Spreaders of Conspiracy Theories: Unmasking the Motivations Behind the Lies

[rooster59]

British role in European security "unconditional" - foreign minister

 

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson arrives for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium March 31, 2017. REUTERS/Virginia Mayo/Pool

 

PARIS (Reuters) - Britain's contribution to European security is "unconditional", Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told a French newspaper, denying the government had made a veiled threat to reduce cooperation if there was no post-Brexit trade deal.

 

Prime Minister Theresa May said in a letter to the European Union on Wednesday that "our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened" if Britain left the bloc without a new deal on trade and other matters.

 

Asked in an interview with France's Le Figaro whether Britain was looking to exchange security cooperation against a trade deal, Johnson said: "No, on the contrary."

 

"We regard the UK's traditional and historic contribution to the security and stability of Europe as something that is unconditional," he said in the interview published on Saturday.

 

"We will continue to make this contribution because we believe it is good for the whole of Europe and indeed of the world. It's in our interests as much as anybody else's and we hope this will be one of the ways in which we can continue to work very closely (with the EU) in a deep and special partnership."

 

Johnson said what Britain wanted was "a strong EU buttressed by a strong UK".

 

Brexit minister David Davis also said on Thursday that May's words did not amount to a threat.

 

"This is a statement of the fact that this will be harmful for both of us (Britain and the EU) ... if we don't get a deal. It's an argument for having a deal," he said.

 

Despite these assurances, May's words were widely interpreted as a veiled threat on both sides of the Channel. The Sun, a pro-Brexit British tabloid newspaper, ran the front-page headline "Your money or your lives" the day after May's letter.

 

Johnson told Le Figaro he thought the chances of Britain leaving the EU without an agreement were "very small".

 

The EU's top diplomat, Federica Mogherini, said on Friday that the effect of Brexit on the bloc's joint defence and security operations would be minimal.

 

She said she expected security and defence cooperation between Britain and the EU to continue after Brexit, not least through NATO.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-02

[Baerboxer]

NATO could be in for some change.

 

Germany is refusing point blank to honor the agreements it signed up to. Not the only one.

 

Deceitful cheating. Proving again some countries cannot be trusted as their word means nothing.

 

The US, UK and others who do spend the obligated amount may feel their tax payers should no longer be paying to protect those who default at will.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

NATO could be in for some change.

 

Germany is refusing point blank to honor the agreements it signed up to. Not the only one.

 

Deceitful cheating. Proving again some countries cannot be trusted as their word means nothing.

 

The US, UK and others who do spend the obligated amount may feel their tax payers should no longer be paying to protect those who default at will.

What agreement or agreements isn't Germany honoring?

[Thaidream]

The agreement was to boost defense spending to 2% of GDP.  Germany is refusing.  As much as I dislike Trump- it is time for the US and UK to simply tell Europe that they have to pay their fair share or the countries that are paying will lower their defense budgets related to European defense. In addition, it might be time to close all US bases in Germany Or relocate them to another country.

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The agreement was to boost defense spending to 2% of GDP.  Germany is refusing.  As much as I dislike Trump- it is time for the US and UK to simply tell Europe that they have to pay their fair share or the countries that are paying will lower their defense budgets related to European defense. In addition, it might be time to close all US bases in Germany Or relocate them to another country.

Not quite. The agreement was to raise spending to 2 percent by 2024

https://www.rt.com/news/377773-germany-nato-military-spending/

[anon4546543]

9 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The agreement was to boost defense spending to 2% of GDP.  Germany is refusing.  As much as I dislike Trump- it is time for the US and UK to simply tell Europe that they have to pay their fair share or the countries that are paying will lower their defense budgets related to European defense. In addition, it might be time to close all US bases in Germany Or relocate them to another country.

One hopes the US will leave most of their (260) overseas bases and go home. Repair your budget and look after your home security. Not going to happen but heck, I had to stick my nose in, much as the US sticks its nose in nearly everywhere it is not wanted. 

[simple1]

14 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The agreement was to boost defense spending to 2% of GDP.  Germany is refusing.  As much as I dislike Trump- it is time for the US and UK to simply tell Europe that they have to pay their fair share or the countries that are paying will lower their defense budgets related to European defense. In addition, it might be time to close all US bases in Germany Or relocate them to another country.

IMO removing US bases from Germany would be similar to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[anon4546543]

On 03/04/2017 at 6:08 AM, simple1 said:

IMO removing US bases from Germany would be similar to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Why? It would force Germany and the EU to spend more of their money on their own defence. The US saves lots of dollars on unnecessary bases. And the US would still have 255 other bases around the world.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, spiderorchid said:

Why? It would force Germany and the EU to spend more of their money on their own defence. The US saves lots of dollars on unnecessary bases. And the US would still have 255 other bases around the world.

Because EU stability is central to global security and trade - one of the core reasons for military investment is protection of trade.

 

Requirement on Germany is to invest 2% of GDP in military expenditure by 2024.

 

Suggest the US not having personnel and equipment to potentially counter Russia from EU bases would not be a good move given proven Russian aggression / expansionism in Europe.