Britain, Defence, Government, NATO, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

NATO defence spending

DEFENCE

nato-funding

Intro: Mr Trump is right to ask serious questions about the budgetary imbalance

The visit by Theresa May last month to Washington won an important acknowledgement from President Donald Trump: ‘he was 100 per cent behind NATO’. This was perceived as something of a coup given Mr Trump’s apparent indifference towards the 70-year-old alliance. His principal objection was not so much its existence as to the disproportionate contribution being made by the United States to its upkeep. By some measures, America pays 75 per cent of the total of NATO spending, most of which provides for the defence of Europe.

Donald Trump’s view – and, also, that of President Obama before him – is that Europe should shoulder a bigger share of that burden. A NATO symposium in Cardiff a few years ago proposed a minimum standard: that all NATO members should spend two per cent of their GDP on defence. This suited the UK because we have been meeting are two per cent commitment. According to the Government and NATO we continue to do so. A think-tank report, however, has caused consternation in Whitehall by suggesting all is not as it seems.

According to The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), last year’s figure was put at 1.98 per cent, below the NATO standard. The report claims that in Europe, only Greece and Estonia met the 2 per cent target in 2016. It has been suggested that the UK fell slightly short of the target because the economy grew faster than expected. The cash shortfall equates to around £380million. The British Government has responded by denouncing the calculation as “wrong” and has pointed to official NATO statistics from last July which put the UK’s defence spending for 2016 at 2.21 per cent of GDP. The Ministry of Defence has blamed exchange rate fluctuations caused by the drop in the value of pound sterling for the IISS ‘miscalculation’.

But this argument is largely specious – superficially plausible, but actually wrong – because, what matters is not a smoke-and-mirrors-game played with national budgetary statistics, but the provision for an adequate defence of Europe (largely paid for by the countries of Europe). Mr Trump is right to ask serious questions about the budgetary imbalance. The recent revelations that the Royal Navy’s entire fleet of seven attack submarines was out of action indicates that this is more than just massaging budgets; what matters is having the military capability to defend the nation and contribute to the requirements of the alliance whenever necessary. The politics and intergovernmental wrangling are secondary to the provision of effective defence systems; and the UK – and many others in Europe – need to pay their proper share towards them.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Society

Theresa May has now been PM for six months

UNITED KINGDOM

theresa-may

Theresa May has now held Office of Prime Minister for six months. On a recent visit to the United States Mrs May said that British Conservatives shared the principles of US Republicans.

Intro: Britain has a prime minister with convictions and a true sense of purpose. After just six months, she is growing fast into the job

AS a generally broad rule, Theresa May doesn’t give much away about her thoughts. But when the British Prime Minister does have something to say, it makes compelling listening.

The last fortnight has been an impressive period for Mrs May, with two speeches of historic importance, both full of substance and good sense.

And to crown it all came last week’s encouraging talks with Donald Trump, who hailed a “fantastic relationship”.

In the first of her momentous speeches, the prime minister outlined her vision for Brexit, with a straightforwardness and clarity that left her critics floundering.

Last week, addressing Republicans in Philadelphia, she set out her political philosophy and ideas about Britain’s relationship with the US and wider world.

In doing so, it is no exaggeration to say she signalled the end of a grim era for the West. For she brought down the curtain on two disastrous decades of Anglo-American intervention in foreign wars, whose legacy has been the rise of Islamist terrorism and the biggest migrations in peacetime history.

Whilst in America, Mrs May said that British Conservatives shared the principles of US Republicans: ‘The value of liberty, the dignity of work, the principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism – and putting power in the hands of the people.’

But in a hugely significant passage, she added: ‘The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over.’

Yes, we should intervene when the threat to our interests is real, and we should stand by our friends and allies. But wherever possible, Western values should triumph by example, not by force of arms.

As for those who have accused Mrs May of crawling to Mr Trump, they are a long way wide of the mark.

True, the prime minister did show politeness fitting for a guest – and the friendship due to our most powerful ally and biggest trading partner among individual nations.

Yet she has not shrunk from telling President Trump some home truths, warning him to be wary of Vladimir Putin, speaking up for NATO, free trade, and emphatically rejecting bigotry and torture.

Of course, there was always going to be a limit to how much could be achieved in such a short visit. But on the evidence of what she has said, Mrs May’s message on both torture and NATO appears to have got through. The prospects for a trade deal with the US seem set to be very promising.

There is good reason for quiet optimism that the UK’s partnership with the US will be highly successful – particularly for trade – to the great benefit of both countries.

Britain has a prime minister with convictions and a true sense of purpose. After just six months, she is growing fast into the job.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK Government announces plans for Brexit negotiations

UNITED KINGDOM

David Davis MP, the Brexit Secretary, has set out the UK Government’s negotiating strategy in a Government White Paper.

David Davis MP, the Brexit Secretary, has set out the UK Government’s negotiating strategy in a Government White Paper.

BREXIT SECRETARY David Davis has set out the Government’s negotiating strategy for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in a keenly-awaited white paper.

Launching the 77-page document in a statement to the House of Commons, Mr Davis said the paper confirmed Prime Minister Theresa May’s vision of ‘an independent and truly global United Kingdom’.

Confirming the UK’s strategy would be guided by the 12 principles set out by Mrs May in her Lancaster House speech last month (see article), Mr Davis said the Government was aiming for ‘a new, positive and constructive partnership between Britain and the European Union that works in our mutual interest’.

The white paper, entitled The United Kingdom’s Exit From And New Partnership With The European Union, was published a day after MPs voted overwhelmingly to permit Mrs May to press ahead with starting withdrawal negotiations under Article 50 of the EU treaties.

Mrs May’s foreword to the white paper was made up of extracts from her Lancaster House speech, in which she said that forging a new partnership with Europe and a ‘stronger, fairer, more global’ Britain would be ‘the legacy of our time, the prize towards which we work, the destination at which we arrive once the negotiation is done’.

In a preface to the document, Mr Davis said that Britain entered the negotiations which the Government intends to trigger by the end of March in ‘a position of strength’.

Stressing that the UK ‘wants the EU to succeed’, he urged the remaining 27 member states and European institutions to be guided in the upcoming negotiations by ‘the principles set out in the EU Treaties concerning a high degree of international co-operation and good neighbourliness’.

Mr Davis said the Government would not publish details of its plans that would undermine Britain’s negotiating position, but promised ‘extensive engagement with Parliament’ and a ‘high degree of public engagement’ as the process went forward.

‘This document sets out our plan for the strong new partnership we want to build with the EU,’ he said.

‘Whatever the outcome of our negotiations, we will seek a more open, outward-looking, confident and fairer UK, which works for all.’

Standard