Germany Increasingly Stopping Refugees

Arminius, she’s blind. I mean that literally and not as joke.

That said she could have responded to the non-graphic information you provided that directly contradicted her quite simply incorrect remarks. All she had to do was admit her error and move on.

Oh, I did not know that. Sorry. Thanks for the information, Moreno.

So no graphics anymore to Maia. Okay. Sorry, Maia.

Ok thanks.

I was not referring to the direct contributions to the EU but to military spending, which Britain and France bear the brunt of, over and above the money that we have to pay directly to the EU.

Maia. The financial and the military system are not really seperated from each other, because all that has to be paid. You made an error and should admit it.

I made no error. This is exactly what I said:

+++In terms of military, the EU is Britain and France. We are bearing the finincial burden for the whole continent.+++

And you’re wrong. Military spending by individual states has nothing to do with the money they pay to the EU.

The military household belongs to the national household. If there was no EU, then most of the nations would not have enough money for their military. Germany pays the most by far (namely about 40 times more than the UK for example - compare the statistical data), as I said quite several times, and the military is also paid by it, because otherwise there would be no money for the military.

So again:

Sorry, but that’s complete rubbish. Those figures are the net contributions that each country makes to the EU budget. They are only a tiny fraction of national expenditure. The UK, for example, has the fifth largest military budget in the world, at 61.8 billion dollars per year. … penditures

I should point out that for comparison purposes, the euro and the dollar are not much different. I don’t know the exact exchange rate off hand, though both are somewhat smaller than the pound.

Sorry, but you are telling utter nonsense again. The military household is no household of the moon. It is not possible to separate the military household from the rest of the household.

You can do me the favor and say to your government that it should leave the EU, and you will see that the UK would be there where it was before it joined the EU - with a desolate household. They all depend on German money. That is how the EU works. So each EU “nation”, if one can call it still so, can be blackmailed. That is how the EU works -regardless whether you and I like it or not? I do not like it.

It is also not possible to separate the social household from the rest of the household. No part of the household can be separated from the whole houshold. Like it or not.

It is just logic and mathmatics. Your wizardry does not exist.

The list of contributions by each country that you quoted are the money they pay to the EU. They are a small fraction of the national budget. How many times do I have to say this? Look at the page I linked and it will show you that the UK spends 20 billion dollars a year more on defence than Germany (and this despite the UK’s smaller population), which puts into perspective the 9 billion that Germany gives to the EU.

Maia, you have to to put all that numbers of the several contributions together. Do some mathematics, please. There is no big difference between the military contributions of the UK and Germany. But all this looking at the statistics and data does make sense only then, if you combine them together, because the money that is spent (regardless where and wherefore) does have to come from somewhere, and Germany’s contribution is 40 times higher than the contribution of the UK (for example).

It makes no sense to talk with you, if you do not accept the simplest mathematics and logic.

Have a nice day.

But, then, the UK used it huge military, when it hopped quickly and loudly behind US wars in Iraq, to get business advantages that other European countries did not or could not as easily. And this huge military spending has generally been used, since the fall of the wall where it had an arguably potential role, to support monied interests in the UK and not the UK citizens.

I think it is problematic to see the military spending as some the UK does and so the UK deserves such and such benefits or is unfairly treated by X, but rather as monies taken via taxation from everyone with direct returns for the elites more, and indirect longer term returns primarily for the elites.

Germany’s contribution to the EU budget is indeed 40 times higher than the UK’s. But all those figures are dwarfed by other expenditure. Germany gives 9 billion to the EU, and spends around 40 billion on defence. The UK on the other hand spends over 60 billion on defence. So you do the maths. Or, if you prefer, flounce off in a huff rather than admit to being wrong.

In terms of the EU, which is what we were talking about, the UK and France provide its only effective military forces. Whatever else those forces may have been used for, in terms of the EU, that’s all it has. Since no one likes the idea of Germany with a big army, it has been able to spend that money on other things.

The UK may sometimes have spent more money into ist military than Germany but not always.

I agree. During the 1930s Germany did indeed spend more on its military than the UK.

I wasn’t thinking about non-Eu countries. Britain got favors for its military spending and those favors entailed money flowing into UK corporations. My point was that the UK is not simply a victim, spending more than other EU countries on the military - and thus, I assume the argument would go aiding in the EU defense - but using it’s military spending to create incomes that is beyond that other EU countries get from their military spending.
To a lesser degree France also. So when you argue from military spending - which is higher in France and the UK than in Germany (but not by a huge margin per capita) - this does not mean that therefore the UK is putting more into the EU. It uses its military like a business - one with ‘investor’ citizens via taxes - and this benefits just Britain on occasion, and big occasions like the Gulf Wars where the US handed out favors and spoils afterwards.

Per capita, according to the page I linked, or per GDP, the UK spends about twice as much as Germany. But yes, you’re right, having an army can have fringe benefits. But without it, for defence the EU would be reliant on France alone.

The UK spent much on ist military during the 1930s too, but it did not have the capacity of spending more than Germany.

No, that’s the whole point. The UK had drastically reduced its spending. Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” deal was a ruse to buy time so we could re-arm. It bought us about 18 months, in which we frantically built up the RAF to defeat Hitler’s invasion.

A people is always at its best not during periods of war or peace, but of re-armament. Thats when they pull their shit together.

So nothing creates stronger bonds than preparing to go to war. Nothing is more beautiful than watching a million people in a nationalistic fervor scurry about to gather their weapons. Tell me there is a better scene in any movie. You cant. Not the victory, not the defeat, the preparation for war… that’s the moment the people shine the most.

The big speech and then all he soldiers go “arugha!” and smack the edge of their shields with their weapons. That’s what I’m talkin’ bout.