Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. " All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight." Bit cheeky counting ex services pensions as part of defense spending though isn't it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight." That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country." How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt" oh matt; grow a spine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt oh matt; grow a spine "Yeah but do yourself a favour and answer his question, cause its fairly straight forward and you are looking like a bit of a prat ducking under the parapet like that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt" It potentially drives a bulldozer through the funding of several defence projects, which rely on manufacturers across Europe, unless a deal is done on the import / export of the systems and systems components. As in Ajax, Typhoon, A400, the majority of naval missile systems , the majority of communications systems, and satellites to name a few. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt It potentially drives a bulldozer through the funding of several defence projects, which rely on manufacturers across Europe, unless a deal is done on the import / export of the systems and systems components. As in Ajax, Typhoon, A400, the majority of naval missile systems , the majority of communications systems, and satellites to name a few." Yes, that is some obvious issues about costs and practicalities. The thread was discussing countries' funding levels of Nato and the comment in response I don't understand is what relevance 'sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country' has on our (or other) countries funding level to Nato. From the response of the commenter, I guess nothing at all and they are just shit stirring as they can't answer the question. Not really a surprise tbh. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt It potentially drives a bulldozer through the funding of several defence projects, which rely on manufacturers across Europe, unless a deal is done on the import / export of the systems and systems components. As in Ajax, Typhoon, A400, the majority of naval missile systems , the majority of communications systems, and satellites to name a few. Yes, that is some obvious issues about costs and practicalities. The thread was discussing countries' funding levels of Nato and the comment in response I don't understand is what relevance 'sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country' has on our (or other) countries funding level to Nato. From the response of the commenter, I guess nothing at all and they are just shit stirring as they can't answer the question. Not really a surprise tbh. -Matt" Matt; 'the sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country' is a phrase I have used for many years, I absolutely feel we will be far better off when we separate. it is a comment, that's all. You simply do not know how much better off, or worse off we will be, you are only presuming, you don't have a magic ball, and all of your experts that warned against brexit have admitted they were wrong with their predictions so far, so cut the shite please. fact is, Theresa May will try her dammed to encourage the other states to pay their 2% share and good on her. If you think I am "shit stirring" then why do you comment so much on the threads I start 
.
you just cant help yourself can you
.
I personally love sitting back and watching you try and outsmart others, gives me entertainment, makes me smile. lol
feel free to mail me direct with your opinions of if you want to say anything direct to me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt" Less money to fund things is an assumption on your part what is clear and factual at the present time is USA and Britain meet their Nato spending commitments and have made it clear they are going to continue to meet their Nato obligations. Germany, France and many other EU countries are not spending 2% of GDP on defence at present and that needs to change. They need to start pulling their weight and start paying their fair share. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt Less money to fund things is an assumption on your part what is clear and factual at the present time is USA and Britain meet their Nato spending commitments and have made it clear they are going to continue to meet their Nato obligations. Germany, France and many other EU countries are not spending 2% of GDP on defence at present and that needs to change. They need to start pulling their weight and start paying their fair share. " Oh, I totally agree about getting the other NATO members to pay their share and meet their obligations. I just don't understand what us leaving the EU has to do with that. How does us leaving the EU help us get the other NATO members to pay their fare share? I know it has nothing to do with it and I don't really think Steve Austin does either. He is just posting his unilateral view of 'we will be better out of the EU' in response to anything posted in this forum. He doesn't actually engage his brain first. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that, but I just don't see the link. Yes, less money to fund things is an assumption on my part. An assumption based on the fact that we are going to (and already are) spending more money leaving Brexit than we will save. By how much is up for prediction.. I don't think May included any costs in her white paper as far as I saw. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, less money to fund things is an assumption on my part. An assumption based on the fact that we are going to (and already are) spending more money leaving Brexit than we will save. By how much is up for prediction.. I don't think May included any costs in her white paper as far as I saw. -Matt" The Govt cannot possibly state that they think that there will be a cost to Brexit yet. It will come in time, but the public and the process have to managed otherwise they might just say... "Well why the fuck are we leaving?" That will be the last of the great falsehoods to be put to rest by which time most people will be immune and will have forgotten that a big motivator was "Saving £350 million a week." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt Less money to fund things is an assumption on your part what is clear and factual at the present time is USA and Britain meet their Nato spending commitments and have made it clear they are going to continue to meet their Nato obligations. Germany, France and many other EU countries are not spending 2% of GDP on defence at present and that needs to change. They need to start pulling their weight and start paying their fair share. Oh, I totally agree about getting the other NATO members to pay their share and meet their obligations. I just don't understand what us leaving the EU has to do with that. How does us leaving the EU help us get the other NATO members to pay their fare share? I know it has nothing to do with it and I don't really think Steve Austin does either. He is just posting his unilateral view of 'we will be better out of the EU' in response to anything posted in this forum. He doesn't actually engage his brain first. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that, but I just don't see the link. Yes, less money to fund things is an assumption on my part. An assumption based on the fact that we are going to (and already are) spending more money leaving Brexit than we will save. By how much is up for prediction.. I don't think May included any costs in her white paper as far as I saw. -Matt" As far as Nato goes it doesn't really matter if our economy shrinks or grows, 2% of GDP is still 2% of GDP whether the economy has shrunk or grown. The only rule on spending put forward by Nato is to spend 2% of GDP on defence. If our economy grows which the Bank of England has now forecast for this year to be 2% growth then Nato will be happy that our 2% GDP on defence will be a little more than before. Even if it was the opposite way though and the bank of England had forecast the economy to shrink then we'd still be spending 2% of GDP on defence to meet the Nato spending commitment but the 2% would be a little less than before. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt Less money to fund things is an assumption on your part what is clear and factual at the present time is USA and Britain meet their Nato spending commitments and have made it clear they are going to continue to meet their Nato obligations. Germany, France and many other EU countries are not spending 2% of GDP on defence at present and that needs to change. They need to start pulling their weight and start paying their fair share. Oh, I totally agree about getting the other NATO members to pay their share and meet their obligations. I just don't understand what us leaving the EU has to do with that. How does us leaving the EU help us get the other NATO members to pay their fare share? I know it has nothing to do with it and I don't really think Steve Austin does either. He is just posting his unilateral view of 'we will be better out of the EU' in response to anything posted in this forum. He doesn't actually engage his brain first. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that, but I just don't see the link. Yes, less money to fund things is an assumption on my part. An assumption based on the fact that we are going to (and already are) spending more money leaving Brexit than we will save. By how much is up for prediction.. I don't think May included any costs in her white paper as far as I saw. -Matt As far as Nato goes it doesn't really matter if our economy shrinks or grows, 2% of GDP is still 2% of GDP whether the economy has shrunk or grown. The only rule on spending put forward by Nato is to spend 2% of GDP on defence. If our economy grows which the Bank of England has now forecast for this year to be 2% growth then Nato will be happy that our 2% GDP on defence will be a little more than before. Even if it was the opposite way though and the bank of England had forecast the economy to shrink then we'd still be spending 2% of GDP on defence to meet the Nato spending commitment but the 2% would be a little less than before. " Right. So the answer to how does us leaving the EU affect our ability to fund out commitment to NATO is 'It doesn't'. At least we agree on something
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt Less money to fund things is an assumption on your part what is clear and factual at the present time is USA and Britain meet their Nato spending commitments and have made it clear they are going to continue to meet their Nato obligations. Germany, France and many other EU countries are not spending 2% of GDP on defence at present and that needs to change. They need to start pulling their weight and start paying their fair share. Oh, I totally agree about getting the other NATO members to pay their share and meet their obligations. I just don't understand what us leaving the EU has to do with that. How does us leaving the EU help us get the other NATO members to pay their fare share? I know it has nothing to do with it and I don't really think Steve Austin does either. He is just posting his unilateral view of 'we will be better out of the EU' in response to anything posted in this forum. He doesn't actually engage his brain first. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that, but I just don't see the link. Yes, less money to fund things is an assumption on my part. An assumption based on the fact that we are going to (and already are) spending more money leaving Brexit than we will save. By how much is up for prediction.. I don't think May included any costs in her white paper as far as I saw. -Matt As far as Nato goes it doesn't really matter if our economy shrinks or grows, 2% of GDP is still 2% of GDP whether the economy has shrunk or grown. The only rule on spending put forward by Nato is to spend 2% of GDP on defence. If our economy grows which the Bank of England has now forecast for this year to be 2% growth then Nato will be happy that our 2% GDP on defence will be a little more than before. Even if it was the opposite way though and the bank of England had forecast the economy to shrink then we'd still be spending 2% of GDP on defence to meet the Nato spending commitment but the 2% would be a little less than before. Right. So the answer to how does us leaving the EU affect our ability to fund out commitment to NATO is 'It doesn't'. At least we agree on something
-Matt"Think you are getting me confused with someone else on the thread. I never said the UK leaving the EU had anything to do with Nato. Nato and the EU are 2 separate things. It is some EU member countries who are not meeting their Nato spending commitments though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Think you are getting me confused with someone else on the thread. I never said the UK leaving the EU had anything to do with Nato. Nato and the EU are 2 separate things. It is some EU member countries who are not meeting their Nato spending commitments though. " actually, neither did I but some add 2+2 and come up with 5 lol; still, it did waste their precious time trying to figure out comments a 2 second comment and they are falling to bits over it   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. That's also what Theresa May said when visiting Trump, that she would try and work with; and encourage the other 23 nations to pay their way as only 5 so far do. sooner we remove ourselves from the EU the better for our country. How does us leaving the EU relate to our level and other countries level of funding for NATO? Other than we will have less money to fund things in general? -Matt Less money to fund things is an assumption on your part what is clear and factual at the present time is USA and Britain meet their Nato spending commitments and have made it clear they are going to continue to meet their Nato obligations. Germany, France and many other EU countries are not spending 2% of GDP on defence at present and that needs to change. They need to start pulling their weight and start paying their fair share. Oh, I totally agree about getting the other NATO members to pay their share and meet their obligations. I just don't understand what us leaving the EU has to do with that. How does us leaving the EU help us get the other NATO members to pay their fare share? I know it has nothing to do with it and I don't really think Steve Austin does either. He is just posting his unilateral view of 'we will be better out of the EU' in response to anything posted in this forum. He doesn't actually engage his brain first. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that, but I just don't see the link. Yes, less money to fund things is an assumption on my part. An assumption based on the fact that we are going to (and already are) spending more money leaving Brexit than we will save. By how much is up for prediction.. I don't think May included any costs in her white paper as far as I saw. -Matt As far as Nato goes it doesn't really matter if our economy shrinks or grows, 2% of GDP is still 2% of GDP whether the economy has shrunk or grown. The only rule on spending put forward by Nato is to spend 2% of GDP on defence. If our economy grows which the Bank of England has now forecast for this year to be 2% growth then Nato will be happy that our 2% GDP on defence will be a little more than before. Even if it was the opposite way though and the bank of England had forecast the economy to shrink then we'd still be spending 2% of GDP on defence to meet the Nato spending commitment but the 2% would be a little less than before. Right. So the answer to how does us leaving the EU affect our ability to fund out commitment to NATO is 'It doesn't'. At least we agree on something
-Matt
Think you are getting me confused with someone else on the thread. I never said the UK leaving the EU had anything to do with Nato. Nato and the EU are 2 separate things. It is some EU member countries who are not meeting their Nato spending commitments though. "I know you didn't. I said I agree with you that they are separate things. We finally agree on something and you then disagree that we agree?! Geeeeez
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Think you are getting me confused with someone else on the thread. I never said the UK leaving the EU had anything to do with Nato. Nato and the EU are 2 separate things. It is some EU member countries who are not meeting their Nato spending commitments though. actually, neither did I but some add 2+2 and come up with 5 lol; still, it did waste their precious time trying to figure out comments a 2 second comment and they are falling to bits over it "OK, so I was right then. You just like saying things will be better when we leave the EU regardless of the topic of discussion? You must be a hoot in bed. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dalia Grybauskaite, the Lithuanian president, offered a withering verdict on the recent meeting between Trump and Theresa May. “I don’t think there is a necessity for a bridge. We communicate with the Americans on Twitter,” she said. "Just as well, I don't think the Lithuanian President will be getting an invite to The White House any time soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Think you are getting me confused with someone else on the thread. I never said the UK leaving the EU had anything to do with Nato. Nato and the EU are 2 separate things. It is some EU member countries who are not meeting their Nato spending commitments though. actually, neither did I but some add 2+2 and come up with 5 lol; still, it did waste their precious time trying to figure out comments a 2 second comment and they are falling to bits over it
OK, so I was right then. You just like saying things will be better when we leave the EU regardless of the topic of discussion? You must be a hoot in bed.
-Matt"you need to speak to Vik more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Think you are getting me confused with someone else on the thread. I never said the UK leaving the EU had anything to do with Nato. Nato and the EU are 2 separate things. It is some EU member countries who are not meeting their Nato spending commitments though. actually, neither did I but some add 2+2 and come up with 5 lol; still, it did waste their precious time trying to figure out comments a 2 second comment and they are falling to bits over it
OK, so I was right then. You just like saying things will be better when we leave the EU regardless of the topic of discussion? You must be a hoot in bed.
-Matt
you need to speak to Vik more "fffffffpmsl... like I would sleep with you lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight." Agree 100% Won't stop the moaners and haters from bitching about the democratically elected leader of the US who -stop the press-actually delivers what he promised :-0 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight."  very true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. Agree 100% Won't stop the moaners and haters from bitching about the democratically elected leader of the US who -stop the press-actually delivers what he promised :-0" History is littered with leaders who did what they promised.....history tells us that isnt necessarily a good thing does it not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Probably not. In addition, there are several falsehoods being bandied about in terms of "NATO contributions" NATO Contributions are in two forms; direct ( money) and indirect (values of services, facilities, troops, logistics etc). The US certainly " funds" a huge proportion of NATO; though much of that is intentionally "double counted " within the US budgetary system, since the DoD does and funds programmes that it would be doing even if NATO didn't exist, but claims it as NATO expenditure to protect it from US government budget cuts. It is a never ending complaint by the US that other countries " don't pull their weight"; many don't; but those figures always remove the values of indirect contributions. All members of Nato are required to spend a minimum of 2% GDP on defence. USA and Britain meet that obligation. France, Germany and many other EU countries don't, it's about time they started to honour their commitments and meet their obligations as members of Nato. Trump is 100% right on this when he says they are not pulling their weight. Agree 100% Won't stop the moaners and haters from bitching about the democratically elected leader of the US who -stop the press-actually delivers what he promised :-0" And what has he actually delivered so far? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
