Tag Archives: NATO

One Morning In The Office Take 7

Posted on by
Reply

One Morning in The Office – a satire @realdonaldtrump

"Welcome back Mr President."
"Good to be back, Air Force One's bed is too small."
"Compared to?"
"All my other beds and the hotels, even the UK Ambassador's residence was bigger."
"Do yo want me to get a bigger bed in Air Force One?"
"I've already told them to do it. The idiots claim they'll have to redesign the 747 or use that big Airbus thing they fly wings in"
"That would please the Europeans but haven't we imposed tariffs on them?"
"Yeah, still if they want me to have it they can pay for it like the wall."
"Sir, the Mexicans aren't paying for the wall. In fact, no one is paying for the wall."
"We're getting if for free?"
"No Sir. We have claimed to have built the walls that were put up in 2006 and California has added a few miles to the fences they put up years ago..."
"Zzzzzzz"
"Sir!" "Sorry I dozed off. Jet lag."
"Sir, what I wanted to ask is, what statement do you want me to put out about your meeting with Vlad."
"Did you check the thes, thees, tess, that dictionary thing?"
"The Thesaurus? Yes Sir.
"And?"
"Sir, would, would not, could, could not, should and should not, all have different meanings."
"You're sure?"
"I have it here if you want to read it?"
"Not fake news?"
"No, Sir."
"What about wouldn't and would?"
"They are opposites Sir."
"Damn, what now?"
"You'll have to apologise Sir or say you made a mistake."
"Out of context?"
"It's recorded Sir."
"Damn.... Still I can re-tweet something else afterwards, get the press running around in circles again."
"Even Fox were concerned."
"Give them another interview like we did with that British paper, that went well."
"You mean directly contradict what you said on audio and video after the event."
"Just like with Vlad. Anything from him?"
"Only the note about the extra service in the Helsinki hotel."
"What extra services?"
"The same as the Moscow hotel, it's on your preference list for that chain. The Secret Service would not let them in."
"Who told them to do that. I needed some relaxation these summits are hard."
"Remember Sir it was not a summit just a meeting to improve relations."
"Great success."
"With whom Sir?"
"All my meetings were a success."
"NATO, the UK, Germany, the EU?"
"All went perfectly. They all agreed to do what I told them."
"I'm not sure they think that."
"They don't matter. I've won the war in Syria, kicked out those Irises..."
"ISIS, Sir, Irises are flowers."
"You sure? Anyway, wall is going up, got the tax cuts done my poll ratings are up..."
"Actually they are not up."
"...Economy is great I did it all."
"Of course you did Sir."
"Who says different?"
"No one would dare Sir."
"You been watching that fake news again."
"No Sir. I read the Intelligence service brief and the report from the Federal Reserve. Mr Mueller is still investigating."
"Fake News, Fake News, Fake News. Vlad and Xi are happy."
"Actually Xi is not happy about the new sanctions."
"Why not." "He wants a bigger cut. So does Kim."
"Nice fella', A bit short. No dice, it's my deal take it or leave it. I got NATO to increase spending by buying American weapons."
"I don't think they actually agreed to that."
"I did. I tweeted that so it must be true."
"Yes Sir. There's another problem with one of your former er... acquaintances."
"Which one?"
"Karen McDougal, she was a Playboy Model."
"Which one?"
"Sir? Cohen had a tape of you and he discussing a payment to her?"
"A tape?"
"Yes Sir and the FBI have it now."
"Check that Thesaurus thing again on would and wouldn't."
"Yes Sir, anything else? I have to go and testify to the Grand Jury again."
"Yeah, more important things, can't Boeing build a bigger bed?" "Sir????"

In, Out or Shake It All About

Posted on by
Reply

In, out or shake it all about was written before the referendum on Brexit

I did not think I would return so quickly to the UK’s in out referendum as a blog topic but here I am. Once again I am heartily sick of this misinformation that is allowed to run across our media outlets without proper questioning.

This week much has been made of the legal status of the agreement with the Council of Europe and whether it is binding. Bottom line on this, in my view, is that the agreement is binding in intent but only becomes formalised after treaty change. As I explained in my previous post, this will require referendums in several other countries. If rejected by the constitutional process in those countries then what?

There continues to be a lack of clarity on many areas of our relationship with the EU regardless of the agreement negotiated. The in/out decision is really about this for most out campaigners. Regardless of the renegotiation details which appear almost to be a side show. I’ll focus on three elements Finance, Security, Rights and Trade.

Finance

The UK’s is the 4th largest contributor but the 2nd largest net contributor behind Germany. This net contribution is effectively a membership fee and that contribution is used by the EU organisations to subsidise and support other EU nations of which Poland, in 2013, was the largest recipient. In other words it is overseas aid for the EU. This fee in 2015 was £9 billion based on £18b contribution, £5b rebate (Mrs T) and £4b in farming via Common Agricultural. As a comparison the UK currently pays £43b per year in interest on its National debt of £1.6 Trillion.

The UK is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world depending on which source you site. G7 membership, G20 membership IMF etc are not dependent on EU membership.

Security

The In campaigners claim we are safer inside the EU. The Out disagree. So facts:

Under Article 51 of the UN charter all nation states have the right to self defence. The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council – one of five. Under Article 51 NATO operates its collective defence policy of an attack against one is an attack against all. NATO is the same size as the EU in terms of members, but they do not align. Several EU countries are Neutral (Austria, Finland and Sweden. You can add Ireland based on non-belligerency) therefore they cannot help with that type of security. Of course the USA and Canada are not in the EU but help with security. In/Out this does not change.

Security has other forms. The UK is one of the so-called 5-eyes which share intelligence information this is (CIA, MI5, MI6 , NSA, GCHQ etc with Australia, New Zealand ,Canada and the USA). No other member of the EU is; therefore, there is intelligence information that the UK does not share with those countries. There are separate agreements with some countries (France, Germany, Netherlands etc) and NATO shares some. So much for the contribution to the EU security.

Europol is put forward as a good example of EU security. Norway is mentioned as European, non-EU member that shares information. What is Europol? It has 800 members of staff of which 145 are liaison officers from member police forces. Under 5-eyes MI5 which along with the Met Police has Counter-Terrorism responsibilities, can’t share info with Europol. In fact much activity in 5-eyes is spent spying on our EU partners. Mrs Merkel’s phone for example. Do we really believe that Europol cooperation would stop if the UK left, or would a Norway arrangement be made. Then there is Interpol which is in 190 countries with many of the same aims as Europol. We would still be a member of that.

Rights

We are protected by the UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Both predate and are separate from the EU. The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution, nor is the War Crimes unit, nor the International Court. The EU does have the CJEU or the European Court of Justice which arbitrates on EU law i.e. the rights and wrongs under the treaty. This was the argument on legality disputed by the two sides this week. In effect they are both right. The CJEU could over turn but it has never done so. So, it will not, or might not, but could.

Some rights I believe the EU has done a much better job on then the UK authorities. Data protection is one are where the UK’s Information Commissioner has been an abject failure primarily due to the powers granted to the ICO. The EU has been much stronger striking down the pathetic Safe Harbor agreement with the USA as offering no protection. Whether the UK alone would stand up to the USA in these matters is doubtful, given 5-eyes its unlikely. This might mean that in event of an exit the EU may not be able to exchange data with the UK. That will be a major impediment to trade so would need to be addressed. In this case EU protection offers more than just UK.

Trade

Following the letter from several major companies promoting stay in the airwaves and print were full of disagreements on what exit might mean. I return to World Trade Organisation, G7, G20 and other agreements. Based on import export the EU needs us in a free trade area more than we need them especially as the EFTA agreements have not fully supported the trade in services. BMW and Audi will not want to lose access to the market. Any hint of trade tariffs or protectionism would just escalate on both sides. The actions of the Eurozone will make this more and more difficult for those members

In or Out

I still don’t know but I want to see much stronger reasons for staying in then I have seen so far. The new agreement does not change that as I cannot see anything fundamental changing. Removing ever closer union from a treaty (if approved) means nothing when the Eurozone is doing just that and has to do that to make the Euro work.

Ramblings on a Referendum

Posted on by
Reply

Ramblings on a referendum was written in September 2014 after the Scottish independence referendum

Writer I’ve just returned from a week in Las Palmas in The Canary Islands of Spain, don’t worry this is not trip advisor. Away from the UK my wife and I missed the Scottish referendum election and much of the ongoing horrors in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine alongside the Ebola crisis. Not that these events have gone away, even the referendum will have ramifications for months in the UK as the politicians will decide which of the bribes they proposed to the Scottish electorate will be fulfilled – oh and England, Wales and Northern Ireland may get some constitutional change too. How generous, although the argument now seems to be either: from Labour on what the impact will be on reducing the ability of Scottish Labour MPs to vote on English matters; the Conservatives need something to continue their fight with UKIP.
Meanwhile another group of MPs continue to receive their salaries and benefits of MPs without ever attending Parliament or taking up their seats. Sinn Féin step forward no news there.

As I discussed in a previous post the whole referendum process for Scotland was anything but democratic for the rest of the UK in the end 55% of those voting which was 85.5% (thanks for bothering, but what happened to the other 15%) of the 4.3m, or 3.6m decided the future of 64m. We had the unedifying view of all the main political parties disappearing to Scotland with vague promises on DevoMax which they had all decided previously should not have been on the ballot. Promises put forward by Gordon Brown, so we can all believe those!. I think the SNP were right to describe this as a pointless halfway house if Scotland really wanted control it had to vote yes. Further devolved powers do not make us more united. Of course the independence movement failed to mention the real problem – with so much legislation decided by Brussels or other treaty obligations even an independent Scotland would not have had that much control just like Westminster does not. That was if the EU (Spain may well have vetoed), NATO (would take defence commitments) and the UN (they will take anyone) accepted applications. What about the World Bank, IMF, World Health Organisation these international institutions are all part of legislative and economic power base of the world. Would an independent Scotland have joined the European Space Agency? Perhaps it was this and the currency uncertainties that tipped the balance in favour on a no. Who knows perhaps it was the colour of the flag that appealed.

The Liberal Democrats (remember them they are still in the Coalition) have proposed a federal organisation of the UK as part of the reform. My son who has studied this stuff likes the idea. If it creates another layer of bureaucracy which the previous Labour regional assembly proposals did then I would be against. Labour wants to follow the example of London for more power to big cities but then what about those of us that do not live in big cities? Whatever happens Parliamentary reform is long overdue we should have far fewer MPs given the devolved powers already and even fewer in the Lords. Perhaps 500 MPs with devolved powers to regional parliaments and 250 in the Lords – elected please.

Meanwhile the Pope thinks World War 3 is effectively under way due to the conflicts throughout the world. Not quite; however brutal and the number of conflicts. Clearly, it makes no difference to the victims whether the Pope thinks it’s a World War or not but human history is full of mostly unreported conflict. The battles in Africa seem never ending mostly based on tribal divisions made worse by the colonial false borders. There seems no easy resolution of the Syria conflict without supporting Assad, the very man the Western powers (and others) wanted removed, in order to defeat the allegedly bigger threat of ISIS, IS or ISL.

The appalling beheading on video of hostages adds to the fear element in the West allowing/forcing the politicians to act as if that one death is worse than the death from Ebola, Malaria, AIDS, or cancer. Horrific yes but so is a bomb from a coalition aircraft or a shell from an ISIS fighter. Remember those wonderful pictures of precision bombing. Someone’s son, brother, father, daughter, sister or mother has just been publicly killed. No squeamishness from western media in showing that video, but of course the victims are not journalists or aid workers. Not that we know who was in the vehicle or building alongside the fighter. The famous unverified reports beloved of BBC speak especially when dealing with sensitive subjects, must not get in trouble with the government when the next license fee discussion is under way. Even to the point of not reporting a story about a famous tennis player in case his view influences (only during voting day) the Scottish Referendum – really? The BBC’s efforts not to fall foul or the Electoral Commission are sometimes laughable, just like the promises of constitutional reform which we will now have to sit through.