Comment: Wait a minute; why would Britain need to convince America in order to convince Europe that it is serious about its security? Isn't British security a British domestic concern?
"Over the next four years, besides adding the present UK EEAS budget to our contribution to NATO, we will need to move as quickly as we can to devoting 2.5 percent of GDP to NATO to be seen as serious," Owen said in his address. He warned that "only in a revived NATO, where European countries are no longer as President [Barack] Obama rightly accused us of being 'freeloaders,' and we make a greater financial contribution, will Europe redress the imbalance between us and President Putin's Russian Federation."
Comment: Is Lord Owen British or is he American? Which country does he work for? Why is he repeating Pentagon propaganda about Russia?
On the relationship with Europe, Owen argued: "When the EU recognizes that the UK is even more committed to European stability as well as security then Brexit will be seen in a different light as strengthening the wider Europe." Before committing to an extra 0.5 percent, the British government may want to check [that] it is actually meeting its stated obligations.
Comment: Hang on a second: is Britain in the EU or is it not? If it's not, then why is it still talking about putting its military in Europe? Last time we checked, British borders end at the Cliffs of Dover, not eastern Poland.
In April, the military was accused of using creative accounting to hit the original 2 percent commitment by the Commons Defence Select Committee. MPs on the committee said then-Chancellor George Osborne and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon could only hit the target by juggling numbers. The committee said war pensions and intelligence gathering were folded into the defense remit for accounting purposes, despite previously being separate.
Comment: Great. Labour can get into power, then continue pretending, like their predecessors, that the American Empire is going to rule the world forever.
The investigators found the inability of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to offer a breakdown of operational spending "remarkable, given the magnitude of the sums involved," leaving the military exposed to accusations of cooking the books.
"The only way that the Ministry of Defence can refute claims of 'creative accounting' is to outline, clearly and unambiguously, what the new inclusions are, how much they constitute, and from which department each was previously funded," the report argues.




If they want to be taken seriously? So, again another 'former' propaganda puppet telling us what should be done, why should be take a former puppet seriously if we don't take the current ones seriously?
Maybe its the driver of these nations that are the problem? Something like this? [Link]