (or are companies evil slave drivers in your eyes?) and thus for people to get hired and actually earn a damn living.
And what's Fillon ? A neoliberal twat.
Secondly, I think that there is little doubt that public spending can be an excellent stimulus to the economy. However the question is how you invest that money, a question which you also conveniently dodged. I'm asking what are, precisely, the investments that the government should bring to the table in order to stimulate economic growth, hiring, etc.
You didn't read me I think : I specifically said austerity could be good. Let me give you a little explanation, going back to the equation I gave you before :
If I increase Gov. Spending (stimulus), it will increase GDP (and thus future government revenu through taxation) only if : - HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION and PRIVATE INVESTMENT does not drop - IMPORTS do not increase
Here are two problem with public investment : the lack of national production that leads to imports (the case for Greece under the euro, with fixed exchange rates) and the possibility of an eviction effect, which relates to the possibility of government spending taking liquidity from the private sector and thus lowering investment. Considering eviction effect is usually low or non-existant, the problem with Greece is that any stimulus usually increase their debt (it's the core reason why their public spending was not as efficient as it should have before the 2007 crisis). Here you have a first limit to public spending.
Second limit is that, to really evaluate the efficiency of public spending, you need to evaluate its effect not at t0 (the time where you spend) but at t1, t2, t3, etc. (understand : in the future). This is done through the multiplier: if the multiplier is negative (below 1), then the effect of a government spending at t1, t2, t3, etc. will be low or even negative, and this spending will not be positive. If the multiplier is positive (above 1) then the public spending will have beneficial effect for GDP, and thus it will increase future revenue and facilitate debt repayment. What it means, in effect, is that the public spending made in those situation will stimulate the economy and push private agents to also increase their consumption / spending / production. As I've told you, the multiplier is usually high during recession / economic trouble (which is the case for Greece) : in this situation, if you cut public spending, you usually cut the GDP by more than just the spending, because the private sector will also lower its investment : it's not a situation that would benefit the economy because the private sector is not in a situation to take the load off from the state.
In this regard, the efficiency of the spending or where you invest that money is totally secondary : this is true whatever the investment you make. What you need to do, to actually know when to cut gov. spending or when to increase it, is to evaluate the multiplier / the eviction effect (and try to force the production of national products). You need to wait for a situation where the private sector can stand on its on. So what's your goal ? Fixing the economy ? Or following some moral rules you have inside your head that a debt must be paid now and not tomorrow ?
Would you personally borrow more money than you could reimburse? If not, why is it fine for France and Europe to do so? Too big to sink?
What matter is not your capacity to reimburse the debt now, but in the future. Look, a 3 % inflation and a 1 % real growth means that, after ten years, the debt drop by a lot. State are not household : remember that France didn't made default on its debt since years ... (contrary to german who are maybe the worst payer of the XXth century).
In my personal circles I have heard of so many different instances of public spending being wasted for no good reason. Fuck, just watch youtube videos and you see so many useless public ads (edf making ads for no reason since they have monopoly, government making ads against radical islam and djihad, government making ads against wasting food, etc.). It's abhorrent the way public money is wasted. It's fine to say that austerity is the next holocaust, but wasting money for no reason is equally stupid. This is just in my own circles, I can't even begin to imagine where else the government is burning tax payer money for no reason.
This is totally true ; invest that government spending in an efficient judiciary system that would fight corruption efficiently, make rules on the limit of government advertisement you can make, etc.
So I repeat my question: can you please share with me, what are the investments which will truly stimulate economic growth in France? Do you think that taxes should be raised further and do you believe that high taxation has no negative impact of economic stimulus? Do you think that the debt problem is moot in Europe?
It's not really my area of expertize, but I remember watching one of Stiglitz' conference where he talked about investment in the US just after the crisis. He argues that there are investment with 20 to 40 % return on investment, but that those needs serious gov. support. Talk to a guy in green finance, they will be more informed than me (my step brother is in, he might buy me a new car for christmas ...).
Fillon is going to rightfully sack half a million unproductive people (who don't even work 20 hours a week) and have the rest of them work full-time. €100B in economies.
You're talking about the public sector ? Educate yourself ... workers in the public sector work almost as much as the private sector, they even work more on the week end and during the night than the private (yeah, like in health you know). People just don't use their brain ... Who do you think he will "fire" ? We're talking about nurse, doctor, teachers, policemen, mainly ... Even the most liberal economist know that the public sector create tons of wealth : the real problem of the public sector is that they don't exports their production (since it's national) and thus tend to decrease the competitivity of the economy abroad (they're good internally, but not in the competitive economy we created with the euro). Those people will never find another work, it's 100B LOST.
On November 23 2016 21:05 Dan HH wrote: I challenge you guys to find the dumbest non-satirical party in Europe. My submission, which I'm confident will win this contest (but surprise me anyway), is Partidul România Unită (United Romania Party), a new populist party founded in 2015 whose platform makes Trump look mentally stable by comparison. Thankfully they're only polling at 1% for the upcoming election.
Their logo is Vlad the Impaler (!) superimposed on an outline of Romania + Moldova. A translation of the juiciest points:
- no.1 is "stop selling land to foreigners", "land sales only to Romanian citizens with the state having preemptive rights", "inheritance for foreigners forbidden"'
- no. 2 is "stop to the colonization of Romania with refugees!" (we received a whooping 200 refugees in the past 2 years, which are evidently subjugating the 19 million natives with their muslamic ray guns )
- no .6 is "stop the state parasitizing and the creation of a parallel state by Soros NGOs" (you may think this is a joke but I assure you it isn't, Soros is the ultimate boogeyman to the Eastern European right)
- no. 10 is "stop the destruction of the Romanian orthodox church by the Anti-corruption agency"
Well I'll give the Svoboda party in Ukraine as my answer to that. Openly fascist party that venerates Hitler collaborators as heroes. The current leader got expelled from his previous party for saying that Ukraine needed to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia trying to take away our Ukrainian state." Relevant in that they actually have seats in the ruling government..
I played myself by not limiting this to the EU, it's gonna be tough to top Svoboda. But 'openly' might be arguable, while I do think that they're anti-semitic and have a weird reverence for nazism, my understanding was that they always deny it when asked by the press and so on. There's also been a bunch of fake stories about them, like the one that said they proposed a Hitler banknote. It's difficult to tell where their rhetoric ends and the one of their opponents begins, especially since I don't understand the language and all I know of them is via middlemen.
On November 23 2016 21:22 xM(Z wrote: you started a point out the stupid(est) contest and put yourself on top of the list so, instead of trying to touch on your half assed issues, i'd rather stay here and laugh at you.
He put you on the list too. Or is Dan from the other Romania where you can point and laugh rather than be ashamed about your fellow countryman?
yes, he points and laughs and i'm ashamed. he's an immigrant. he went West with the Pet Shop Boys and bought into the multiculturalism rhetoric. now he is stuck in between worlds and a side calls him a sellout and other boos him back to where he came from.
We had a party in switzerland that called themselves "autopartei" (car party) and they basically were libertarians that argued for plenty of stuff from a, reckless, drivers point of view.
Not as bad as your examples but still fun (they also ended up ultrarightwing and died off quickly after they renamed themselves to "freedom party")
On November 23 2016 21:22 xM(Z wrote: you started a point out the stupid(est) contest and put yourself on top of the list so, instead of trying to touch on your half assed issues, i'd rather stay here and laugh at you.
He put you on the list too. Or is Dan from the other Romania where you can point and laugh rather than be ashamed about your fellow countryman?
yes, he points and laughs and i'm ashamed. he's an immigrant. he went West with the Pet Shop Boys and bought into the multiculturalism rhetoric. now he is stuck in between worlds and a side calls him a sellout and other boos him back to where he came from.
That's not the case, could you mind your own business instead of making shit up about me? There's no need to make some elaborate origin strawman to comprehend why someone would poke fun of a fringe party with such a platform. It's par for the course wherever I see them mentioned.
On November 24 2016 03:23 Velr wrote: We had a party in switzerland that called themselves "autopartei" (car party) and they basically were libertarians that argued for plenty of stuff from a, reckless, drivers point of view.
Not as bad as your examples but still fun (they also ended up ultrarightwing and died off quickly after they renamed themselves to "freedom party")
In the Netherlands we had the pedopartij, but they never got enough signatures to become an official political party. Of course, they weren't officially called the pedopartij and insisted that they weren't in favour of pedophily, but their program included:
lower legal age of sex to 12 y.o.
legalize public nudity everywhere
And, just for the extra wtf: mandatory vegetarianism (all around ban on consumption of meat or fish products)
In the early 90s we had the Polish Beer-Lovers' Party. They started as a satirical party but they made it to the parliament so you can say there was something serious about them.
Originally, the party's goal was to promote cultural beer-drinking in English-style pubs instead of vodka and thus fight alcoholism.
Although it may have started as a prank, with time, its members developed a serious platform. Moreover, the idea of a political discussion in establishments that served quality beer became a symbol of freedom of association and expression, intellectual tolerance, and a higher standard of living. Its humorous name probably helped the party win votes from a politically disenchanted populace in the 1991 parliamentary elections.
In the 1991 parliamentary elections the PPPP won 16 seats in the Sejm capturing 2.97% of the vote. The party soon split into Large Beer and Small Beer factions, despite Rewiński's claims that "beer is neither light nor dark, it is tasty." Eventually the PPPP was dissolved.
On November 23 2016 21:05 Dan HH wrote: I challenge you guys to find the dumbest non-satirical party in Europe. My submission, which I'm confident will win this contest (but surprise me anyway), is Partidul România Unită (United Romania Party), a new populist party founded in 2015 whose platform makes Trump look mentally stable by comparison. Thankfully they're only polling at 1% for the upcoming election.
Their logo is Vlad the Impaler (!) superimposed on an outline of Romania + Moldova. A translation of the juiciest points:
- no.1 is "stop selling land to foreigners", "land sales only to Romanian citizens with the state having preemptive rights", "inheritance for foreigners forbidden"'
- no. 2 is "stop to the colonization of Romania with refugees!" (we received a whooping 200 refugees in the past 2 years, which are evidently subjugating the 19 million natives with their muslamic ray guns )
- no .6 is "stop the state parasitizing and the creation of a parallel state by Soros NGOs" (you may think this is a joke but I assure you it isn't, Soros is the ultimate boogeyman to the Eastern European right)
- no. 10 is "stop the destruction of the Romanian orthodox church by the Anti-corruption agency"
"The man who has been dethroned as leader of the family is still looking for a wife, who is capable of taking care of the housework and whose instincts to take care of the brood overcomes forced ambitions of personal fullfillment."
"In the eyes of the male and female observer, every organization loses reputation the more women participate and the higher their rank within the organization is."
"A state with more party tents than military tents is bound to perish."
"Rural work requires a lot of hands. In case the wages for that work have to be low, using children is alright. That sounds like exploitation and stealing children their childhood, but it is in the nature of people."
Just a handful of quotes from a book published (written by a different party member) by our soon to be next president. Hurray.
In the US we have president-elect Trump, who has said much worse. I doubt that you could have not heard by now.
In Russia we have this interesting man named Zhirinovsky, the leader of a nationalist party of some prominence who is known for saying some pretty crazy shit. When covering Trump on Russian TV they compared Trump's "Wrong!" remarks to this guy, saying "if he's already doing it why not go full Zhirinovsky and just call your opponents pussy-ass bitches?" Yet he's a well-educated fellow who is a pretty competent administrator, he is just addicted to political trolling. Here's a milder, but European-centric sample.
On November 23 2016 21:22 xM(Z wrote: you started a point out the stupid(est) contest and put yourself on top of the list so, instead of trying to touch on your half assed issues, i'd rather stay here and laugh at you.
He put you on the list too. Or is Dan from the other Romania where you can point and laugh rather than be ashamed about your fellow countryman?
yes, he points and laughs and i'm ashamed. he's an immigrant. he went West with the Pet Shop Boys and bought into the multiculturalism rhetoric. now he is stuck in between worlds and a side calls him a sellout and other boos him back to where he came from.
That's not the case, could you mind your own business instead of making shit up about me? There's no need to make some elaborate origin strawman to comprehend why someone would poke fun of a fringe party with such a platform. It's par for the course wherever I see them mentioned.
sorry but i don't see how stupid is funny; it's worrying and shameful.
On November 24 2016 03:49 Sent. wrote: In the early 90s we had the Polish Beer-Lovers' Party. They started as a satirical party but they made it to the parliament so you can say there was something serious about them.
Originally, the party's goal was to promote cultural beer-drinking in English-style pubs instead of vodka and thus fight alcoholism.
Although it may have started as a prank, with time, its members developed a serious platform. Moreover, the idea of a political discussion in establishments that served quality beer became a symbol of freedom of association and expression, intellectual tolerance, and a higher standard of living. Its humorous name probably helped the party win votes from a politically disenchanted populace in the 1991 parliamentary elections.
In the 1991 parliamentary elections the PPPP won 16 seats in the Sejm capturing 2.97% of the vote. The party soon split into Large Beer and Small Beer factions, despite Rewiński's claims that "beer is neither light nor dark, it is tasty." Eventually the PPPP was dissolved.
Is this real? This reads like something from a sketch show, and UK has loads of funny parties.
On November 24 2016 03:23 Velr wrote: We had a party in switzerland that called themselves "autopartei" (car party) and they basically were libertarians that argued for plenty of stuff from a, reckless, drivers point of view.
Not as bad as your examples but still fun (they also ended up ultrarightwing and died off quickly after they renamed themselves to "freedom party")
In the Netherlands we had the pedopartij, but they never got enough signatures to become an official political party. Of course, they weren't officially called the pedopartij and insisted that they weren't in favour of pedophily, but their program included:
lower legal age of sex to 12 y.o.
legalize public nudity everywhere
And, just for the extra wtf: mandatory vegetarianism (all around ban on consumption of meat or fish products)
When someone I know was in high school he had a presentation about that party. He actually asked the party leader to come to the high school to explain himself. Surprisingly he wanted to come lol. It didn't happen in the end though. The pedopartij was pretty nuts.
Donald Trump is more likely to keep America committed to Nato if more European countries follow the UK’s lead and increase their defence spending, Nato’s secretary general has said after talks with the British prime minister, Theresa May.
With Trump casting doubt on the value of Nato during the presidential election campaign, the secretary general of the transatlantic defence organisation, Jens Stoltenberg, called on countries to hand over more cash to secure the “transatlantic bond”.
Trump, who has promised to strengthen relations with Russia, also suggested the US might not come to the aid of an ally that did not meet the spending target of defence expenditure at 2% of GDP.
May, who backs calls for European nations to spend more, insisted the UK would remain a “cornerstone” of Nato.
In his talks with May, Stoltenberg praised the British for reaching the 2% target, saying: “By doing so you lead by example. It’s good to see that other allies are now following you and they are starting to increase defence spending.
“They still have a long way to go but are starting to move in the right direction. More defence spending in Europe is important for the transatlantic bond, for fair burden-sharing between Europe and the United States.”
May said Nato needed to focus on recognising “new threats as they emerge” and in particular cyber capabilities.
Britain is one of just four European members of Nato to hit the agreed Nato spending target. The others are Poland, Estonia and Greece.
Stoltenberg has tried to lower the temperature surrounding Trump’s interventions by saying it has been the position of successive American presidents, and almost almost all US politicians, that European countries need to do more to contribute to their own defence.
He has claimed calls to reverse cuts have been heeded and spending is slowly starting to rise.
Stoltenberg has calculated that if all Nato countries met the 2% target $100bn (£80bn) would be raised, equivalent to the combined budgets of the largest defence spenders in Europe: the UK and France.
But Stoltenberg will also be concerned by the impact of Brexit on European defence thinking. The high probability of the UK’s departure from the EU has given added impetus to European politicians calling for stronger EU defences.
After Brexit, non-EU allies will account for 80% of Nato’s defence spending. Three of the four Nato battlegroups to be deployed in Poland and the Baltic states will be led by non-EU allies.
Stoltenberg argues the imbalance means European countries cannot afford to be decoupled from non-EU Nato allies. But he says he is not opposed to greater EU defence cooperation, so long as there is no attempt to duplicate Nato assets or command structures.
Donald Trump is more likely to keep America committed to Nato if more European countries follow the UK’s lead and increase their defence spending, Nato’s secretary general has said after talks with the British prime minister, Theresa May.
With Trump casting doubt on the value of Nato during the presidential election campaign, the secretary general of the transatlantic defence organisation, Jens Stoltenberg, called on countries to hand over more cash to secure the “transatlantic bond”.
Trump, who has promised to strengthen relations with Russia, also suggested the US might not come to the aid of an ally that did not meet the spending target of defence expenditure at 2% of GDP.
May, who backs calls for European nations to spend more, insisted the UK would remain a “cornerstone” of Nato.
In his talks with May, Stoltenberg praised the British for reaching the 2% target, saying: “By doing so you lead by example. It’s good to see that other allies are now following you and they are starting to increase defence spending.
“They still have a long way to go but are starting to move in the right direction. More defence spending in Europe is important for the transatlantic bond, for fair burden-sharing between Europe and the United States.”
May said Nato needed to focus on recognising “new threats as they emerge” and in particular cyber capabilities.
Britain is one of just four European members of Nato to hit the agreed Nato spending target. The others are Poland, Estonia and Greece.
Stoltenberg has tried to lower the temperature surrounding Trump’s interventions by saying it has been the position of successive American presidents, and almost almost all US politicians, that European countries need to do more to contribute to their own defence.
He has claimed calls to reverse cuts have been heeded and spending is slowly starting to rise.
Stoltenberg has calculated that if all Nato countries met the 2% target $100bn (£80bn) would be raised, equivalent to the combined budgets of the largest defence spenders in Europe: the UK and France.
But Stoltenberg will also be concerned by the impact of Brexit on European defence thinking. The high probability of the UK’s departure from the EU has given added impetus to European politicians calling for stronger EU defences.
After Brexit, non-EU allies will account for 80% of Nato’s defence spending. Three of the four Nato battlegroups to be deployed in Poland and the Baltic states will be led by non-EU allies.
Stoltenberg argues the imbalance means European countries cannot afford to be decoupled from non-EU Nato allies. But he says he is not opposed to greater EU defence cooperation, so long as there is no attempt to duplicate Nato assets or command structures.
2% of GDP translates to something like 10% of the entire government budget for most countries? In which case I see why a lot of countries does not want it. Global trend has been a downward trend after the cold war ended, wanting to ramp it up again feels strange. In Eurasia the three worrisome areas are middle east conflicts (no need to increase spending because of it), Russian and Chinese expansions. If you improve relations with Russia you only have the Chinese problem remaining for the majority of Nato nations.
Seems more logical to me to decrease US military spending to the general Nato level than increase it for most other members. (Which has slowly been happening.)
Edit. Excluded the Indian borders since those don't worry Nato nations and are mostly stable.
WhiteDog will be ecstatic: Martin Schulz is moving back into German federal politics and is being talked about as social democrat chancellor candidate, to challenge Merkel.
Donald Trump is more likely to keep America committed to Nato if more European countries follow the UK’s lead and increase their defence spending, Nato’s secretary general has said after talks with the British prime minister, Theresa May.
With Trump casting doubt on the value of Nato during the presidential election campaign, the secretary general of the transatlantic defence organisation, Jens Stoltenberg, called on countries to hand over more cash to secure the “transatlantic bond”.
Trump, who has promised to strengthen relations with Russia, also suggested the US might not come to the aid of an ally that did not meet the spending target of defence expenditure at 2% of GDP.
May, who backs calls for European nations to spend more, insisted the UK would remain a “cornerstone” of Nato.
In his talks with May, Stoltenberg praised the British for reaching the 2% target, saying: “By doing so you lead by example. It’s good to see that other allies are now following you and they are starting to increase defence spending.
“They still have a long way to go but are starting to move in the right direction. More defence spending in Europe is important for the transatlantic bond, for fair burden-sharing between Europe and the United States.”
May said Nato needed to focus on recognising “new threats as they emerge” and in particular cyber capabilities.
Britain is one of just four European members of Nato to hit the agreed Nato spending target. The others are Poland, Estonia and Greece.
Stoltenberg has tried to lower the temperature surrounding Trump’s interventions by saying it has been the position of successive American presidents, and almost almost all US politicians, that European countries need to do more to contribute to their own defence.
He has claimed calls to reverse cuts have been heeded and spending is slowly starting to rise.
Stoltenberg has calculated that if all Nato countries met the 2% target $100bn (£80bn) would be raised, equivalent to the combined budgets of the largest defence spenders in Europe: the UK and France.
But Stoltenberg will also be concerned by the impact of Brexit on European defence thinking. The high probability of the UK’s departure from the EU has given added impetus to European politicians calling for stronger EU defences.
After Brexit, non-EU allies will account for 80% of Nato’s defence spending. Three of the four Nato battlegroups to be deployed in Poland and the Baltic states will be led by non-EU allies.
Stoltenberg argues the imbalance means European countries cannot afford to be decoupled from non-EU Nato allies. But he says he is not opposed to greater EU defence cooperation, so long as there is no attempt to duplicate Nato assets or command structures.
2% of GDP translates to something like 10% of the entire government budget for most countries? In which case I see why a lot of countries does not want it. Global trend has been a downward trend after the cold war ended, wanting to ramp it up again feels strange. In Eurasia the three worrisome areas are middle east conflicts (no need to increase spending because of it), Russian and Chinese expansions. If you improve relations with Russia you only have the Chinese problem remaining for the majority of Nato nations.
Seems more logical to me to decrease US military spending to the general Nato level than increase it for most other members. (Which has slowly been happening.)
Edit. Excluded the Indian borders since those don't worry Nato nations and are mostly stable.
10% of the government budget for NATO countries? Most of the rich western governments spend 40-50% of GDP.
On November 24 2016 16:50 zatic wrote: WhiteDog will be ecstatic: Martin Schulz is moving back into German federal politics and is being talked about as social democrat chancellor candidate, to challenge Merkel.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y3tELk7.jpg)
