Germany

NATO – 19 nations may hit 2% promise 18 years after committing to do so

maddog.png

It is a farce. In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending. This guideline, according to NATO,  “principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts.” In 2017, only 5 of the 28 members outside the US have met the 2% threshold – Greece, Estonia, UK, Romania & Poland in that order. Despite Greece’s economic problems elsewhere, it manages to honour the deal. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said “the majority [not all] of allies now have plans to do so by 2024.” 3 more are expected to hit the target in 2018. So for all the good will in the world, is POTUS wrong to call the other 19 members slackers that ride off the US taxpayer when so many of them are only likely to hit the target 18 years after ‘committing’ to it?

NATO commitment in 2017 can be seen as follows.

NATO.png

Although all credit to the Europeans and Canadians for getting away with it for so long. Previous US presidents have obviously not concerned themselves with getting a fair deal on mutually agreed commitments. Although in what world would American taxpayers be upset to see the rest of the team pick up the slack?

Naturally the media are getting mileage out of the insensitive bully attacking his supposed allies. In fact Stoltenberg said last month on record that, “burden sharing will be a key theme of our summit next month, and I expect all allies to continue their efforts.” He reiterated that to Trump yesterday.

NATO2.png

To be brutally honest, how effective can a NATO force truly be if words aren’t put into action? What good is a promise if it is to be honored 18 years later. Imagine if that is the mindset should NATO be forced to act militarily. Would those meeting their obligations feel within their rights to have a bigger say in how NATO should work?

The problem with such a lack of commitment is that over the 12 years where 23 nations have not come close to meeting their obligations, the sum total of the actual defence capabilities suffers for the duration. The US is 67% of total NATO spend and the UK, France  & Germany make up half of the remainder. Yet building a sustainable capability in defence does not come through half measures or poorly thought out procurement. What is missed on many is that over 70% of defence budgets are allocated to soldier pay, housing, healthcare, training and so forth. Procurement and RDT&E get funded out of the balance. Have a skirmish somewhere and yet more money is chewed out of buying new equipment for the sake of logistics (feeding 10,000 troops and servicing hardware in a foreign land). Then there is the subject of terribly managed procurement programs.

Take the French disaster that is the aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle. Despite delays because of problems with a retrofit for radiation shields, the naval brass had to add 14 feet of deck because it realized that the E2-C Hawkeye surveillance planes it purchased couldn’t take off and land in its original build spec. Even now the flight deck is not long enough to conduct simultaneous launch and recovery operations. Even worse the blueprints for the CdG‘s propellers had been lost in a fire, which meant that the ship had to be refitted with hand-me down screws from carriers Foch and Clemenceau which meant her speed was cut from 27 knots to about 24 knots—which was unfortunate since her predecessors steamed at 32 knots. Speed to war zones is kind of important to gain a decisive edge. All of the spend to fix poorly thought out designs cuts from being able to procure other equipment and materiel. Scary to think Australia is buying 12 subs from the French! The problems are already revealing themselves despite not one boat having hit the dry dock.

History tells us many things of how NATO type organisations have failed in the past.The Peloponnesian Wars (431BC – 404BC) highlighted how things can change when allies do not keep up commitments and capabilities aren’t maintained.

Athens required her Delian League member states (consisting of city states mainly along the Ionian Sea) to pay tributes (phoros) to the treasury which was used to build and maintain the naval fleet led by Athens. Yet over time the member states relied too much on the wealth of Athens and over the course of the draining war and the costly campaign to Sicily, failed to honour the ever increasing demands to fund the league with the appropriate level of tributes which drove Athens into massive debt. Defence spending by the Athenians had been cut to around 30-60% of the average over the previous decade. The Delian League’s capabilities dwindled as a result and the Spartans, funded by Persia, took advantage of this and crushed it for good, in the very art of war that Athens was renowned for – the navy.

It is not hard to think of Trump feeling like a modern day Pericles. NATO is the Delian League and its projected enemies chip away all the while members dither over commitments, forcing the US to sustain the limited capability. Like the Athenians, the US has the most powerful navy in the world with a fleet bigger than the next 11 countries combined but even it has pared back the number of ships to less than 10% of what it had in WW2. Enhanced capability is one factor in cutting the surface fleet but even the US DoD realised that the conventionally powered US Kitty Hawk consumed 2% of the entire US military fuel bill annually so it was taken out of service to save money.

One can argue the $750 billion annual defence budget is plentiful but the US realises that power projection is an expensive business. Even Japan understands it can’t stay nestled in the bosom of US stationed forces forever without taking a proactive stance to defend itself. That is the same message to the 19 members NATO failing to pull their weight.

EU – 1.3m abortions, 5m births p.a.

DivMarr

Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive. Every. Single. Year. At that rate over 10 years that is 12.5 mn children that could have added to EU population sustainability do not occur but the EU seems to think embarking on mass migration is the only solution to plug the gap. Is it? Ironically child support is one area the EU is happy to cede control to individual Member States.

The fertility rate across the EU-28 is now 1.58 children per woman, flat for the last decade and down from 2.9 in 1964. Demographers suggest that a fertility rate of 2.1 is required in developed world economies to maintain a constant population (in the absence of any migration). The number of live births in the EU-28 peaked in 1964 at 7.8 million. In 2017 this had fallen to 5 million. There was a brief period (2003-2008) when live births in the EU-28 started to rise again, returning to 5.5 million by 2008 but the GFC sent it down again – as economic hardship tends to cause a decrease in births. So are economic incentives too low to cause a rebound?

France has the best incentives for children and the highest birth rate inside the EU at 2.0 up from 1.7 in the 1990s. Germany is around 1.4 drifting from 1.6 in the 1990s. The lives for child rearing French are eased by cheap health care, inexpensive preschools – for infants as young as 6 months old – subsidized at-home care and generous maternity leave. Mothers with three children can take a year off of work – and receive a monthly paycheck of up to €1,000 from the government to stay home. Families get subsidized public transportation and rail travel and holiday vouchers.

In order to stop the declining working population over time, imagine if Europe hypothetically put the onus back on consenting couples to take responsibility for their actions and makes abortions harder to access without compulsory consultation over options? Why not graphically show the entire process to get some sense of reality for both parties? You can gross yourself on this link.

Perhaps, in today’s electronic world, automatically deducting child support from fathers that run from responsibility might make sense? Why should the state pay for others’ lack of accountability? Even if the child is placed in foster care, why not wire child support to foster parents indirectly via the Ministry in charge of its administration? The population crisis is not going away in Europe. Why not provide more incentives to married/same-household couples?

Mathematically speaking the numbers are huge. Imagine if the million-plus fetuses every year had a vote to be raised with foster parents as opposed to being terminated, what they would choose? Consider the €23bn Merkel has spent on mainly economic migrants in the last 2 years being put toward preventing 200,000 abortions in Germany over that period? €115,000 to avert each one might have been better spent. That is a huge sum of money period.

CM is not advocating control over the womb but surely transparency in policy over individual responsibility is not a bad thing with respect to many issues, not just abortion. What level of economic incentives are required to prevent some couples/women choosing to terminate? Surely that plays a part in deciding to terminate. Consultation services with respect to the subject don’t seem too commonplace or at least structured in such a way as to prevent them.

According to Eurostat, since 1964 the divorce rate in EU-28 equivalents has doubled and the marriage rate has halved. For every eight marriages in 1964 there was one divorce, now there is one divorce for every two marriages.

The proportion of births outside of marriage now stands at 40%, from 27% in 2000 to less than 7% in 1964. 8.8 % of the EU-28 population aged 20+ lived in a consensual union (de-facto). In Japan the number of births out of wedlock is 25% according to the MHLW. The dynamics of the traditional nuclear family are fading.

51% of the Swedish population is now single household. 51%! While some is attributed to an aging population, 19 of the EU-28 members has a single household ratio of over 30%. 12 over 35%. By way of comparison, Japan’s single household ratio stands at 34.6% from 27.6% in 2000.

9E454726-9076-4241-8F2C-268C04B01FEC.jpeg

To further analyse the new ways of living together and to complement the legal aspect, statistics on consensual unions, which take into account those with a ‘marriage-like’ relationship with each other, and are not married to or in a registered partnership with each other, can also be analysed.  Sweden (18.3 %) has the highest rate followed by Estonia (16.4 %), France (14.3 %) and the lowest in Greece (1.7 %), Poland (2.1 %), Malta (2.5 %) and Croatia (2.9 %).

Is employment a factor?  It is mixed. Eurostat reported in Germany, the fertility of non-employed women has increased and that of employed women decreased, while in Spain, the opposite occurred; in Greece, the total fertility rate (TFR) of non employed women fell below that of employed women, changing from a positive differential of about 0.2 average live births.

Is education a factor? Apart from Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland and Norway), Portugal and Malta, in general, women with lower education had higher TFR between 2007 and 2011. Eurostat state the fertility of women across the EU over the same period with a medium level of education dropped by about 9%, while the decrease for women with high or low education was less significant.

Eurostat argues that economic recessions have correlation to falling child birth rates. Apart from the direct impact of economic crises at an individual level, the economic uncertainty that spreads during periods of hardship seem to influence fertility. From this point of view Eurostat believes the duration of a crisis may play an important role and, the duration and the depth of the current recession are unprecedented in some countries. The agency states,

The expected relationship is that negative changes in GDP correspond to negative changes in the TFR, possibly with some delay, thus showing a high positive correlation at particular lags. The correlation with the TFR is relevant in Spain and Latvia without any lag; in Bulgaria, Poland and Romania with one year of lag; and in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Croatia with two years of lag. Taking the overall average across countries, a change in GDP is mostly positively correlated with a change in the TFR within about 19 months.”

Do we cynically argue that stagnant child birth rates aren’t just a factor of societal changes? Perhaps a truer reflection on the higher levels of poverty in the EU since GFC and the harsh realities for a growing number of people behind the growing levels of populism who are suffering greater economic hardship than statisticians are presenting to the political class? Hard decisions must be made before they are made by external factors.

AfD is 2nd most popular party in latest Bild poll

15DCD128-E7CE-42CE-AF7D-81E3463154CF.jpeg

The left leaning Bild newspaper published a poll showing the anti-immigrant AfD as the second most popular party in Germany with 16% (+2) The socialist SPD polled an awful 15.5% (-5), it’s worst post war performance. The Greens also polled well.

Yet another country growing tired of politicians from incumbent major parties who are failing to deliver to their constituents.

Regardless of what one’s views are on Merkel’s misguided altruism, it seems fewer people support it at home. Call it racist, bigoted it worse but the fact more people are prepared to back the party that answers their sense of frustration speaks volumes of underlying mood. Either that or the CDU is doing a terrible job selling its message. What does one expect when the media and police are muzzled?

Across the border Poland and Hungary are linking hands in a sign of solidarity to reject the EU’s forced migration quotas. On April 8 Hungarians vote on whether they want Orban’s Fidesz party to stay in power. It looks a formality. The question is by what margin? When 98.4% who voted in the Hungarian referendum several years back to reject forced migration, this seems an election issue which opposition parties stand no chance of getting up if they support it.

Why is Merkel pushing for a coalition when a caliphate is for the taking?

Why is Merkel bothering trying to form a fragile coalition when she can submit to a caliphate? To be honest seeing this video of a German state run children’s TV channel with two white, blonde Germans submitting to Islam doesn’t surprise. Such is the growing level of indoctrination to make up for the cataclysmic failure of Merkel’s misguided altruism that the state doesn’t even bother to hide it anymore. Is it any wonder that the AfD is 14% of the vote? People are increasingly growing tired of the political correctness yet the authorities in Germany are ever more willing to charge citizens for what the state deems as ‘hate speech’. Politically motivated violence is up 30%YoY in the last two years.

To try to brainwash young kids to accept a growing Muslim population is one thing, getting them to submit to it is outrageous. How naive is the left to think that this is in anyway normal or going to wash with large parts of the population? If they believe in preaching tolerance to young kids why aren’t they looking to form an alliance with a Saudi TV station to help kids In Riyadh to submit to Jesus Christ? For the left spineless submission and shared misery are seen as a virtue. Their Marxist view is that acceptance can be won by denying the national identity.

Promoting tolerance is one thing. Indoctrinating it is another. Germans are a socially conscious people but there comes a time when they feel that their generosity is being taken for granted. When that support requires them to make adjustments to the ways they have practiced culture, dress or community for centuries they have a right to a proper explanation rather than face the threat of the courts.

Go back several years when we witnessed the aftermath of the Cologne sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve. The police and press were muzzled. However after the incident could no longer be concealed, the Mayor of Cologne came out and openly asked women to dress more appropriately to avoid being harassed. Think through the logic. German citizens (more specifically females) must take extra precautions around the very people billions in taxpayer euros are going to support, moreover save them from their desperate plight? Of course not all refugees are responsible for the 64% jump in foreign crime reported by the Interior Ministry (BfV).

Ask why as of June 2016, there were 402,301 small arms carry permits in the National Weapons Register according to the BfV, some 50% higher than that recorded in June 2015? A coincidence that more Germans are feeling ill at ease with Merkel’s social experiment?

While every effort should be made to accomodate those fleeing from persecution and war zones, propaganda videos to brainwash innocent children like this only accentuate the depth of the problem faced by Germany.

Such is Merkel’s folly the EU confirms that 80% of these seeking asylum are economic refugees so much so that she is now pushing a scheme dubbed “Your country. Your future. Now!” which will run until February this year. Individual migrants can receive up to €1,000 if they voluntarily return home, while families can receive up to €3,000 to do the same. The assistance is meant to help reintegrate rejected asylum seekers in their home countries. The refugees, which were unsuccessful in their applications, could also get subsidized housing for a year—to help pay rent, home renovations, or get basic equipment for a kitchen or a bathroom.

Await the excuses that will come out assuring Germans that the children’s TV program was merely a drama and not to be taken as a mainstream view. Common sense will tell us that this is not the last time we will see such media pushed on the local population to force diversity to cover for dreadfully planned policy failure.

Let’s await the June 2017 small arms carry permits statistics to see whether the people are in tune with the view of the state.

America IN or OUT makes no difference to a dud Paris Climate Accord where 75% aren’t onboard anyway

IMG_0698.JPG

Across social media there are dozens of posts from Americans apologising to the world for abandoning the Paris Climate Accord. “There are millions more like me.” Yes you are probably right but there are millions like him too. What people should question is the ‘real’ commitment to the accord. If we were to replay the video tapes of the Paris COP summit we were hearing wails and gnashing of teeth that there was no agreement pending. Then in the final throes we were led to believe that an agreement was reached. The joy! The triumph! We did it! Here is the catch! It was agreed by ‘politicians’ not ‘scientists’. Politicians are renowned over the millennia to making compromise and commitments way beyond the scope of their likely hold on power.

Climate commitments are the ultimate level of virtue signaling and tokenism. Politicians can say in their legacies that they tried to save the planet for their great grandchildren even if nothing is achieved. Remember how the long held 2 degree upper limit target was  heralded as a no quid pro quo line. At Paris it became 1.5. In order to accelerate alarmism the upper band had to be cut to get countries to redouble their efforts. All of a sudden, decades of climates science that told us that 2 was acceptable (bearable) became 1.5 degrees with the stroke of a pen.

As I wrote yesterday, the garage of your neighbour was more telling of individual climate commitment. In Australia one energy company offers a service which gives you the opportunity to pay a premium over fossil fuel based power to source your energy in green form. Take up rate? Less than 5%. Who elects to tick the carbon offset box when they fly commercial? I don’t think many airlines even bother with this such is the low take up. Not to mention carbon calculators are so inaccurate. A passenger has no idea what the load factor, headwinds/tailwinds, holding patterns and conditions en route are that the figure you pay would be more accurate if spewed out of a bingo wheel.

Let’s check reality of the climate game. 75% of the evil gas that helps plants grow are caused by 4 countries – America, China, India and Russia. Let’s tackle them one by one.

America. Well the commitment to the Accord was so flimsy to begin with, It was laced with out clauses such as being exempt from being sued for any environmental damage caused in the past or future. Obama decided to tick the box himself after lawyers breathed on the fine print – remember the US was the last to commit.

China. China, China, China. The commitment is so robust they don’t have any intention to  get serious until 2030 (likely peak emissions). China has explicitly said it will raise the coal share of power to 15% by 2020 from 12% and this will keep climbing. China’s pollution problems have stuff all to do with global warming but public health however it can virtue signal under the banner of climate change mitigation and win brownie points.

India. The construction of 65 gigawatts worth of coal-burning generation is under way with an additional 178 gigawatts in the planning stages in India will mean they’ll not achieve Paris targets.

Russia’s commitment at Paris would have been more serious if drafted on a hotel napkin such was its lack of substance. 4 pages of nothing.

The accord is worthless. It was rushed at the end by bureaucrats not scientists. If it is really such a binding pact there will be no need to have 50,000 climate pilgrims kneel at the altar of the next religious cult meeting. They should thank America for its action because it will guarantee the hypocrites get to keep the junkets in exotic tourist locations going.

To double up on the stupidity, hearing virtue signaling politicians blather about remaining committed to a target that is now so fundamentally broken shows how untenable it is. Think about it. If America (at c20% of the supposed problem) quits then the remainder of countries have to fill in the gap not stick to existing commitments, Sure Merkel said she’d up Germany’s targets to offset the evil Trump which is pretty unachievable given the already high level of renewables.  China said they’d chip in but don’t think those comments are any more than empty platitudes trying to puff up the image of commitment when economic resuscitation is priority #1.

The irony is that Trump said he’d consider another deal. Another deal is what is needed. Because as it stands, the Paris Accord has all of the hallmarks of political manifestos across the globe – uncosted  broad based promises made against flimsy but overwhelmingly positive/negative assumptions.

So before I read more garbage about Americans having an imperative to take power back, perhaps they should examine the realities rather than the figment of imagination floating around inside their heads. Millions more like you is actually the problem why the message never gets sold properly.

Climate sceptics are idiots by association

IMG_0149.JPG

Burn this image in your head first. It is Tokyo today. As you can see for such an evil carbon emitting industrialized nation as Japan the skies are blue as any you’d find in Australia. Ironically Japan is a country often selected as a country that must pay into the climate change pot for its sins rather than get a pat on the back for its ability to be clean and productive. So it was no surprise that once again I read the bias in the press reporting from the G-7. Because Trump is a climate sceptic and disagrees with the other 6, articles tried to use this as a reason to beat up on those who won’t bend to the will of the alarmists because he is in their view – an idiot. The inference is that all climate skeptics must be fools by association. Exactly the same garbage at the time of Brexit. A table circulating with Trump, Farage, Putin and other ‘undesirables’ supporting Leave and Obama, EU officials and bodies like the NUS and Greenpeace backing Remain. Then we get the result of the referendum.

I will openly admit that the President has many flaws but to use this as a basis of driving the climate change agenda is pathetic. One article blathered on about his lies (hardly news) and then made the reference to “universally accepted science” which is a huge porky in itself. It isn’t settled. One of the reasons it isn’t settled is down to the data manipulation, amateur hour ethics of bodies like the UNIPCC, NOAA and numerous universities with agenda driven studies numerous of which numerous have been exposed for fraud. Climate alarmism is nothing more than wealth redistribution as the above picture highlights.

If indeed it is universally accepted why bother investing billions of side-by-side research papers to formulate the same outcome? What we have is the construction of multiple rail lines built next to each other operating each at 10% capacity. It is such inefficient capital allocation. Why do we need 50,000 climate disciples flying annually to mega junket tourist locations all to kneel at the altar of the COP summits. This could be delegated to 1% of that number. It shows at the very least that the disciples are the biggest hypocrites. If the science is so settled and everyone is so universally on board as they claim then there is no need to keep twisting the truth to squeeze more funds to prove what we already (supposedly all) agree on.

Seeing Merkel make an argument about 6 countries in favour of following through with the Paris Agreement and America against is laughable. Is America, or at the very least its President required to follow consensus for the sake of group think? Is global politics now reduced to going with the flow? Should dissenting opinions be treated like conservative speakers at universities? This is exactly why it is so hard to respect the current crop of global leaders. One seriously doubts that they truly believe it outside of it being an agenda item to secure votes. Climate alarmism is the socialism of the 21st century.

So perhaps the ‘idiots’ are the ones that can’t escape the pre-formed bias against America’s Commander-in-Chief. Talking about German car imports (when many BMWs and Benz’s are built in the USA) and other gaffes don’t really do him favours but if the media wants to take the moral high ground at the very least they can balance the views on the climate debate (and others) and admit the multiple self-inflicted wounds and inaccuracy of decades of forecasting models where 98% have proven wildly off target. It reminds me of compliance seminars in my old industry. We’d fly in compliance officers to train us about the penalties and Big Brother! We’d focus on the evils of all our competitors and the punishment meted out to them. I asked a simple question – “why don’t we use compliance breach examples from our own company and the manner in which we dealt with it as a matter of getting people aware of being a responsible corporate? Can we honestly say farts don’t smell?” It sums up the climate alarmists perfectly. Everyone else is at fault and everything we do is virtuous, honest and worthy of self-praise.

Over 10.6 million Frogs want to jump out of the EU’s boiling pot

IMG_9058.JPG

While the media and the EU will no doubt be jumping for joy they’ll overlook the fact that over 1/3rd of the French who voted, or over 10.6 million, want to jump out of the EU’s boiling pot. Think about that number – over TEN POINT SIX MILLION.  Le Pen’s father only managed slightly better than 5mn or 17.8%. Macron won convincingly (Twitter follower growth ratio accurate again) although one can hardly call 1/3rd of a population backing a far-right nationalist something to celebrate.  It is a damning figure. Period.

The extent of the Le Pen gains should be viewed by the EU as a terrible omen. However many of the Brussels brigadiers have ignored it already as their tweets make painfully clear.

After losing 15 out of 15 referendums against it  the EU desperately needs reform. The Dutch election was still a strong win for Wilders and Rutte only saved seats by adopting a more anti-EU stance. The pro-EU Dutch leftists were slayed. The Swiss recently handed back their long standing invite to join the EU. The Austrians almost voted in the far right FPO and after Greens President van der Bellen recently said all women may be obliged to wear the hijab to show cultural sensitivity they may well think to do that next time. The right wing Sweden Democrats are well ahead in the polls looking to win the 2018 election. The Italians are on the way to vote in the eurosceptic M5S party as their referendum last year on parliamentary reform became a free kick to boot out the establishment. Hungary’s Orban has had enough of the EU’s directives on migrants. Greece is being forced to sell its assets in order to secure another bailout and submit to being a Brussels’ (Berlin?) protectorate despite the EU bending over backwards with the help of Goldman’s creative accountants to get the Greeks into the club. This will not end well as Greece has 37% poverty, 58% youth unemployment and a soaring suicide rate. Now almost 10.5mn French now think the EU is not working. Brexit anyone?

The problem with elections is that even though Macron will serve 5 years, over 1/3rd of his citizens are not happy with the state of terrorism, unemployment and the EU. If Macron doesn’t solve for these problems, Le Pen’s 2022 chances grow and she’s already calling for a radical overhaul of Front National.

The press was making Macron to be a tough negotiator on Brexit. Let’s not forget that the ranting Jean-Claude Juncker has had to be brought into line by Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk over his Brexit negotiations skills (or lack there of). EU lawyers have said the other day that the  €100bn Brexit bill has no legitimacy. The U.K. Local council elections should speak volumes of May’s mandate to pursue full strength hard Brexit.

Macron’s win buys the EU time. Nothing else. In fact the truest test of how petrified the EU truly is can be summed up like this. If they were supremely confident in their own legitimacy there would be no need for the constant self-reaffirmation and shouting from the roof tops about what a great place it is. If indeed it was so, democracy would endorse them every time. As it stands the self-praise would even make Barack Obama blush.