General / Off-Topic Are we brexiting?

[Adept]

Germany owes £300billion to the USA and they refuse to honour their commitments , tut tut tut.

Hilarious and Delicious irony to see that the EU countries who refused to pay up into NATO for over 12 years are getting bills, net worth nearly a £trillion pounds from our cousins the USA.

Now here is the irony, If the EU don't honour their commitments that they signed up to with NATO, why the hell should we pay a EU divorce bill that we never signed up to? Regardles of the fact UK lawyers say we dont have to pay a thing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nce-ignore-usa-germany-spending-a7650636.html

There is no end to the confusions here. I guess to speak in a language you understand I should add "SAD!"

That's not how NATO works, nobody owes the US anything. NATO partners are not buying anything from the US.

Also you suddenly started talking about the EU. Germany is not the EU.

Seriously, are you allowed to conduct your own affairs? You seem hopelessly confused and mixed up.

- - - Updated - - -

Incorrect it does, Germany accepts they signed up to pay a yearly fee, as all the other EU countries, they are all moaning about the fee.

As for trump, he loves our country (his mother was a Brit) and as the leader of the only country in the world, who has the power to screw the EU over ,i welcome him and sit back and watch him annoy the EU for the next few years with great amusement Because May and Trump are now working together on helping us get a fair deal with the EU and if they don't give us one, America joins in and causes them mayhem.

Next on his agenda is the huge tariff increases on all trade to the US ...LOL

The EU will learn never to threaten the UK and instead they should remember who it was that liberated them in the 1940's and what they owe us, arrogant, selfish lot. Next time we will not be helping.

Do show us what "fee" NATO members signed up for. You just made that up.

As for the rest, it reads like the rambling of a 90+ year old WW-II veteran, or rather a younger person who thinks he should be treated as a veteran anyway.

 

[Adept]

LOL incorrect again. Instead of posting useless links about Nato and trying to give the impression you know what your talking about, when clearly you have NO IDEA, i suggest you read the facts.

Here is the detail of Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2009-2016)

Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2009-2016)

I say again , they all agreed to pay a yearly sum and most EU countries have refused to pay their full amount over 12 years and i have proven it. (I suggest you read this sentence TWICE, it is very clear what i state)

Your image does not show what they owe todate and how much they have been actually paying, your image just states what they SHOULD BE paying in....lol

Let me help you on choosing the correct image that refers to the original comment i made and that you failed to do.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/1872-width/20170225_WOC985_0.png

Oh you poor thing. Do you think aggressive rhetoric beats facts and reality?

What has confused you is the commitment in principle to spend 2% of a NATO member country's GDP on the defence budget. Thay's it. It has nothing to do with a "fee", and there's definitely nothing like "if you spend less, the difference gets paid to to the United States". That is a rabid fever dream. It's not real.

Donald Trump's fantasy invoice also has nothing in common with the UK's remaining budgetary commitments in the EU.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Oh you poor thing. Do you think aggressive rhetoric beats facts and reality?

What has confused you is the commitment in principle to spend 2% of a NATO member country's GDP on the defence budget. Thay's it. It has nothing to do with a "fee", and there's definitely nothing like "if you spend less, the difference gets paid to to the United States". That is a rabid fever dream. It's not real.

Donald Trump's fantasy invoice also has nothing in common with the UK's remaining budgetary commitments in the EU.

There is a direct NATO contribution, which covers running costs of the NATO administration (it's 2 billion, though, not 1.5 billion as mentioned before).

Even if Germany would not have payed it's 300 million contribution at all, it would take .. about 1000 years to accumulate that 300 billion "debt" it's supposed to have. Complete, utter banana bonkers rubbish. Drumpf can't even distinguish between two sorts of contributions. He's decomposing in plain sight.

 

[Adept]

There is a direct NATO contribution, which covers running costs of the NATO administration (it's 2 billion, though, not 1.5 billion as mentioned before).

https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_8186_direct_financial_contributions_nato_n.jpg

Even if Germany would not have payed it's 300 million contribution at all, it would take .. about 1000 years to accumulate that 300 billion "debt" it's supposed to have. Complete, utter banana bonkers rubbish. Drumpf can't even distinguish between two sorts of contributions. He's decomposing in plain sight.

That's why I ignored the pocket change for keeping the lights on and the club house stocked with coffee and biscuits.

Trump and poor Fyrd Judge clearly try to claim that a) the 2% defence spending is a legal requirement set in stone, and b) anything not spent up to that level has to be paid to the United States.

What does Trump think he runs, and international Mafia?

 

[Boomer Kay]

That's why I ignored the pocket change for keeping the lights on and the club house stocked with coffee and biscuits.

Trump and poor Fyrd Judge clearly try to claim that a) the 2% defence spending is a legal requirement set in stone, and b) anything not spent up to that level has to be paid to the United States.

What does Trump think he runs, and international Mafia?

That 2% goal was agreed in 2002 according to most sources.
What happened 2003? Exactly. 2nd Gulf War, invasion of Iraq. More "defense spending"..
Not even the french followed the US that time. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" [knocked out]

Why a "denfense spending" that is used on invading random countries is not a very popular idea in Germany should be kinda obvious.

 

[FuzzySpider]

There is no end to the confusions here. I guess to speak in a language you understand I should add "SAD!"

Ok that was legitimately laugh out loud funny.

In other UK brexit news, an important milestone was recently reached.

Two female leaders of their respective countries of the UK met to discuss the future of those countries, something which I don't think has happened since Tudor times, and certainly never happened since democracy.

I wonder how the Daily Mail will mark this momentous event in our history.

Spoiler

Oh...

 

[beelbeebub]

Does anybody know exactly how the UK actually gives notification under article 50?

An email? Recorded Royal Mail delivery, FEDEX, in person, a phone call?

Dropped on Brussels from a Lancaster bomber escorted by two Spitfires piloted by bulldogs in union jack waistcoats (the Leave wet dream option)

Oh and Trumps NATO claim is complete bull.

AFAIK only one NATO member has ever invoked article 5 to require it's co-members to provide military a distance en though they were not themselves attacked.

The USA.

Maybe the EU should send the US the bill for the Afgahn wars? I.suspect it's much more than $300bn...

 

[verminstar]

Northern Ireland in the news about Brexit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nification-david-davis-stormont-a7653346.html

Looks like it's really happening, Irish reunification is not inevitable but now seem likely. And a Tory government made it happen.

I love the way in which the times refer to us as a province...silly times if they are the best of the journalistic world but...nothig there really that comes as any huge surprise. Any border poll ever, regardless of when will be honoured as thats a democratic decision. Then again, democracy isnt realy your strongest point, is it? Tell me, was it ever really any different to this leaked report? We both know the answer...dont we?

This is not new news...far from it, its as old as the hills and reunification is inevitable, in time.

I love the way ye phrased it though to give it that hyperbole vibe to it...ye will never change fuzzy, always the same predictible nonsense from you. I do love the way outsiders who are clueless think they experts after reading the times though considering their first mistake came in the first sentence...

Nice try fuzzy but no cookie fer you...just more hyperbole tripe by the man who reads the times ^

 

[Lianachan]

Ok that was legitimately laugh out loud funny.

In other UK brexit news, an important milestone was recently reached.

Two female leaders of their respective countries of the UK met to discuss the future of those countries, something which I don't think has happened since Tudor times, and certainly never happened since democracy.

I wonder how the Daily Mail will mark this momentous event in our history.

Spoiler

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7_G9KuXQAACgQx.jpg

Oh...

Po-faced left wingers need to get a sense of humour, apparently. To be fair, I think the Daily Mail are ahead of the game here by putting the clocks back 60 years before Brexit even happens.

Dropped on Brussels from a Lancaster bomber escorted by two Spitfires piloted by bulldogs in union jack waistcoats (the Leave wet dream option)

 

[Monk]

In tangential brexit news...

Brexit engineer Nigel Farage hired to promote effort to break California in two

Mind keeping your Russian agents to yourselves? We've got enough of them already.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Does anybody know exactly how the UK actually gives notification under article 50?

Apparently the EU ambassador takes a letter to them.

I love the way in which the times refer to us as a province...silly times if they are the best of the journalistic world but...nothig there really that comes as any huge surprise. Any border poll ever, regardless of when will be honoured as thats a democratic decision. Then again, democracy isnt realy your strongest point, is it? Tell me, was it ever really any different to this leaked report? We both know the answer...dont we?

This is not new news...far from it, its as old as the hills and reunification is inevitable, in time.

I love the way ye phrased it though to give it that hyperbole vibe to it...ye will never change fuzzy, always the same predictible nonsense from you. I do love the way outsiders who are clueless think they experts after reading the times though considering their first mistake came in the first sentence...

Nice try fuzzy but no cookie fer you...just more hyperbole tripe by the man who reads the times ^

Passive aggression aside, you should be pleased - you're remaining an EU citizen.

Po-faced left wingers need to get a sense of humour, apparently. To be fair, I think the Daily Mail are ahead of the game here by putting the clocks back 60 years before Brexit even happens.

They're catching up with Breitbart.

 

[Fish172]

Lets face it, all of the debates, complaints and moans are moot. The decision was made lawfully by the public to exit the EU. The government are part of a democracy and like or lump it they got their answer. They no longer have a say in this matter. That also goes for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It does not matter one iota whether or not you agree, you live in a democracy and have to accept majority decisions. My opinion on this matter is my own and I keep it to myself. I just get tired of the debates about Brexit. What debate? Its done.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Lets face it, all of the debates, complaints and moans are moot. The decision was made lawfully by the public to exit the EU. The government are part of a democracy and like or lump it they got their answer. They no longer have a say in this matter. That also goes for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It does not matter one iota whether or not you agree, you live in a democracy and have to accept majority decisions. My opinion on this matter is my own and I keep it to myself. I just get tired of the debates about Brexit. What debate? Its done.

That's not quite how democracies work. There isn't a decision and that's it, over. People are entitled to fight for what they want, or it's not democracy but simple mob rule.

 

[Boomer Kay]

It does not matter one iota whether or not you agree, you live in a democracy and have to accept majority decisions.

Ah, the fine distinction between "autocracy" (ok, rather - Authoritarianism) and "democracy".

In a free contry, you "have" to accept nothing.

but simple mob rule.

Authoritarian mob rule. Ha.

 

[Rob At Work]

That's not quite how democracies work. There isn't a decision and that's it, over. People are entitled to fight for what they want, or it's not democracy but simple mob rule.

I think his point was, you can moan about the result all you like, but it isn't going to change anything.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I think his point was, you can moan about the result all you like, but it isn't going to change anything.

That wasn't his point, and protests can change an awful lot. So you're very wrong on both counts.

 

[Rob At Work]

That wasn't his point, and protests can change an awful lot. So you're very wrong on both counts.

Time will tell who is more accurate (I think wrong is the incorrect term really).

 

[Fish172]

Sorry guys my main point is that the paid politicians think that Brexit is "optional". Without a further referendum its simply not. They need to get on with the job in hand. The right to protest is also fundamental to a free society. I think that I get frustrated with the amount of effort they spend debating something that they have no choice in. All those that protest peacefully for or against are all worthy of praise because they "believe" in something and will fight for it.

Interesting times ahead I suspect.

 

[Sunleader]

LOL incorrect again. Instead of posting useless links about Nato and trying to give the impression you know what your talking about, when clearly you have NO IDEA, i suggest you read the facts.

Here is the detail of Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2009-2016)

Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2009-2016)

I say again , they all agreed to pay a yearly sum and most EU countries have refused to pay their full amount over 12 years and i have proven it. (I suggest you read this sentence TWICE, it is very clear what i state)

Your image does not show what they owe todate and how much they have been actually paying, your image just states what they SHOULD BE paying in....lol

Let me help you on choosing the correct image that refers to the original comment i made and that you failed to do.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/1872-width/20170225_WOC985_0.png



Sorry for correcting your: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...WjMF0b8CZuqaVyWrG1aQEZJ4F4XlnhaaWMQcyHBHBMrqQ

Thats actually Wrong.

Sorry to bust your Party.
But nobody Agreed to Spend an Percentage of their GDP for the last 12 Years.

Given that just like Donald Trump you are apparently incapable of gathering the required Information.


On a NATO Summit. The Countries of the NATO Allaince Pledged that they will increase their Defense Spending to equal 2% of their GDP by 2024
If I remember right we have 2017 now.
So before anyone could actually in any way be held Responsible for meeting that 2% Target. There is 7 Years left.

And even then its not an Mandatory or Required Spending but an Voluntary Pledge.
No Contracts and no Contractual Punishments are Signed for this.
Nor is there any Legal Options for other Countries of the Alliance including the USA. To collect Debts or demand these 2% to be actually Spend.

And please also note.
That regardless of anything. The USA would not be getting any of this Money either. Because the USA is merely the biggest Partner in this Defensive Pact.
There is no clause which says that other Countries have to Pay the USA something.
The USA is not the Owner of NATO and thus has no Rights or anything to Collect any Debts.



Your Image shows the Military Spending by Countries.
Thats however the Personal use of each Countries own Military.
The US Military (which is ridiculously oversized albeit understandably as the USA has been doing Aggressive Wars all over the World for the last few Decades) has its own Spending.
But thats not NATO Spending.

Thats Military Spending of NATO Members.
And its also only by Budget. Its not actually including the Payments to NATO.


Boomer Kay actually Posted the Chart for Payments to NATO above.



You just told others they have no Idea of what they are talking.
But seriously Mate. You just embarassed yourself entirely.
As you have apparently no Idea of this at all.

If you cant even tell Nato Commitments and Military Budget of Member States apart then I feel sorry for you.
Right now the only thing your Proving is that your absolutely clueless about this Topic. And you should seriously stop talking about it.



NATO is an Defensive Pact.
Members are by the Pact expected to consider an Armed Attack against one of the Member States as an Attack on ALL Member States.

Aside from that Cooperation and Committment is on the terms of direct Agreements and are at the responsibility of the Member States.


The Member States Pledged to reach 2% of their GDP as THEIR OWN Military Budget by 2024.
This has nothing to do with the USAs Spending. There is no Debts in NATO.
The USA Deciding to have this Gigantic Defense Spending is their own Choice they are not Forced to do that.

And just like that. Other Countries are not Forced to support the USAs aggressive Wars all over the World.
The USA can ask for Support but cannot Order the Alliance to Engage.
And the USA can ask for Support but it has no leverage to demand Financial and or Military Commitment for Offensive Actions.

The only case where the USA can actually Demand Support is in case they are Attacked and thus can call the Defense Case.


Other Countries are not Supposed and wont be going to Finance the USAs Military Adventures. Period.


Greetz

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry guys my main point is that the paid politicians think that Brexit is "optional". Without a further referendum its simply not. They need to get on with the job in hand. The right to protest is also fundamental to a free society. I think that I get frustrated with the amount of effort they spend debating something that they have no choice in. All those that protest peacefully for or against are all worthy of praise because they "believe" in something and will fight for it.

Interesting times ahead I suspect.

I think I said this before.
But they dont.
And the High Court in the UK also assumes that its not.

Once Article 50 is Triggered the UK is out.



Meanwhile
http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/28/scott...l-for-second-independence-referendum-6537962/

Scotland is making further Steps towards another Independence Referendum.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Sorry guys my main point is that the paid politicians think that Brexit is "optional". Without a further referendum its simply not. They need to get on with the job in hand. The right to protest is also fundamental to a free society. I think that I get frustrated with the amount of effort they spend debating something that they have no choice in. All those that protest peacefully for or against are all worthy of praise because they "believe" in something and will fight for it.

Interesting times ahead I suspect.

Parliament has a constituional duty to protect the interests of the UK. They're not bound by opinion polls.